Ashes Failure Has Betrayed My Trust in England’s Regime

Brendon McCullum has admitted he's got it horribly wrong, and he most show a commitment to change or be replaced

I won’t use its colloquial name, but I have been extremely invested in the project Rob Key, Brendon McCullum and Ben Stokes have overseen during the previous three-and-a-half years.

For context, my passionate support of England’s Test side is only second to the attention I give to Charlton Athletic. Sometimes it is on a par. Colleagues in the press room at The Valley took great amusement from me watching, with my head in my hands, as England collapsed at The Gabba.

Allowing Australia to retain The Ashes in 11 days, losing the first three Tests as they have in such tame and embarrassing style, feels like Charlton suffering a relegation. One made worse by the absolute belief I have had in this project. By the way in which a period of England’s Test cricket I have largely enjoyed will now almost certainly be remembered for little more than this.

As much as the aggressive style of cricket has been exhilarating, and produced some of the most remarkable victories in the history of Test cricket, the project has amplified one aspect of the format in particular that gives me a huge injection of endorphins. No other sport can match the unique way momentum can so quickly and dramatically swing, and it is such a thrill when it’s your side that has delivered the counter-attacking blow, produced a moment of brilliance, or simply found some fight in an individual battle they appeared destined to lose.

On so many occasions under this regime, England have swung momentum their way through bravery or brilliance. On occasions, and often in quite bemusing fashion, it’s gone the other way. Regardless, it has been an incredible amount of fun and made every ball an event.

It even happened at Perth. After the meek effort with the bat, which you feared had already condemned England to defeat and set the tone for another failure in Australia, the effort with the ball was as good a collective bowling performance I’ve seen. Suddenly, I was hearing Australian voices fearing this would set the tone for the series and they were condemned to defeat.

When momentum has swung England’s way under McCullum and Stokes’ stewardship, they have more often than not gone in for the kill. Instead, they gifted Australia the majority of their second innings wickets, and the same bowling attack that had looked unplayable 24 hours previously now looked like a Second XI outfit as Travis Head merrily dispatched wayward delivery after wayward delivery to the boundary.

The third and fourth innings performances exposed England’s weakness, but also seemingly left them confused. Outclassed by Australia on the pure basis of skill execution, the lack of strength, conviction and fight that has led to so many momentum shifts since the summer of 2022 meant they never looked like fighting back.

The battling line-up is at its best when playing controlled counter-attacking cricket with conviction. It has defined the incredible backs against the wall run chases in recent years where rapid running scoring has been mixed with control. Instead, they have played nothing shots at balls offering no threat, and seemed both individually and collectively unsure of what their methods should be.

This side has shown you can bat aggressively against excellent bowling attacks without playing recklessly and looking brain dead. Now this side appear confused, unsure whether it’s their natural game or soaking up pressure that is the answer, and have made numerous brain dead decisions. In some cases, concerning technique has been exposed, but it all seemingly stems from muddled messaging, which McCullum seemed to admit after the third test.

The bowlers deserve equal scrutiny. There have been spells where England have been bowled well, but nothing has come close to replicating the efforts of the first day of the series. More often than not, they have been collectively wayward, been punished for it, and had no response.

That their catching, while Marnus Labuschagne takes screamers, has been woeful has hardly helped, but they haven’t really deserved more reward for their efforts. Their waywardness is made even worse when compared to the threat and consistency of, in particular, Mitchell Starc and Scott Boland. Stokes, who has so often bought a game-changing wicket with a clever change to the field, has also looked confused.

Then there is the case of Shoaib Bashir. Groomed for this series based on a perceived skillset that could be developed, that could make him England’s answer to Nathan Lyon, despite barely playing any First Class cricket, and then not used at all. He had to play at Adelaide. Instead, he sat and watched as Lyon built pressure while allowing Pat Cummins to rotate himself and his quicks, and Will Jacks bowled like the part-timer he is.

