In that classic way that England supporters seem to enjoy valiant losses more than actually winning, most of the plaudits after the second Test have gone to Jos Buttler, who batted for more than four hours to try and save the game.
To my eye, though, it was as much Chris Woakes’ innings that steadied the ship and allowed Buttler to settle in.
In two hours, the pair put on 61 off 190 balls, of which Woakes scored 44 from 97. When he was dismissed, his total for the series had moved to 105 – ahead of Rory Burns, Haseeb Hameed, Ollie Pope, Ben Stokes and Buttler. Only Joe Root and Dawid Malan have more.
There is a lot to like about Woakes’ batting. He has a gloriously simple technique. He stands still and he hits the ball with high elbows.
It isn’t perfect, but it is a simple technique for a simple approach to batting: the antithesis to Rory Burns, the piston-pumping steam engine of moving parts.
(Photo by Bradley Kanaris/Getty Images)
It has allowed him to hit 18 boundaries – only Dawid Malan with 25 has more. It is the same number as Joe Root, who has 70 more runs than Woakes.
It’s not hard to see why he continues to get picked.
His bowling rarely gets taken to (his economy rates home and away are almost identical), he is a reliable lower-order batsman (with ten first-class hundreds), he’s a good fielder and unlike many of his colleagues he seems to actually enjoy playing cricket.
Throw in a neat haircut, a polite manner and a boyish handsomeness and he is just so likeable. You can see why he remains a perennial favourite of his coaches.
There is, unfortunately, the small matter of the enormous gulf in the effectiveness of his bowling at home compared to away.
In the UK, he has taken 94 wickets at an average of 22.63. Away from the creature comforts of home (Dukes ball, Lord’s slope, softer wickets, the Barmy Army in full force), he has taken 28 at 54.28.
I admire his consistency, dedication and professionalism. He rarely lets anybody down. But, unfortunately for him, his selection is a neat case study of England’s muddled selection thinking.
(Photo by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)
They continue to be obsessed with a player’s peripheral qualities and the idea of what they can bring extra to an XI, instead of whether their primary role is going to help win games.
It is a way of thinking haunted by not wanting to lose rather than wanting to win, and not working.
In England, when your choices of third or fourth seamer are all similar in being 135-kilometre-per-hour right-arm outswing bowlers, picking a player on the strength of his lower-order batting and fielding makes sense.
In Australia, picking a player who averages 55 there because he shores up the batting and is unlikely to get smashed is back-to-front.
When head coach and sole selector Chris Silverwood emerged from the shadows on Tuesday, he was adamant that his selections were not responsible for the loss.
“We picked the best attack for those conditions and you look at the attack we had out, there’s a lot of experience,” he said.
“I was happy with that attack this game and I was happy with that attack last game as well.”
‘Happy’ seems a rather unsavoury choice of words given how thoroughly England have been beaten so far.
Given his assistant, Jon Lewis, came out the day before to admit he felt they had got selections wrong so far, it seems there is as much confusion inside the England camp as there is in the media and public speculation about it.
(Photo by Mark Brake – CA/Cricket Australia via Getty Images)
What can England actually do to improve their fortunes with a few days to breathe?
After Rory Burns’ battling 30-odd in Adelaide, I would show him faith and emphasise the value of balls faced and not just the number of runs he scores, especially to his middle-order colleagues.
Haseeb Hameed has already shown he understands this. I would try Zak Crawley at six for Ollie Pope. Pope’s decision-making against pace is in tatters and his technique against Nathan Lyon is non-existent.
Crawley found runs harder to come by in the matches following his mammoth double century against Pakistan, but showed an unusually un-English penchant for the pull shot that may serve him well. He can hardly do worse.
Mark Wood must come into the side, as must as a spinner. Whoever is bowling better out of Dom Bess and Jack Leach should be picked, supported to bowl defensively if required, and stuck with for the rest of the series.
With Ollie Robinson quietly performing as the ship sinks around him, and Ben Stokes undroppable, that leaves room for just one of Jimmy Anderson and Stuart Broad.
I would base this decision on the wicket – if it is soft, Anderson gets the nod, but if it is a lifeless MCG drop-in, I would go with Broad.
It’s becoming easier and easier to criticise this England team, and as such less fun and less interesting.
They need to draw a line under the first two Tests and simply pick the best players they have in each position.
Ever the team man, Woakes may have to accept this doesn’t include him.
Jason Broad
Guest
Now that comment has not aged well at all. Anderson has been the best bowler of both sides and treated the world to some of the best spells of test match bowling in Melbourne.
Simoc
Roar Rookie
If you turned on your TV today you would have seen Anderson all over the Aussie batsman. A spell of 6 overs, 5 maidens , 1 run, 1 wicket. The run was from a dropped catch. So over the hill!
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
As the ultimate spy, you'd know this stuff.
Pom in exile
Roar Rookie
That’s a strange list. Mark Ealham, Adam Hollioake, Ronnie Irani, Robert Croft can any of these guys be termed as recent? Bopara started off quite well as a Test batsman and hit a few centuries, he could also turn his arm over but he wasn’t a bits and pieces player. Samit Patel was picked to play a handful of tests in Asia as a second/third spinner. Geraint Jones was a wicketkeeper who won the Ashes in ‘05 so I’m unsure why he’s on the list at all and Bresnan was a bowler who could bat, he also had quite a successful career so again not sure why he’s there. Sam Curran (like his brother) is a very good all round cricketer who I like a lot, however he is lacking certain attributes to be a successful Test player in all conditions, namely height and pace. Dom Bess is an average spinner (who happens to take wickets) who got the yips (not sure why he’s touring with England), he’s a half decent batsman. It yes he would be the most accurate example of what you are referring to, although as I mentioned he does actually take wickets at Test level. Woakes is definitely not a bits and pieces cricketer, although his bowling is definitely not suited to overseas conditions it seems. He can be every bit as good as Anderson in England and he’s a very decent lower order batsman and very good fielder, so all in all a very good cricketer.
