🔗 Share this article

It is not over yet. There is still positivity. Prior to the contest began, existed significant hope, due to their outstanding selection of pace bowlers and because they had improved from their aggressive, one-size‑fits‑all method to run-scoring. Afterwards, the competition got under way, and even though the pace attack did their bit, the batters failed badly. In the wake of the swift defeat on Australian soil, they find themselves naturally under the microscope – but as the public is doubting the team's tactics, in what ways are they questioning their individual roles?

Optimism Based On Earlier Showings

The optimism stemmed from some of what I had seen over the summer. In the first innings against India in London, the former captain and Ollie Pope accumulated a century partnership at around a steady rate, keeping their cool and laying a platform that helped clinch their side the game. That display was impressive for the approach they adjusted their approach, adjusting effectively to the conditions, the surfaces they encountered and the difficulties presented by the rival team – on that occasion, the necessity to counter the brilliant Jasprit Bumrah.

The matches against India – five tough matches facing skilled rivals – would have greatly prepared prepare the side for the Ashes. Stokes' men have absolutely battered weaker sides, who struggled to handle their skill level and their tactics, however in the preceding Test series, they encountered an opponent which possessed the toughness and the expertise to counter it – perfect groundwork for what they were going to face down under.

The Opening Match Collapse

Next, they called correctly at the WACA, opted to bat first, stepped up and were dismantled from the left-arm quick. The smart cricket that stood out at times in earlier matches had vanished. Instead, the batting lineup, fired up by the occasion and the intention to impose themselves, gave in to their natural aggression. In part, one can see why: on a track with variable conditions, many players may believe the necessity to take the initiative, feeling that at some point they will receive a ball with their name on it. Yet in that second innings, not one of Pope, Joe Root or the young batsman encountered that killer delivery: all fell driving away from their body, at balls that were a good length. The hosts could hardly believe the lack of resistance.

Following the defeat, the captain commented he felt those who made runs in those conditions had been positive, and partly that held true – the Australian batsman was exactly that during his century. However on occasion you encounter skilled bowlers on a tricky surface and it is necessary to get through it. A team that never want to retreat, that persistently attacking, will find their approach works at times, and on others causes complete meltdown. On occasion it seems their approach is a total lottery, and not something you would expect an elite, winning side.

Selection Stability and Its Drawbacks

The management had emphasized about getting matches for the squad, and the prospects of claiming the urn were really boosted by the fact they look an established lineup – most of the first XI pretty much pick themselves. They possess the experience, stable team choices, and they include plenty of skill. Thus what caused it to go so wrong?

At the crucial moment, it looked as if to get dragged into this gladiatorial thing, in which they walked onto the field, amid the atmosphere, and believed they had to start from the start and prove to the opposition their fearlessness, their intention to follow their approach, and that it would be the best way. Each batsman selected has been selected because they have a positive style. Not a single player who plays defensively – including some brilliant batters boasting impressive records in first-class cricket and not considered – has a chance to make the team. So what is the result when aggression isn't the optimal strategy?

The Need for Balance

From what I've seen, successful squads feature a mix of batters. It is beneficial to include players who can seize control from the opposition very quickly, but you also need players who are capable of playing an innings for long periods, or even many sessions. Stokes and Joe Root have in the past produced that kind of innings in the past, but appear to have shifted to a different approach.

Ben Stokes always talks about blocking out outside criticism … But at times that’s bloody difficult.

With a lead of 105 and an early dismissal, the scenario they found themselves in just after lunch on the second day, the positive approach involves being utterly dominant. An approach to achieve that is to attack, and sometimes where this represents the correct tactic. An alternative, traditionally used for about 150 years, involves avoid risks, provide no encouragement, be remorseless, and bat yourselves to a commanding position. Each represents ways of putting the opposition under pressure. The surface