England’s Test Batting in the New Regime

Peter Kettle | 7:15am BST 04 July 2025

 A Critique for  “Continuous Improvement”

Cricket writer Peter Kettle (PK) is talking with Marilyn Boundless (MB), an athlete who has become a champion hurdler.

They meet, by chance, at Archie’s Café in Gertrude Street within Melbourne’s inner suburb of Fitzroy. It is a mild morning in mid-May, and we join them there.

MB: Couldn’t help noticing an article you are tinkering with. What’s it about, may I ask?

PK: Oh…it’s on how to improve England’s batting in Test cricket: the men’s team.

MB (dismissively): That shouldn’t be difficult!

PK: Well, what I should have said is: I’m endeavouring to pinpoint those aspects of England’s approach to batting that have the greatest potential for improvement while – at the same time – promising the greatest pay-off from allocating available staff and financial resources.

MB: Now you’re talking….

PK passes Marilyn the following extracts before moving to the counter to order his usual snack.

OVERVIEW                                                                                    

This is a contribution to the quest for “continuous improvement” to England’s approach to batting in men’s Test matches. It is launched by an observation that – accompanying the impressive increase in the run rate under the new regime – there has been a substantial contraction in the number of overs batted per “completed” team innings. Going forward, the discussion focusses on discovering the most effective ways of easing this contraction while maintaining the run rate achieved, so giving a further boost to England team totals.

Particular attention is paid to how to cope better when batting in high pressure situations, to raising the proportion of batters who survive the settling-in phase of their innings and to reducing the frequency of batting collapses – all of which involve a major role for a sports psychologist.

Specifically with reference to combatting high calibre spin on pitches of the Indian subcontinent, emphasis is given to strengthening batting expertise through a combination of mentoring and improving intelligence on particular opposition bowlers. The latter is envisaged to involve actions akin to the espionage activities of the UK’s MI6 organisation; such as close-up observation of established and up-and-coming spinners practising in the nets and playing for clubs and state/provincial teams in their own country, doing so in incognito mode.

PURPOSE & SCOPE                                                                                                                

Shortly after Brendon McCullum accepted a dual role as Head Coach for England’s white as well as red ball men’s matches in September 2024, he indicated there may be some fine-tuning made to the batting in Tests – in light of experience gained since he took over in May 2022.[i] At the completion of England’s matches in the recent cycle of the World Test Championship (WTC) last December, it seemed a suitable time for this author to take stock. The team had played at least one Test series against each of the other eight WTC countries, apart from Bangladesh.[ii] 

Based on an in-depth examination of England’s Test performance in the “new regime”, this article seeks to identify features of the team’s batting which show most scope for further improvement whilst also giving the greatest pay-off in allocating available resources. It goes on to put forward suggestions for addressing a range of implementation issues.

A large part of the context is naturally the next cycle of WTC matches, scheduled from June 2025 through to February 2027. Three of these series will be at home – against India, New Zealand and Pakistan – and three away, in Australia, South Africa and Bangladesh. There is also a Test series in Sri Lanka in early-2026 and a home Ashes series scheduled for 2027. And, at some stage beyond that, there are further Test series to be played in India, Pakistan and the West Indies.

THE “NEW REGIME” – PHILOSOPHY, ACHIEVEMENTS AND DAMPERS

One of Brendon McCullum’s key insights on starting as Test team coach concerned the fundamental importance of raising the players’ enjoyment of the game, both when engaging in the contest itself and also off the field (with a more liberal attitude being taken to after match activities). He views this as essential for being able to continue to retain, and attract, the highest quality talent to the Test squad given players’ far greater earning opportunities in T20 franchise leagues around the world. In short, aiming to minimise the number of defectors.

This issue has been heightened by the ECB’s ban, announced in November 2024, on participation by England red-ball county players – and hence England Test players – in overseas T20 franchise leagues wherever their programs overlap, even if only a little, with the domestic county cricket season. The sole exception made is for the Indian Premier League (IPL). In effect, the ban forces players to choose between making themselves available for selection in England’s Test teams and, alternatively, seeking highly lucrative contracts in some of the foreign T20 leagues – instead of, as previously, being able to combine these roles.

