Why is it called “Test” cricket? Pretty obviously, because it is the format of cricket that allows for the most complete testing of the skill and character of those who play it. Cricket is so inherently full of subtlety, complexity and luck that it is never reducible to just one thing. When you play it over five days, the possibilities expand exponentially. That even applies if a game only lasts two days, because the possibility of five days influences the decisions and actions of the players. Or it should.
Two day Test matches really belong to a long-ago time of uncovered wickets or raging Asian turners. They shouldn’t happen on a hard Perth pitch that offered some seam off the deck, but hardly any swing through the air for the entire game. Two days is all it took because we witnessed a contest between a visiting England team that arrived with a pre-determined philosophy they refused to adjust, and a home Australian team that struggled on the first day, but who were astute enough to reconsider their approach and take their chances.
England had this game by the throat at the lunch break. Effectively 1-99, with two batsmen well set, they had an enormous opportunity. If anyone in the England dressing room had bothered to consider how the Perth Test last summer played out, they would have known there was a fair chance that batting would get considerably easier later on Day 2. Just one more good session and Australia would be on the ropes. In any case, the game couldn’t be won in one session. But as we discovered, it could be lost.
Australia was searching for a way back. Mitch Starc had been magnificent, but he couldn’t do it on his own. Scott Boland had a shocker on Day 1, but there were signs he’d reassessed and was finding his groove before lunch. When he dismissed Ben Duckett with a good ball just after the break, a pivotal moment had arrived. Australia sensed it, and they had the advantage of an opponent who was predictable in how they would respond to that moment. By maintaining a fifth stump line, Australia could expect England to come to them. They wouldn’t have to come to England.
So it quickly proved to be. From the moment of Duckett’s dismissal, England lost 6-39 in 11 overs. Only Ben Stokes could reasonably argue he didn’t largely contribute to his own demise. Some might say Jamie Smith was unlucky, but from the way Smith started walking the moment Australia referred his not-out decision, I’d doubt it. When Australia opted to try and bounce Gus Atkinson and Brydon Carse out, it threatened to backfire, but they could rely on England still swishing. The 50 runs they added in 6 overs initially looked consequential. It proved to be an inadequate patch for a leaking vessel.
Nobody was that confident Australia could get the 205 required. The largest total in a match traditionally doesn’t come in the fourth innings. But nothing about this game was traditional.
Australia had learnt from their first knock where England had forced them to grind out their runs. Sending Travis Head out first was an inspired choice, however it was arrived at. Notably, before he launched, Head took time to assess a flattening pitch and an attack struggling to back up for successive days. The fact the target was only 205 also freed his hand. A breezy 40 that seized momentum in the circumstances was worth gold. He was to do substantially better than that.
Whatever plans England had for Head, they failed to execute them with any consistency. If you want to bounce him, you have to cramp him. Too many balls allowed him to free his arms. Crucially, Jake Weatherald had overcome his traumatic first knock and was providing solid support. By the time their partnership had reached 75, England were feeling the squeeze.
Weatherald was unlucky to depart in the manner he did, with an edge rebounding skyward off his helmet to be caught. When Marnus Labuschagne arrived at the crease, the game was still alive, but it was shocking how quickly that feeling dissipated.
Head sensed a quick kill was there for the taking. He didn’t muck around. Even though he reached 50 off 36 balls, his innings had felt controlled. There were no chances and very few plays and misses. Once he passed fifty, and the target was not much over a hundred, he really went for it. This was an innings that will live in Ashes folklore. Ben Stokes has played some miraculous innings himself, but he and his team looked increasingly nonplussed. England traipsed off at the end like a piñata that had had the stuffing knocked out. Travball had given Bazball a right thumping.
As England sit in their changerooms drinking their Kool Aid, you’d like to think they might contemplate why they batted the way they did in that middle session. But will they? Interviewed post match, Stokes seemed reluctant to question the dogma, even after such a comprehensive disaster. He even tried to defend his batters by citing Head’s approach, as though Head hadn’t been playing in a completely different circumstance. One size fits all apparently, if you’re a true believer.
Clinging ardently to any ideology can be both a comfort and a trap. There’s an allure to thinking there are straightforward answers to life’s (and cricket’s) complexities. But if an ideology isn’t free to be questioned then things usually don’t end well. This England team has the talent to compete with Australia. They regularly create opportunities. But it is beyond perverse to repeatedly deny yourself the chance to complete the deal. Freud would have a field day with this lot.