I have spent large parts of today, and the previous few weeks, reading and digesting the live inquests. But I have found the most revealing comments to be those that were made by McCullum following the defeat in Adelaide. England’s coach, for possibly the first time, not standing by his convictions.

Accepting he got the team’s preparation wrong and the messaging was confused was an unexpected admission, even in embarrassing defeat. Zak Crawley praised Australia’s consistency and Ben Stokes was critical of his side’s performances, but by questioning the methods, McCullum’s self-imposed cloak of invincibility has slipped.

The preparation has angered many, as did the mid-series break. I didn’t necessarily agree that warm-up games against State Second XIs were essential, and I didn’t see an issue with allowing the players to have a break in a long and intense period of cricket, but it was quite clear that, despite three years of planning for this tour, they had not prepared correctly.

Or, at the very least, it appeared they took to the field at Perth not aware what their strategy should be, and how they would manage the threat Australia, and Australian conditions, posed.

The answer to any concerns under this regime has been to double down. It was only against India last summer where some sort of effort was seemingly made to play in a more controlled manner, but they were never too far away from the cricket that had brought about both miracles and catastrophe. Although obvious and enforced, this seems like the first time there has been an acceptance that change is needed.

It’s change that won’t happen in the next month. It’s hard to believe it can get worse, but it’s not 5-0 yet, and it probably will be. But it’s change that has to happen one way or another.

A comment that I have seen frequently over the past month, which I definitely agree with, is that there is so little accountability. Batters who consistently make the same mistakes maintain their place in the side and bizarre selection choices are repeated because Key, McCullum and Stokes continue to back them. Now is the time for individuals and the senior leadership team to be held accountable.

There are players in and around the England team who continue to be involved because they suit a style, and are able to continue to deliver sub-par performances with the occasional excellent performance saving their international career. There has to be a ruthlessness, there has to be a move away from blind faith in convictions, and there has to be some logic behind strategy and selection. The fact England’s answer to the problem at number three, for example, is a 22-year-old with a first-class average less than 30 is… well, odd.

In truth, I supported and held those blind convictions. I backed almost everything this England regime has done, even accepting that, despite being a huge fan of county cricket, maybe they were onto something when selecting on skillset with Australia in mind rather than domestic form was the right way to go. Now I feel betrayed.

There should certainly be change in this England side, and change in the mentality of those who lead it. There are absolutely elements of the last three years that should be clung onto, but this embarrassment in Australia has highlighted so much of it needs to be left behind. The question, of course, is whether the current regime are the ones to deliver that change, or heads need to roll.

First and foremost, Ben Stokes goes nowhere. He’s said he wants to continue, he appears well-liked (although I wonder how Bashir feels after he has been so heavily supported by Stokes for the past few years), and he has earned the right to address his own mistakes. That and the fact that there is no one else who is captaincy material within this England side.

It’s Key and McCullum who will come under pressure, and whose heads are being called for quite widely. I’m not quite sure who Key’s boss is, which is a problem, and I’m not quite sure Key would want to sack McCullum. If 3-0 becomes 5-0 (it probably will), particularly if England show no real competitiveness in the next two tests, the weight of pressure may well do for the Kiwi, if not for Key.

I would, however, be willing to allow the collective trio to show a willingness to change. They will be under immense scrutiny to enforce that change, and for that change to deliver not just in 18 months, but immediately. It’s a gamble: if it goes wrong, Key and those above him are embarrassed, and you’re either in a situation where a change in regime is required 12 months before the 2027 Ashes, or England head into the 2027 Ashes destined for failure.

All of this is being considered without thinking about England’s white ball performances in recent times, and the prospect of the T20 World Cup in February. With that in mind, I don’t think McCullum departs immediately. Maybe it's failure in India and Sri Lanka that makes his position untenable; maybe England win the next two tests, there’s a commitment to change, and both optimism and results return.

I would say at least I can return to a healthy sleep schedule, but I will doubtless be watching events at Melbourne into the early hours on Boxing Day.