Two Tests, two defeats for England, but in rather different ways and with different attitudes, yet in both cases it is Australia who are 1-0 up.

This morning the women concluded on the fifth day – praise be for that change – but England came up short and will have some regrets, firstly that they didn’t kick on a little more in the first innings and for the shot selection in the second (plus a couple of tight lbws that didn’t go their way, c’est la vie). Australia are a fantastic team, and the addition of a fifth day making a result far more likely meant that Australia would have been deemed the likely winners before the start, but England had their chances and didn’t take them, the very essence of sport. It is instructive to note that the England women, while they score quickly, adopt a more traditional approach to run scoring than their male counterparts, which ought to be notable in the sense that this did not make them immune from making errors under pressure and playing poor shots. It is not purely a characteristic of Bazball. But unlike with the men, this one defeat really wrecks England’s chances of winning the series.

The response to England’s defeat to Australia at Edgbaston has been rather interesting. Ranging from a shrug of the shoulders to outrage depending on outlook and approach. What can be said is that it was a terrific Test match, that swung one way and then the other and was in doubt through to the very end. That in itself is becoming something of a habit for this England team, and few would deny they are quite extraordinary to watch.

The question though is to what extent England threw it away and how much it was that Australia went out and won it – plus what it means for the rest of the series. There aren’t any right or wrong answers to this, and the criticisms have validity, but equally so do the words of the defenders.

What can be agreed is that England’s approach has brought a lot more success than they had been having up to the point they flicked a switch and went on a rampage – a single win in seventeen Tests has been succeeded by eleven wins in fourteen. Overall, few would deny that this is rather better, so the criticisms are around the matter of degree rather than in general, except perhaps for a few who particularly revel in a two runs an over approach for its own sake.

Plenty of teams have adopted a positive approach to the game, that’s nothing new, where England differ is that they do so with an insouciance that looks reckless to many. But I would argue that this is not quite what it seems, or more specifically, the recklessness is deliberate, strategic and built in. “Playing without fear” is a mantra heard often, but it hardly ever means what it says, as Test cricket even in its modern form isa game where restraint is almost always the order of the day. In essence, whatever they might say, “fear” is baked into the equation, the fear of getting out, the fear of a collapse, the reluctance to play with complete freedom. It’s not a bad thing at all, it’s normal, at least historically. Where England are unique is that when they say they are playing without fear, they really mean it. Getting out is met with indifference and an occupational hazard precisely because of that approach. Anaethema to many it may be, but it is central to how England are playing. And this is important to note, because when it is said that all England need to do is to reign it in a bit, it is to change this mentality completely – it is to add fear, it is add the reticence to play with complete abandon. You will not get a team who can romp along at seven an over with it.

That doesn’t mean England can only throw the bat, for after England were somewhat unfortunately batting in poor conditions (sporting luck and bad luck, so be it) and lost wickets, they did tick over a bit more slowly in the second innings as it proceeded, Root’s scoop first ball of the day notwithstanding; but the ability to do that still without fear is the central aspect of England’s approach, the urgent desire to cut loose being transparently obvious even as they scored a little more slowly. Indeed, Stokes has been fairly criticised for going too far on many an occasion, throwing his wicket away when he scores fast enough normally not to need to do so, and yet in that second innings that is precisely what he did – his eventual dismissal being one of those normal enough cricketing occurrences. But to believe that England could flick a switch in terms of their approach is to misunderstand how they are even capable of going berserk in the first place – to change it in one context is to change it in all, it cannot be to cheer them on scoring at seven an over only to insist they don’t have that mindset when it is deemed to be inappropriate, it is, in cricketing cliche, to ask them to hit sixes but not take any risks. It isn’t that people are wrong to do so however, but it is to emphasise that the only reason you can have the extraordinary sight of England going nuts is to appreciate that they cannot just defend and accumulate, it really is one or the other, the mental bridge is far too wide.