Australia would do well to remember things could easily have ended differently. Our problems haven’t magically disappeared with one victory, though it certainly helps. With a pink ball Test looming in Brisbane we are as uncertain about an opening batting combination as before. Injuries to Khawaja and Lyon have been added to those of Cummins and Hazlewood. They are an ageing team nearing a precipice, but they are also a battle-hardened group who know how to win.
England 172 and 164 ( Atkinson 37, Pope 33, Boland 4-33, Starc 3-55, Doggett 3-51)
Australia 132 and 2-205 (Head 123 of 83 balls, Labuschagne 51*)
Australia won by 8 wickets
To read more on the 2025-26 Ashes series click here.
To return to our Footy Almanac home page click HERE.
Our writers are independent contributors. The opinions expressed in their articles are their own. They are not the views, nor do they reflect the views, of Malarkey Publications.
Do you enjoy the Almanac concept?
And want to ensure it continues in its current form, and better? To help things keep ticking over please consider making your own contribution.
Become an Almanac (annual) member – click HERE.
About John Butler
John Butler has fled the World's Most Liveable Car Park and now breathes the rarefied air of the Ballarat Plateau. For his sins, he has passed his 40th year as a Carlton member.
- More Posts
Lots of common sense here, JB. But where does that come in the order of decision-making criteria in the modern game? Or are the ideologically pure immune from such luxuries?
In fact, that sounds like a good essay question for readers to address in the gap between now and the Second Test.
JB,
I heard Baz McCullum interviewed post game. If anyone thinks that there will be any circumspection in England’s post-match reviews, they are deluded. To paraphrase Thatcher, they ain’t for changing.
S Smith is getting many plaudits for his captaincy, but overall I thought his field placements and tactics left much to be desired. He is way too defensive for my liking.
Enjoyable thoughtful analysis JB. Sensibly you haven’t fallen for Australian one Test euphoria. My sense is this is a very small sample based largely around 2 outstanding and a few handy performances by Australia.
I recall writing a tongue in cheek preview of the 2023 Ashes based largely on historical analogy rather than any great cricket conviction. https://www.footyalmanac.com.au/almanac-cricket-bazball-brexit-and-buffoons/
After 2 Tests I was a genius. After 5 I was lucky to escape with meagre credibility.
Suspect more of the same this time. England has more talent. Australia more experience and home ground advantage. Their bowlers looked good when the wicket bounced – but they will struggle without more variety in the kit bag. On flatter wickets I suspect they have plenty of runs in them.
Pete Labor’s inside word is that Hazelwood is unlikely and Cummins limited availability the rest of the series.
Mean reversion suggests taking the overs the Poms next time.
Ian, one advantage of being a true believer is that it absolves you of all that pesky thinking. We see this across many aspects of life nowadays.
Smokie, if the high priest started to doubt then where would they be? Re. Smith – like I wrote, the advantage he had was that Bazball has by this stage utterly predictable. I thought Smith captained accordingly. But it was such a crazy runaway train of a game that at a certain point captaincy just came down to rolling the dice and watching what happened.
PB, does anyone see the Brisbane test lasting more than 3 days? Like you, I reckon England have Australia covered for talent, at least in the teams fielded this test. But talent isn’t everything. As I wrote after Day 1, they seem equal parts CCP and People’s Front of Judea. Yesterday was pretty much all People’s Front. If they keep that up, they ain’t winning squat.
Well played JB.
Saturday afternoon I visited Southland on an errand, pulling into the carpark just as Starc’s caught and bowled of Crawley was being reviewed by the third umpire and I fumbled to get Kayo fired up on my phone. I was thrust back into the 80s, when every department store had a wall of 26″ Pyes, AWAs, Panasonics and Rank Arenas with the cricket on, filled with punters catching a cheeky glimpse of the day’s proceedings.
No TVs were to be seen at Myer or DJs but the aptly named JB had a swathe of 75+” screens, but not a single one of them displayed a contemporaneous broadcast, just retail-only displays of gondolas, wildlife, mountains, fast cars and macaws.
I went about my business, snatching a view of the scores on my phone, noting that the visitors were proceeding towards victory. Only when I popped into the AFL Store on the forlorn hope that some cheap Adelaide merch might await, did I come across not one but two screens showing the Test, but it was Lunch, so I trotted home.
Thankfully I was able to view most of the rest of that thrilling day on my trusty “device”, small enough not to disturb the rest of the family’s viewing, big enough to see those extraordinary events.
But I wouldn’t get too carried away, pride coming before a fall and all that. It’s Test cricket, but not as we know it.
Swish, being an old Bayside boy this tale bought back memories of hours spent killing time at Southland. Can’t say I miss the place.
Which England will turn up in Brisbane? I doubt if they even know.