Kim Philby OBE OL
Roar Rookie
Well DF, I already have the OBE... I think Silverwoods ‘position’ would be a Cinch!
Gee
Roar Rookie
Wade (as a keeper) and Mitch Marsh have played dozens of tests between them so England are not the only team guilty of picking bits and pieces cricketers. And if Mark Waugh wasnt a great fielder superior batsmen would had his spot as well.
Gee
Roar Rookie
Warner averages 60+ at home and low 30s away.
Dave
Guest
Woakes has mostly struggled across 16 overseas Tests, but "a bits and pieces county player" is unlikely to take 94 home Test wickets at an average of 22.63 (as well as average 35 with the bat). At home he is an elite Test cricketer.
Mike
Guest
Don - You're probably right re Broaderson. No room for either. Personally I think Anderson would be a crazy selection. He's 39 years old and is a high injury risk in a must win Test. If it were being played in England then the risk/reward of his selection could be justified, but in Australia? He's had one 5fer in six tours! It's not like he's a deadly weapon in Aust conditions that they could use in deadly 3-4 over hits. Australia would love to see him toiling away on a hot Aussie arvo until he breaks down. He struggled with it ten years ago! I can't help but feel Anderson is being selfish by imposing his shadow (with his "legend" status) upon the selection process. He was clearly miffed as he pouted away whilst carrying the drinks at the Gabba. Broad should definitely have played at the Gabba. Warner batted himself in there which prepared him for facing Broad in Adelaide. I think Broad has more to offer than Anderson as he just gives me the impression he's more up for the hard yakka in Aussie conditions. Anderson looks like he just wants to be a new ball bowler and after two short spells is saying "ok lads, see you at 80 overs." Never rated him away from the green tops of England and the Dukes safety net.
Craig
Guest
Yep, England have a fantastic history of picking players because of a secondary skill, despite their primary skill being nowhere near good enough for test cricket. Ive come up with a full test XI from recent years of bits and pieces county players who where picked based on the theory they might chip in with 20 or 30 down the order, or be able to get thru a few overs of medium pace. Sure, some of these guys turned in a decent performance here and there, they wont win you too many series. Mark Ealham Ravi Bopara Ronnie Irani Dom Bess Geraint Jones Chris Woakes Robert Croft Sam Curran Samit Patel Tim Bresnan Adam Hollioake
The Late News
Roar Rookie
Silverwood is being very naiive if he truly thinks selections have not played any part in England's performances so far. Sure coaches coach and players play but you need the right team to start with!
Brian
Guest
Woakes was disappointing in Brisbane but picked in Adelaide because they thought he would get swing there. He didn't. I would pick him for Melbourne as a batting all-rounder ahead of Pope. Bowling heavy teams are more of a chance then batting heavy ones. Crawley, Hameed, Malan, Root, Stokes, Buttler, Woakes, Robinson, Wood, Broad, Leach.
Prez
Roar Rookie
Has they ever been a player with such contrasting home and away stats. 22.63 at home is elite especially for a first change bowler but 54.28 away is park cricketer.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
Yes but if, as this article rightly suggests, they need to select wicket-taking bowlers, neither Anderson nor Broad are that kind of bowler any more. Joe Root is their most penetrating bowler.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
I think you have Chris Silverwood looking in his rear view mirror, Kim.
Pete McAloney
Roar Pro
Thanks Liam, a well articulated analysis of the situation. The only statement I can't agree with is "It’s becoming easier and easier to criticise this England team, and as such less fun and less interesting." Personally, I find it a great deal of fun! I'd be very happy to see a 5-0 drubbing :stoked: :laughing:
Derek Murray
Roar Rookie
It really was. The most sense written about the scrambled thinking that pretends to be planning amongst England management. Brilliant insights. Thanks
Mike
Guest
Ha ha! That's a brilliant example of how statistical analysis can get you to the totally incorrect conclusion. I've seen bean-counters do this in business so many times. A very good article. I like the point made about the Woakes selection in Australia being about not wanting to lose rather going for a win. I've banged on before about how I believe Australia knows how to select teams to play in England better than England does fro Australia. The bits 'n pieces County pro (like Woakes) doesn't work in Australia where you need specialists. Your core skill is the focus in Aust where a stronger bowler who can't bat, is picked over a weaker bowler who can bat well at 8. Hence Wood before Woakes in Australia! I'm just amazed that England have never learned this. There's no Dukes ball and Headingley out here fellas - stop wishing it was otherwise. If they desperately want Woakes in the team they could shove him up to open the batting. He couldn't do worse than the current two and that way Siverwood can shoehorn in his much-wanted fourth right arm, fast-medium seamer. Another point, they do need to choose between Broad and Anderson. Only room for one old seamer on a hot Aussie arvo!
Stuckbetweenindopak
Roar Rookie
Woakes' gait alone shows what a nice and polite man he is!
Paul
Roar Guru
A really nice summary Liam. I tend to suspect England’s selections are made on the basis of fear, which starts with a fear their batting is not up to scratch – which is probably right. They then select players who are fair to middling at both batting and bowling, but not great at either unless conditions are perfect for them. As you rightly said, they can get away with this in England, where bowlers don’t have to work anywhere near as hard for wickets as they do in Australia, for example. In Australian conditions, they have to pick their best batsmen, their best wicket taking options with the ball and trust both groups to do their jobs Hedging their bets simply doesn’t work on Aussie pitches.