What Went Wrong for England in the Ashes: Lessons from the Adelaide Test
The third Test at Adelaide, which confirmed Australia’s retention of the The Ashes, did more than extend a dominant scoreline. It provided a clear, condensed example of the patterns that have defined England’s struggles across the series. England were competitive for long stretches, resisted collapse, and even threatened to stretch the game deep into the final day. Yet despite that resistance, control consistently remained with Australia. Understanding why requires looking beyond moments and into how key phases of the match were managed.
This analysis uses the Adelaide Test as a reference point to examine the structural and tactical reasons England fell short — not what happened, but why it kept happening.
1. Early-Innings Damage and the Compression Effect
England’s recurring problem in the series has been the loss of early wickets, and Adelaide followed the same pattern. In both innings, England were reduced to three or four wickets down before the game had settled. While none of these collapses were dramatic, their impact was cumulative.
The key issue is compression of innings time. When early wickets fall, middle-order batters are forced into extended periods of consolidation. Instead of shaping the innings, they spend energy stabilising it. At Adelaide, this meant that England’s most technically sound players — Joe Root, Harry Brook, and Ben Stokes — were repeatedly batting under scoreboard pressure rather than with freedom. Australia, by contrast, consistently reached the middle overs with wickets in hand, allowing their batters to choose when to accelerate.
2. Bowling Wickets Without Containment
England’s bowling figures suggest moments of success. Jofra Archer and Josh Tongue both took key wickets, and Australia were dismissed twice. The deeper issue, however, was what happened between those wickets.
Australia scored freely even while losing partners. Their run rate rarely dropped below four an over for sustained periods, which diluted the impact of England’s breakthroughs. This exposed a tactical gap: England struggled to apply prolonged squeeze phases once the ball softened. Without that containment, Australia’s lower order was able to add runs that quietly pushed the game out of reach.
Test matches are often won not by how many wickets are taken, but by how expensive the wickets become. At Adelaide, Australia consistently ensured their dismissals came at a cost.
3. Middle-Order Continuity vs Fragmented Contributions
Australia’s batting success at Adelaide was built on continuity rather than dominance. Alex Carey’s match-defining contributions were not isolated flashes but part of longer partnerships that extended England’s time in the field. These stands allowed Australia to reset after losing wickets and prevented England from building momentum.
England’s batting, by contrast, was fragmented. There were valuable individual efforts — Stokes’ first-innings 83, Crawley’s 85, Jamie Smith’s 60 — but they rarely overlapped. Partnerships either came too late or ended just as control was beginning to form. This meant England were always responding to the game rather than shaping it.
4. The Fourth-Innings Chase: When Time Becomes the Primary Opponent
Chasing 435 was always a severe challenge, but England’s approach revealed a deeper pattern seen throughout the series. The intent was measured and disciplined, but the loss of key wickets during the middle phase of the innings proved decisive.
Zak Crawley showed that runs were available for batters willing to commit time, but once Root and Brook were dismissed, England’s ability to manage both spin and pace diminished. From that point onward, survival became the priority, and scoring options narrowed. Australia were able to slow the game, rotate bowlers effectively, and wait for errors rather than force them.
The chase ultimately became a test of endurance rather than calculation — a situation that favoured the side already in control.
5. Game Management and Role Clarity
One of the clearest differences between the teams was how clearly Australia defined roles across innings. Their bowling changes were phase-based rather than reactive, with Nathan Lyon often used to control tempo rather than chase wickets. This allowed pressure to build gradually and forced England into mistakes rather than gifts.
England’s bowling rotations, while energetic, often followed events rather than anticipating them. When pressure began to ease, there was rarely a clear plan to reassert control. Over a five-day match, this difference in clarity becomes magnified.
6. Overlooked Insight: Fielding Placement as a Pressure Tool
A subtle but important factor often overlooked is Australia’s use of defensive fielding as an attacking strategy. Rather than crowding batters constantly, Australia frequently set fields that limited scoring options while keeping catching positions in play. This forced England’s batters into low-risk, low-reward patterns that extended innings without significantly altering the scoreboard.
England, by contrast, often alternated between attacking fields and spread-out containment without fully committing to either. This inconsistency allowed Australian batters to rotate strike more freely and avoid prolonged dot-ball pressure. Over long spells, this quiet difference in field management played a meaningful role in shifting control.
Conclusion: A Series Lost in the Margins
The Adelaide Test illustrated that England’s Ashes struggles were not rooted in a lack of effort or intent. They fought hard, avoided collapse, and extended the game deep into the fifth day. What separated the sides was consistency in execution. Australia managed key phases more effectively, extracted greater value from small advantages, and maintained clarity in how they approached both batting and bowling.
England’s challenge was not the absence of competitive moments, but the inability to sustain them. In Test cricket, especially in an Ashes series, control accumulated over time is often more decisive than isolated brilliance. At Adelaide, that reality was once again laid bare.