The most effective way of raising player enjoyment, in Brendon McCullum’s view, has been to grant them the freedom to play in the way that gives them, individually, the most satisfaction and without having to endure criticism of failure so long as the intent is right. He also believes that a licence for self-expression in batting is a very good way (if not the only one) of enabling players to reach their full potential. From the outset it has been hoped, and expected without giving any guarantee, that these features – when allied to a pro-active and generally attacking approach to matches – would produce favourable results and reverse the previous trend. So far at least, faith in this philosophy has proved to be well justified.

There is also an over-arching intention. So long as match results continue, overall, to be favourable, McCullum views playing in a way that is entertaining for the public to be “the big goal”. With spectator numbers continuing their long-term rise for England’s home matches – both at the grounds[iii] and via television – this is further increasing the magnitude of revenues generated in real terms (ie after allowing for general price inflation), and so further helping to support England’s county cricket structure. It is, at present, an open question whether other countries will embrace England’s refreshed attitude to match play, potentially enhancing Test cricket in general as a spectacle. 

Outcomes So Far (to end 2024)[iv]

Balance of Test Series Played:

The previous ten series include the four Tests against India at home in the summer of 2021, with the fifth Test of the series, held in July 2022, taking place in the new regime.

Balance of Wins, Losses and Draws:

Size of Team Totals:

Consistent with the above statistics, throughout this article “completed” team innings (or “completed” team totals) are taken to include all declarations made when the score exceeded 320 runs, and winning totals that exceed 320 runs. For England in the new regime, five such declarations have been made, four of them exceeding 390 runs; while there has been one qualifying winning total (378/3, made at home against India).

The Lure of Run Rates

It is only in the new millennium that typical run rates of the principal Test countries have risen beyond the high-2s per over, which had been maintained during the 1970s through to the 1990s. The run rate entered the low-3s for the 2010-21 period, followed by a recent further upturn.

This is where the new regime’s success has been so visible and thrilling. Standing at 4.54 runs per over (ignoring two high outlying innings),[v] England decisively leads the other principal Test nations – as shown below for the start of 2022 through to end of 2024 (England from May 2022):[vi]

Comparative Run Rates: 2022-24

The overall average of the other eight countries is 3.34 runs per over, lagging 26% behind England.The second highest – India – also lags well behind England, at 20% lower.

England’s bold achievement in the new regime, averaging 4.54 runs per over for the 62 team innings, represents a major internal leap. It is 47% higher than for England’s previous 62 team innings, made at a sedate rate of 3.09 runs per over.

If, instead of arithmetical averages, England’s run rates are represented by Median values, the new regime’s superiority over the prior period is a little higher still, standing at 52% (4.52 runs per over as against 2.98).

The following charts display the two distributions:

In the new regime, only one team innings has been paced at under 3.0 runs per over, 14 team innings lie between 5.0 and 6.0 per over, while 3 exceed 6.0 per over.With England’s prior performance, at the extremes, 12 team innings have been paced below 2.5 runs per over, while only two innings have exceeded 4.1 per over.

It seems that the achieved run rate for the new regime, averaging 4.54 runs per over, hasn’t been exceeded by any other country, even in a single year.

Two Batting Dampers

The resulting enjoyment for spectators has been enhanced by England’s preparedness to risk losing in order to have a real chance, or a significantly enhanced chance, of securing a win. There have, though, been two significant dampers.

(a)   Response of number of overs batted to the rise in run rate

Borrowing a term from economics, this relationship is referred to as the “elasticity” of overs batted with respect to an increase in the run rate.[vii] The relationship can vary greatly from “highly elastic”, where there is a sharp contraction in overs batted (per “completed” team innings) and a resulting reduction in total runs generated, through to “very mildly elastic” with total overs batted being little affected and with runs generated rising closely in line with the increase in run rate.[viii]

In reality, it is inevitable that a major rise in the scoring rate will result in some reduction in overs batted as additional risk is necessarily involved. In the new regime, a moderately elastic relationship is found for overs batted by England in response to the rise achieved in the run rate. There has been an overall contraction of one-fifth in number of overs batted. For England’s 54 “completed” team innings in the new regime, an average of 71 overs has been batted, compared with 90 overs previously for the same number of “completed” team innings.[ix] (This term having been defined earlier.)

