England and Ben Stokes are changing the cricket toss

New York Times

13 hours ago

There was a time when bowling first after winning the toss was Test cricket's ultimate defensive move.
Nasser Hussain, one of the best of all England captains, has never been allowed to forget the time he asked Australia to bat in Brisbane at the start of the 2002-03 Ashes and saw them rattle up 492. Australia won by 384 runs.
Advertisement
The boot was on the other foot in 2005 when Ricky Ponting decided to bowl first at Edgbaston against the wishes of his great spin bowler Shane Warne and saw England rush to 407 on day one. England went on to win by two runs in what was to become one of the greatest Tests of all time.
The thinking was that the inserting captain was more afraid of what the opposing attack may do to his batting line-up rather than confident of what their own could do.
Only if conditions were totally in favour of seam and swing bowling — on a pitch with excess grass on it, moisture underneath the surface or under cloudy skies to help the ball move — would a captain even consider bowling first.
Conventional wisdom in Test cricket was always 'bat first if you win the toss and, if you have to think about it, still bat first', a saying first attributed to WG Grace in the 1800s.
Ben Stokes has changed that. The England captain who is redefining the Test game along with coach Brendon McCullum with the style of cricket known as 'Bazball' has turned bowling first into an attacking weapon.
Where teams once wanted to bat first when the pitch was at its best and look to dictate a game, now they try to set up a run chase even it is so steep it would have seemed impossible not long ago.
That is the case with England and other teams are following suit, with India captain Shubman Gill admitting at the start of this second Test at Edgbaston and before the first one at Headingley that he too, like Stokes, would have bowled.
So England will not be worried that India took advantage of a flat pitch and the lack of a real X-factor in the England attack to reach 310 for five by the close, with Gill unbeaten on 114.
India were perfectly placed at 359 for three after the first day in Leeds and observers were questioning whether Stokes had had his 'Hussain moment' before England went on to win a classic Test by five wickets having been set 371 to win.
'It's a good job a Test lasts five days,' said Stokes, wryly, afterwards.
The statistics back up the Stokes plan. He had bowled first after winning the toss in nine home Tests before this one since 2022 and England have won seven of them.
Only against Australia at Lord's in 2023 has it backfired and led to a defeat, with the one draw coming at Old Trafford the same year when England would have almost certainly won had the last two days not been lost to rain.
Advertisement
That policy was summed up in the Test against India here in Birmingham in that first Bazball year, postponed from the previous season because of Covid-19, when Stokes said after winning the toss 'we'll have a chase' instead of 'we'll have a bowl' and England romped to their record-breaking 378 target on the final day.
It is different overseas, particularly in Asia where pitches still largely deteriorate as the Test goes on. Stokes has batted first six times upon winning the toss on the sub-continent.
But at home, where wickets labelled 'chief executive pitches' because they last a full five days to boost profits, are prevalent, Stokes has a template virtually set in stone.
It is not just the pitches. Modern audacious, highly skilful batting in the Bazball mould, where there are no consequences for getting out while attacking, has been the biggest single reason why England are changing the face of the game. They believe they can chase anything now.
That self-belief extends to their efforts in the field, too. Stuart Broad, one of England's best ever bowlers with 604 Test wickets, used to talk of the extra pressure placed on the attack should his captain decide to bowl first.
Broad felt he and Test cricket's most successful seamer in James Anderson, with 704 wickets, were expected to bowl their opponents out in under a day to justify the decision.
But now England and their bowlers always seem to retain faith in the captain, even when India reached 430 for three in the first Test. Instead England took the last seven wickets for 41 and were back in the hunt.
England seem to have got in India's heads. India batted circumspectly in the third innings in Leeds before again collapsing, losing their last six wickets for 33, when they seemed unsure how many they needed to guard against England's charge.
Advertisement
Then they selected a defensive line up here, packing the team with all-rounders and picking an inferior second spinner in Washington Sundar ahead of the more attacking option of Kuldeep Yadav to try to bolster the tail.
Most inexplicably, India left out superstar bowler Jasprit Bumrah in a Test they cannot afford to lose because they believe he can only feature in three of the five Tests. He is thought to be desperate to play at the home of cricket of Lord's in the third Test.
'Baffling,' said former India all-rounder Ravi Shastri, who is usually supportive of India, in the Sky Sports commentary box. 'No ifs or buts, Bumrah had to play.'
It remains to be seen whether India's conservatism will prove costly. England, meanwhile, will believe they can chase whatever India leave them after three innings of this Test. And it would be foolish to bet against them.