UK View: England must change Ashes team but not its approach in battle against Australia

JUST HOW GOOD WAS PAT CUMMINS’ CAPTAINCY DISPLAY?

Mike Atherton: The race is not always to the swift but on this occasion the battle was to the strong. Pat Cummins conceded a boundary off the first ball of the game, but concluded the match with one off his own bat, showing great nerve and bottle under pressure.

There was heavy scrutiny of his captaincy, in response to “Bazball”, and it is not always easy to stick to your principles in that situation, but Cummins did so and will feel vindicated by the final result. Tortoise 1, Hare 0; an over-simplification, but it points to the contrasting philosophies. Cummins was prepared to bury his ego and not allow his team to get blown off course, sticking to a tried and trusted method. His character shone through at the end.

Elizabeth Ammon: It was certainly a very impressive captaincy display in which Cummins used his bowling resources wisely on a pitch where it was difficult to take wickets. There is a steely determination to Cummins that is different to Ben Stokes – quieter, less aggressive – but he is clear in how he wants to approach the game, and knows his role with bat and ball. It’s a different approach to many previous Australia captains but Cummins won’t be sucked into straying from his beliefs. This series is an intriguing contest between two very good, but different, captains.

Steve James: It’s an odd one because we spent so much of the Test criticising Australia’s tactics, which often looked too defensive and seemed to reflect some fear of “Bazball”, as well as observing that Steve Smith looked in charge rather than Cummins, and yet here we are comparing Cummins with the great Australia captains. He batted superbly on the last day but in truth Stokes made all the bold and clever tactical moves as a captain in this match.

HOW PIVOTAL WAS STOKES’ DECISION TO DECLARE ON DAY ONE?

MA: Despite England becoming the first Test team to declare twice on first innings and lose in a calendar year, the focus on the declaration is a red herring. Yes, Joe Root was in control; yes, Ollie Robinson looked untroubled when Stokes called the declaration at 393 for eight after 78 overs, but who knows how things would have gone had Cummins taken the new ball two overs later, and with Australia’s bowlers fresh in the morning? England got nearly 400 as it was a dry pitch – which allowed them to control the game – and the chance to have a crack at David Warner that night was perfectly good thinking.

Ultimately, England still gave themselves a great opportunity to win, setting 281, for what became Australia’s second highest successful run-chase in this country. England missed too many chances and need to be sharper in the field. Given the rain, it could be argued that the game would have petered out but for the declaration, and it was therefore justified in that it gave his team their chance.

EA: It was one of the key moments but there were many others: missed stumpings, dropped catches, Moeen Ali’s finger. There is a lot of logic in wanting to try to seize the initiative on a fairly unresponsive pitch. Had he not declared and batted through there may not have been enough time for Australia to get the runs on the final day given the weather and the rate at which they were batting, but equally there may have been even less time for England to hunt ten second-innings wickets.

SJ: Stokes dropping Nathan Lyon in the final session was probably more important. The thing about the declaration is that it did not work: the idea was to get one or two wickets on that first evening, but that did not happen. It was the sort of declaration you make in a three-day game, not a five-day one, but there are many other moments in the match you can point to as pivotal.

HOW CONCERNED ARE YOU BY ENGLAND’S BOWLING ATTACK, GIVEN INJURIES AND FITNESS CONCERNS?

MA: Stokes’s knee injury is a concern. He brought himself on for seven overs in the second innings, picking up the key wicket of Usman Khawaja, but looked sore at the end of the spell. In normal circumstances I suspect he would have brought himself on to bowl right at the end of the game. If he can’t fulfil his role as an all-rounder, then that is an issue for England.

Ali’s finger is also a real worry. I couldn’t see any good sense in his recall (and said so before the game), because a near two-year absence from first-class cricket, having retired from the format, is no preparation for an Ashes series. Clearly the skin on his spinning finger was not hardened enough for the workload.

EA: Ali’s finger is a big concern, those gouges on the spinning finger can keep reopening and are very painful. It was reassuring that Stokes got through 14 overs in the match, although the knee is clearly not right and he’s in a lot of pain. He will have to try to be sensible about how much he bowls. James Anderson had a quiet game but I don’t think that was fitness related; the conditions didn’t suit him at all.