This implies that, going forward, there is significant potential to reduce the degree of elasticity: ie batting more overs whilst at least maintaining the prevailing run rate. The intention being to cut down on the frequency of relatively low team totals and further raise team totals overall.

The additional six overs per innings of the above “instructive example” would have taken up no more than an extra hour of playing time during a two innings match. Also, even reducing the contraction in overs to zero – ie maintaining the 90 overs per innings prior to the new regime – would have taken up no more than an additional three hours for England’s two innings. In the new regime, England have usually finished their matches with plenty of time to spare: only 10 of the 34 matches have gone into a fifth day. And in three of these 10 matches, two whole sessions of playing time were unused, whilst in one other match one whole session went unused.[x]

(b)   Lowered team totals in India & Pakistan: early and late 2024

These are the only Test series defeats under the new regime, producing six of the twelve match losses:

Aside from the mammoth England total of 823/7 declared, 9 of the other 14 team innings (all completed) were in the 110-270 run range.The lowered England team totals in these series have mainly been due to difficulties in combatting high calibre spin, which was nearly always faced on assisting pitches.In contrast, the majority (9 out of 13) of the completed Indian and Pakistani team innings exceeded 300 runs, with none being under 200. This largely reflects the general inexperience of England’s specialist spinners, leading to around half of England’s team innings being started in a high pressure situation.

The Big Questions

In Sections A to C that follow a number of ideas are tested on the most effective ways for England to bat more overs per innings without harming the achieved run rate. These ideas being formed from watching many passages of play and perusing scorecards. In the light of the findings arrived at, recommendations are made about refining the approach to batting in relation to three very different types of circumstances.

Section D draws out the main features of England’s batting in the two Test series in India and Pakistan during 2024, and the particular challenges faced. Future success is viewed to be dependent not so much on a change in approach to the batting task as making substantial improvement to techniques of combatting high class spin, especially on helpful pitches.

In Section E the question is probed of whether the dividends gained by England’s approach to batting in the new regime have been diminishing as they outwear their novelty.

In pursuing implementation themes in Section F, thoughts are developed on how these proposed refinements to England’s batting could most effectively be achieved, including suggestions for how best to “negotiate the spinner’s web” on the Indian subcontinent.

The final Section provides a page of overall conclusions.

Copies of this book can be obtained in England through J.W. McKenzie of Epsom and in Australia through Roger Page of Melbourne.

Notes

[i] A video recorded interview with Mike Atherton shortly after the dual appointment.

[ii] With no matches having been played against Zimbabwe or Afghanistan.

[iii] From 1980 through to 2015, the average spectator attendance across England’s six principal Test match venues has risen faster in percentage terms than has the growth in the country’s population, and it has more or less kept pace with population growth subsequently (allowing for adverse Covid impacts during 2020-22).

[iv] Excluding the match against Ireland.

[v] The two outliers being a run rate of 11.9 per over against the West Indies in a winning total of 87/0 (July 2024), and 8.21 per over against New Zealand in a winning total of 104/2 (December 2024). The Median value for all England’s innings (including these two outliers), standing at 4.52, is virtually identical to the quoted arithmetical average.

[vi] ESPN match scorecard data for England, HowStat data for other countries.

[vii] The most common uses of elasticity relationships in economics concern the response of consumer demand to potential, or actual, changes in the price of a product or service (and changes in the prices of close substitutes), known as the “price elasticity” of demand; as well as responses of consumer demand to changes in after-tax income levels, referred to as the “income elasticity” of demand.

In cricket, the analogies are:

Number of overs batted (consumed) is analogous to consumer demand (number of units of a product purchased).The run rate is analogous to the price level: the run rate can be viewed as the price imposed on the opposition team until they have taken all ten wickets (or a declaration is made).Total runs and total revenue generated being the respective outcomes.

[viii] Total runs would remain the same with an equal proportional increase in the run rate and decrease in number of overs batted.

[ix] It is this relationship that has underlain the moderate increase in the average of England’s completed team totals, of 17%, compared with the large increase in runs scored per over of 47%: a ratio of 0.36 to 1.00. If these two variables had risen by the same proportion, the relation would be 1 to 1, implying that the number of overs batted would have remained unchanged.

[x] Sixteen of the 34 matches have been concluded in 4 days, with eight concluded in 3 days.