A penny for England coach Trevor Bayliss’s thoughts as his lower order were dismantled for the second time in the Test. Actually, scrub that. We know exactly what he must have been thinking: why, Ben, why?
Pulitzers will not be won for pointing out that England miss Ben Stokes, but there may be a rosette in the post for whoever nails why they miss him most.
One thing’s for sure: Joe Root’s team arrived in the belief that their lower-middle order was stronger than Australia’s, even without Stokes, and have spent the last four days being royally disabused.
Joe Root’s team arrived at the Gabba with the belief they had a stronger lower-middle order
If fighting for every last run wasn’t quite England’s Plan A, it was certainly ahead in the queue of Plan B, as anyone who has totted up their top-order collapses over the last few years will attest.
Yet in the first innings here, they lost six for 56. In their second, it was five for 40, or four for 10 – grim, whichever way you spin it. Australia’s last three alone added 119. Yes, they had Steve Smith. But he couldn’t have done it without the broad bat of his No 9, Pat Cummins.
England’s successes in recent times have generally involved runs from what has become known as their engine room, as if their top order (Joe Root aside) is some kind of boudoir. We are not talking the 1-5 of most teams, but instead numbers 6-9: Stokes, Jonny Bairstow, Moeen Ali, Chris Woakes.
Ben Stokes’ absence from the Ashes squad is proving huge for England against Australia
Lose Stokes, and you lose more than a sabre-rattling all-rounder. You shunt Moeen up two places, depriving him of the freedom that made him such a dangerous No 8 during the 2015 Ashes.
You risk condemning Bairstow to hit out too early, as he did in the first innings here. And you change what is expected of Woakes.
With Jake Ball in effect Stokes’s replacement, you also end up with a No 10 – which is what Stuart Broad has become – and two No 11s trying to fill the last three slots. Against Australia’s quick bowlers, that is always going to finish badly.
Chris Woakes was bowled by Nathan Lyon for no runs as England’s batting order fell apart
Another knock-on effect of the Bristol brawl has been to place more pressure on the top order. Even at 246 for four in their first innings, England looked capable of falling short of the 350 that was the bare minimum. Dawid Malan’s mistimed pull off Mitchell Starc was all it took. Not long after, they were 250 for seven.
That crossroads was one of several Stokes might have enjoyed had he not chosen the wrong path that Sunday night in September. Here in Brisbane, England have lacked – and apologies for the analogy – the ability to land the knockout punch.
Much was made in advance of Australia’s four-man attack, but it hasn’t mattered because Nathan Lyon has bowled so well, especially to the left-handers, and the three quick bowlers possess more edge than their English counterparts.
Mitchell Starc helped dismantle England as Australia edged closer to victory in the first Test
Stuart Broad and Jimmy Anderson were heroic in the first innings, when their combined analysis read 54-20-99-5. But Woakes and Ball could manage only 42-8-144-2, while Moeen has ripped his spinning finger, despite England’s claims that he is suffering from nothing more than a blister.
Thus a narrative has developed only one match into the series: England as the honest toilers, clinging on until someone prises their fingertips from the edge of the cliff; Australia as the villains doing the prising. And while Steve Smith is outperforming Root, it will stay that way.
The floodlights of Adelaide offer England a way back into this series, and they will have to take it. The third Test is at Perth, where their record is even worse than Brisbane. And which England player made a hundred there four years ago? Yep, you guessed it.