SYDNEY — The scorecard will show that England took two wickets for 10 runs in a frantic final hour on day two of the fifth Ashes Test. It will not show the 170 runs Australia plundered in the 30 overs prior, nor the profound sense of a dam finally breaking. England’s bowling performance at the SCG was not just a bad session; it was an alarming, unvarnished hint at a future where their aggressive philosophy, ‘Bazball’, meets its kryptonite: a flat pitch, a Kookaburra ball gone soft, and batters willing to wait.
For 110 overs, England’s attack had toiled with commendable discipline. They had restricted Australia to 303 for 6, with Pat Cummins and Alex Carey rebuilding cautiously. Then, the second new ball arrived. Instead of the anticipated breakthrough, it signalled the start of a brutal assault. Cummins and Carey transformed, adding 118 runs in 20 overs of carnage before Carey fell for 111. The floodgates were open. Mitchell Starc and Nathan Lyon then smashed 52 from the next six overs. England’s plans, so meticulously laid, dissolved into a hapless search for answers that never came.
The Anatomy of a Collapse
The unravelling was systemic, exposing flaws in both strategy and personnel. The core tenet of England’s new approach under Ben Stokes and Brendon McCullum is relentless attack, creating pressure through wicket-taking intent. On a benign Sydney surface, that intent morphed into profligacy. With the ball offering little conventional swing or seam after 30 overs, England’s bowlers defaulted to a short-pitched barrage. It was a plan born of desperation, and Australia feasted on it.
Carey and Cummins, both strong square of the wicket, pulled and cut with impunity. The fields set were aggressively in-catching, leaving vast, unprotected spaces on the boundary. The result was a dispiriting cycle: a short ball, pulled for four, followed by another short ball, cut for four more. The lack of a coherent ‘Plan B’ was startling. As former England captain Michael Atherton noted in commentary, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. England have been banging the ball in short all day, and Australia have been scoring freely from it."
The Bowling Depth Dilemma
This Test has laid bare England’s chronic lack of bowling depth. With Stuart Broad rested and Jofra Archer, Olly Stone, and Mark Wood perennially injured, the attack lacked a genuine, sustained pace threat to disrupt the batters’ rhythm. James Anderson and Ollie Robinson, masters of seam and swing in English conditions, were rendered workmanlike. Their combined figures in that pivotal period were telling. The burden fell heavily on all-rounder Chris Woakes and spinner Jack Leach, who struggled to provide control.
The key issues exposed were:
Lack of a Point of Difference: No bowler consistently exceeded 140kph to hurry the batters on a slow track.
Predictable Lengths: An over-reliance on the short ball without setting it up with fuller, probing deliveries.
Poor Death Bowling: A complete inability to stem the flow at the end of the day, with length and line disintegrating under pressure.
A Blueprint for Future Opponents
The most concerning takeaway for England is that Australia have provided a clear blueprint for how to negate ‘Bazball’ bowling. The method is simple: see off the initial burst with the new ball, respect the good deliveries, and cash in mercilessly when England’s patience wears thin and the bowling becomes one-dimensional. This is not a tactic unique to Australia; it is the fundamental, age-old method of Test match batting. England’s hyper-aggressive style, while thrilling, can quickly look naive when confronted with old-fashioned grit and opportunism.
Former Australian bowler Glenn McGrath was scathing in his assessment on BBC Test Match Special: "England looked like they had no idea how to get a wicket. They were just waiting for a mistake. At this level, that’s not a strategy, it’s a hope. The great attacks build pressure from both ends; today, England released it as fast as they created it." This analysis cuts to the heart of the issue: pressure in Test cricket is built through dot balls and maidens as much as through wild plays and misses.
The Road Ahead: Recalibration Required
This Ashes series, already lost, was meant to be a foundation for the future. The batting has shown flashes of revolutionary promise. The bowling, however, has raised serious questions that cannot be ignored. The philosophy of attack is not inherently flawed, but it requires nuance and adaptability. England must develop bowlers who can thrive in unhelpful conditions, whether through extreme pace, metronomic accuracy, or guileful variation. The search for a world-class spinner to partner Leach, or perhaps supplant him, remains urgent.
Furthermore, management must trust bowlers to bowl to their strengths, not just to a rigid, aggressive template. Sometimes, building pressure with a ring field and six consecutive dot balls is the most attacking play. As Stokes himself conceded in a weary post-day press conference, "We’ve got to be better at recognising when a plan isn’t working and changing it quicker. We got stuck in a bit of a rut there and it cost us." This admission is the first, crucial step towards evolution.
Conclusion: A Necessary Reality Check
The ‘2/10’ in the scorebook is a stark, symbolic figure. Two wickets taken, but at a cost of 170 runs—an economy rate of 5.66 per over. In the context of a modern Test match, that is not just expensive; it is catastrophic. It surrendered all of England’s hard-won momentum and guaranteed Australia a commanding first-innings total. More than that, it served as a piercing reality check.
The future of English Test cricket under this regime is bright with possibility, but the day in Sydney proved that raw aggression alone is not a sustainable winning formula across all conditions. To become the world-beaters they aspire to be, England must marry their thrilling intent with the timeless virtues of patience, skill, and tactical intelligence. The batting has embraced a revolution. Now, the bowling must undergo its own, more subtle, evolution. If it does not, scorelines like ‘2/10’ will move from being an alarming hint to a recurring, defining failure.