SJ: Very. I can’t see how Ali can be fit for Lord’s; Anderson looked below his best at Edgbaston; Stuart Broad bowled himself into the ground and Robinson did not quite find his usual snap. Mark Wood is an obvious alternative, but he has hardly bowled in recent times.

WOULD YOU KEEP JONNY BAIRSTOW AS WICKETKEEPER?

MA: Yes. I was in favour of Bairstow’s return and couldn’t see a way of getting both him and Ben Foakes into the same team – and still can’t. That said, he missed some chances which were costly, especially the stumping chance before Cameron Green had scored in the first innings, and at the start of the second innings when an edge from Khawaja flew between him and Root at first slip. There is no guarantee that Foakes would have taken both, of course. A bit like with Ali, the issue is whether, after a long absence, Bairstow’s body can withstand the rigours of keeping in a five-day game. His batting looked in good order, slipping back seamlessly into things with a run-a-ball 78 in the first innings.

EA: I wouldn’t have dropped Foakes in the first place but now they have and they’ve thrown their weight behind Bairstow with the gloves, they will stick with him, and that is probably the right call. Yes there were errors but there was also some good stuff and we do have to remember that even very, very good wicketkeepers such as Foakes do make the odd mistake.

SJ: Yes, of course. He just looked rusty. Keeping and spin bowling are the two disciplines where you need most practice, I think, for the required rhythm, and England got found out a little with Bairstow and Ali in that respect. But Bairstow is a much better wicketkeeper than he showed at Edgbaston and much better than many people give him credit for generally.

SHOULD ENGLAND MAKE ANY CHANGES IN LINE-UP OR APPROACH?

MA: The approach won’t change, why should it? England made the running at Edgbaston and gave themselves a great chance to win. As for the team: I imagine a specialist spinner (Liam Dawson?) or possibly an Ali-like replacement (Will Jacks?) will be considered if Ali’s finger does not recover. The batting line-up will stay the same. The attack will depend on the conditions.

I would have played Wood at Edgbaston. His return looks likely at Lord’s. They may consider Root as the spinner, with four seamers, depending on Stokes’s knee and the pitch/weather.

EA: No change in approach. This match showed that England can go head to head with Australia. Wood needs to come into the bowling line-up, as there will be a need for some pace at Lord’s, which is another pretty slow pitch. Anderson should probably sit the next one out.

SJ: The approach must not change – although Ben Duckett has some thinking to do – but the personnel may have to, depending on fitness.

I would go with Dawson if Ali does not pass muster. He actually bowled pretty well against South Africa at Lord’s in 2017, taking four wickets in the match, including a ripper to dismiss Hashim Amla. And I would go with Wood instead of whichever one of Anderson, Broad and Robinson is felt to be in the most vulnerable shape physically.

HOW IMPORTANT WILL MOMENTUM FROM THIS WIN BE FOR AUSTRALIA?

MA: It could be really important because of how condensed the series is. There are five Tests in effectively six weeks, with little breathing space in between.

There is little chance for players of either side to find form in first-class matches in between, and little opportunity for the seamers to rest and recover. Clearly, if Australia win at Lord’s, England are done; the series will be beautifully set up if England, as in 2005, can bounce back. Some of England’s players have had a fair bit to say before the series, they now have to show their nerve and toughness at Lord’s.

More Coverage

England’s defiant reaction to Bazball Ashes failure

Daniel Cherny

CricViz: Stunning stats behind Uzzie’s legacy-changing Test

Cameron Posonby

EA: Had this been an absolute hammering, momentum would have been a valid concern. In Ashes series the wheels can come off very quickly if there are soul-destroying losses, but this wasn’t one of those. England had a hold on the match for much of it and Australia won’t feel like it was a comfortable victory. They will know that England will come back hard at them next week.

SJ: Hugely important, I would say. That may even have represented England’s best chance of a victory in this series. You suspect Australia will get better, with Smith and Marnus Labuschagne getting a lot more runs than they did at Edgbaston, but England will take hope from the 2005 series that everyone is mentioning, because they lost the first Test, even if that was at Lord’s.

– The Times

Originally published as UK View: England must change Ashes team but not its approach in battle against Australia