Not all doom and gloom: India almost had England at Headingley

Headingley was a weird Test. India dominated large chunks of it with bat and ball, but still lost. Despite the somewhat-deserved flak the Indian bowlers are getting, they consistently created more chances than England's bowlers did. India lost ten wickets to just 108 false shots in the first innings and 92 in the second; England lost ten and five wickets in 137 and 113 false shots.

Often such losses can be attributed to luck, but India weren't unlucky either. At least not unlucky in the way their false shots went to hand at an inordinate rate as it did during the 36 all out in Adelaide.

Headingley wasn't a typical Bazball Test. The Bazball philosophy is to play more shots against good balls, trusting a combination of their batters' attacking qualities and the new flat pitches in England that don't deteriorate. The surfaces at Headingley just keep getting better for batting. Other teams bat conventionally and play fewer shots to good balls. England's taller bowlers have tended to bash the good lengths and draw more out of the pitches than the opposition.

During the Bazball era, England's batting average and strike rate on false shots have usually been better than their opponents in that match. That wasn't the case at Headingley, where India averaged more and scored quicker on false shots in the first innings. The difference would have been bigger if India had held even half of their catches.

This is not to decry dropped catches, but to suggest India had England. They dragged England out of familiar territory largely because their attack lacked pace and experience. England's bowlers were unable to, in Stuart Broad's succinct words, hold length or bowl in disconcerting areas. In the first innings, their fast bowlers bowled just 197 balls in the 6-8m band in 86 overs; India put 203 balls there in 77.4 overs. India drew more average seam from good length than England, although at around 0.6 degrees it didn't consistently trouble the batters.

The England seamers did have better average and strike rate from these good-length balls, but it is not attributable to them getting more out of the pitch from there. The numbers are also influenced by the lopsided dropping of catches, which is not likely to repeat itself.