Fragile, frantic and fun - England's new Test era is everything you thought it would be

Centuries ago, Isaac Newton had stated that a body at rest would remain at rest unless it is acted upon by an external force. He had also mentioned that a body in motion would remain that way until an external force acts upon it. Basically meaning that, anything on this planet will not change direction, suddenly come to a standstill or begin moving until an external force is applied.

From England’s perspective, their Test team, at least for the past few years, has been at rest. They lost almost all the matches that have mattered, and their batting, which has often resembled a pack of cards, has been a topic of ridicule across the globe.

For those inclined to a cruder assessment, it could even be said that England and their Test fortunes have regressed in the recent past. At the turn of the last decade, they were the team to beat. They had just won the Ashes in Australia and had turned India over in India. But those, especially since 2018, have only highlighted how much of a fall from grace they’ve endured rather than being a source of inspiration.

So, when the Three Lions crumbled to a crushing 0-4 Ashes defeat, it became clear that they needed a different direction. That, by the way, was preceded by a similarly rudderless display against India in August-September 2021. The problem, though, was that no one knew what direction they needed to traverse in.

There were thoughts that they needed to buckle down, embrace the philosophy that made England a Test giant when the game first came into vogue, and more importantly, rein in the white-ball instincts that have now defined a generation of English batters. These, however, were only theories. Not because no one actually knew what was needed to reform England’s red-ball structure, but also because there were simply too many holes to be plugged by one or a handful of individuals.

And then, at that very moment, the Three Lions decided to do something that seemed to be beyond their realms of red-ball possibility. The talk about reverting to a stoic and often boring brand of cricket was thrown out of the window. The chatter about wanting to play a tough and unforgiving style didn’t count for a lot anymore.

Partly because Ben Stokes (their new Test skipper) doesn’t like playing that way, but largely because Brendon McCullum – another uncompromising individual who has only ever fought fire with fire - wouldn’t have been chosen had the safer path been on the agenda.

It has not even been a fortnight since the former Kolkata Knight Riders coach has been in charge. Post a gruelling IPL season, he joined England’s camp late and hasn’t really had time to leave an imprint. The early indications, though, are that he has been able to get his message across. If that is what the Three Lions need at this moment and, if that is something that will be sustainable, is another matter altogether.

For starters, England did well to lose the toss against New Zealand. The Kiwis opted to bat on a relatively lively surface and regretted it almost immediately. They were shot out for 132, with James Anderson, Stuart Broad and debutant Matty Potts enjoying themselves.

England played an aggressive brand of cricket at Lord's

The more lasting image, however, was that of England deploying six slips. Bowling without an extra cover for most of the day. Inviting the Black Caps batters to drive at deliveries that could’ve been left alone. And, of course, shedding their usual conservatism for something a shade more cavalier.

But even that change in tack didn’t steer them clear of an impending batting collapse. It didn’t seem that one was on the cards, especially when Alex Lees and Zak Crawley were batting. But once the pair fell in relatively quick succession, the floodgates opened. England only took a nine-run lead, despite bundling New Zealand out for 132. If that doesn’t tell you the plight of their batting unit, nothing ever will.

The only encouraging aspect, though, was that that capitulation took place at a hundred miles per hour. There were wafts, there were unnecessary pokes, there were even rushes of blood. Ordinarily, each would be enough to dump a player out of an international red-ball setup. But with McCullum seemingly wanting to imbibe a fearless mindset, it was the commitment to the cause rather than the result that was the centre of attention.

Having surrendered the initiative, the hosts found it tough to regain their foothold. They picked up a few early wickets in the second innings but when Daryl Mitchell and Tom Blundell set out their stall, you could sense the decibel levels of the moans and groans increasing. That wasn’t for a lack of effort, however.

England tried everything they could. They banged the ball in short. They dangled the carrot outside off stump. They even employed a leg-spinner to get the job done, for goodness’ sake. For a brief period, that wasn’t good enough. But when Broad’s knees started pumping early on Day 3, it began making a lot of sense.

In isolation, it was one of those Broad spells where he annihilates whatever is kept in front of him. From a larger perspective, it was just reward for the toil on Day 2 – a day where England didn’t want to die wondering and felt that they might as well think out of the box rather than think along conventional lines.

As has been the case with English red-ball cricket, this too was followed by an inconsistent batting patch. Crawley looked a million dollars until he wasn’t. Jonny Bairstow threw caution to the wind but was bowled (again). And Lees, well, he just left a straight ball that clattered into off stump. Even Stokes only managed a glove when trying to uppercut Kyle Jamieson.

This tendency to do everything at a hundred miles per hour, though, might just have enough in it to keep England interested. Before the 1st Test against the Kiwis, there was a huge question mark over the direction they wanted to move in. There’s no guarantee that this will work – hardly anything in English red-ball cricket does nowadays. But there is at least a direction. And that, courtesy of the nadirs they’ve plummeted to lately, is something.

The 1st Test of England’s brazen new era had plenty to keep the neutral intrigued. For the average English fan, it perhaps had too many twists and turns. You can be pretty sure most of them would’ve been content with a monotonous draw where their batters plundered 500 runs.

That, though, is not how this era is going to play out. It will have its crests, and it will have its troughs. It will be fragile on occasions, but it will be frantic more often than not. It could also be fruitful in the odd instance. Most importantly, it will be plenty of fun. After all, this is what everyone thought England’s new Test era would be like.

At this point, no one really knows how long this zest will last or if it is even what they need. Only the bravest person alive would say they know how this is going to end. There’s still no clarity on whether this “revolution”, “reset”, or “blank slate” is going to be the zeitgeist of restoring the Three Lions to their past Test glories.

For now, considering England had only won one Test in their 17 previous attempts, it is probably just enough – enough to enable dizzying day-dreaming and retain hope, despite it seeming a hopeless and futile venture till a fortnight ago.

Centuries ago, when Newton talked about an external force acting on something to make it change direction, or to start making it move, he might not have envisioned England’s Test team taking a leaf out of his book – that too in 2022 when physics is not particularly in vogue and the world is dominated by social media trends and buzzwords.

It hasn’t reached a stage where the Three Lions have adopted this change in approach as the law they need to adhere to. But you feel they aren’t quite far off it either.