The same applies to the declaration on day one. In the first instance, to assume a day one action led directly to the day five result ignoring all that went between is to beg the question, but also because the thinking and mentality was so clear. It was to put Australia on the back foot and try and get late evening wickets and then have another go the following morning with a still new ball. It can be disagreed with certainly, but the logic of the aspiration was clear and we cannot solely judge on the outcome as though if they’d taken three wickets on that first day it was a stroke of genius and because they didn’t it wasn’t. In terms of the attempt to put Australia on the defensive in approach, it did work – Australia were oddly passive throughout the Test match (the very vocal sledging coming from Australian sidelines is instructive too – you don’t need to do that if you’re not a teeny bit concerned), and while they won, that might have an impact further down the line when England carry on doing this. Or not, there are no guarantees. Furthermore, Australia might have won, but they are in any case a far better side than England, defeat in itself doesn’t mean the approach was wrong, any more than believing a more restrained England would have got across the line has a great deal to back it up. The suspicion has to be a more defensive England would be hammered. It is, in essence, the opposite – England’s best chance of beating Australia is to go all out, and if that is concurred with in principle, then it means accepting the downside that it cannot, will not, always work, and may even not work at all.

The same applies to selection. Whether Moeen Ali was the right call or not is open to question, but believing a tailor made alternative would have come in and scored a century and taken ten-fer is to indulge the realms of fantasy. No player is as good as when he’s been left out of the team, but the criticisms there need to be aimed at the structural weaknesses of the England cricketing structure that meant that he was a viable option in the first place. Another player might have done better, or might have done worse, to assume certainty is to reprogramme the matrix.

Similarly, Bairstow’s inclusion came at the expense of an extremely unlucky Ben Foakes. When analysing the reasons for England’s defeat the dropped catches and missed stumpings loom large, and unlike with Moeen Ali, it is reasonable enough to acknowledge that Foakes is more than good enough for it to be assumed with reasonable cause he would have taken more of them, especially stood up to the stumps where he excels. But few would deny that Bairstow should be in the side as a batsman, and as a result a decision had to be made about where. Given Zak Crawley has few advocates, the option there would be to move someone else to open and have both Bairstow and Foakes, but it is an either/or and they went with retaining Crawley. On that one, it is selectorial stubborness for sure, but Crawley himself is very much part of the England thinking because of how he plays – it is less a matter of whether he is worthy in itself and more whether someone else can do precisely that role better than him. To understand is not to concur, but failure to understand means the wrong criticisms are made.

Those dropped catches had far more consequence in terms of outcome than anything else. It is a cricketing normal, catches win matches being more than just a cliche. Indeed, even at the end a difficult chance put down by Stokes could be viewed as being the game right there. But it also must be said that some of the critiques failed to sufficiently acknowledge what an outstanding partnership it was from Cummins and Lyons – whatever else went on, to win the game eight down from there was an exceptional performance. Australia won that game rather than England losing it, and sometimes you simply have to doff your cap. Had two quick wickets fallen some of the earlier England decisions that have been criticised would have been praised as creating the time to secure an England win. And this is no small matter, a more conservative England approach, even had it succeeded, would have resulted in the match being drawn. And yes, 0-0 might be preferable to 1-0 down, but it created the opportunity for England to win the match, that they ultimately didn’t take it is a separate matter.

England do have a tendency to state their aim is save Test cricket, which irks plenty of Australians – and therefore is a good thing in itself – but also English fans who say their first priority should be winning matches. And so it should too, but the reason England players say this in defeat is to give affirmation for their approach when they’ve lost. It is evidently human to say such things.

This is somewhat lofty, but all teams do need that self-justification when things go wrong, to reassure themselves they are on the right path in what they do. It’s understandable, and when looked at in the wider context it is also welcome in that it is pleasing that they believe it to be worth saving,
but it is also undoubtedly fair comment to point to the discrepancy, as long as there’s understanding why they say these things.

Many are annoyed, many more are disappointed. I just can’t be. Might you disagree?  Absolutely so, and that’s fine, but I will challenge that and say why I feel as I do.  It’s certainly not that I’m right and others are wrong, it is that sensing an affinity as to why they do what they do means that I remain entirely content to take the rough with the smooth on these things. The question then put is how I’d feel if England lose the series heavily, and I can honestly respond that it will be with the same general indifference to individual outcome when set against the bigger picture. I do get why others differ, but I can only express how it is for me. And I will leave you with one thing – anecdote isn’t data and there’s no reason to assume it ought to be, but three friends generally relatively indifferent to Test cricket followed, listened and watched this one with fascination, enjoyment, excitement and at the end crippling nerves. And that gives me hope for the game. Hope has been missing for a very long time.