England Are Built for Their Best Days. Australia Win on Their Worst.

by Nitesh Mathur | Jan 16, 2026 | Analysis, Article Index

In his 8th Test, Zak Crawley scored 267. By himself.

Ollie Pope was the Player of the Match in South Africa in just his 6th Test, scoring 135* and taking six catches.

Jamie Smith took Test cricket by storm with scores of 70, 95, 111, 67, 89, 40, 44*, 184, 88, 51 in his first year, batting in the lower order.

Ben Stokes once scored 258 runs at 130.3 SR in South Africa. On a good, he wins you Test matches single-handedly. On a great day, he wins you World Cups.

Harry Brook is already England’s next big start with 10 tons at 26, and Ben Duckett pioled up 462 runs against India not too long ao.

England don’t lack talent. This batting line up is designed to look unbeatable on their best days.

The problem is…this team is built only for those days. At the slightest hint of discomfort, it falls apart.

The Argument: England Optimized for Their Best Days, Not the Non-Ideal Ones

I have been trying to build habits for the last couple of years: going to the gym, eating healthy, reading. Some stick. Most vanish within a few months.

It finally dawned on me why I was not consistent. I was trying to optimize for my ideal day—getting up early, meditating, coming home, hitting the gym, cooking, writing, reading, all while sleeping at a reasonable hour.

The moment I stayed a little later at work, my ideal day completely fell apart. Come home, eat junk, watch TV, go to sleep.

This reminded me of a point James Clear from Atomic Habits highlighted on the Huberman Lab podcast last week:

“Don’t have enough time? Do the short version. Don’t have enough energy, do the easy version. Find a way to show up, not put up a zero for that day because doing something is almost always infinitely better than doing nothing.”

England optimized for their peak. On their best days, they could chase record 4th innings totals. On their worst, they simply didn’t show up.

Also Read: What is Bazball? The Official Definition of Bazball is…

Crawleys, Ollies, and a Whole Lot of Dropped Dollies

In the first two Tests, England lasted just 32.5, 34.4, 76.2, and 75.2 overs. The Ashes was lost then and there.

Ben Duckett managed only 221 balls across all ten of his innings.

Zak Crawley was dismissed in the first over three times, and twice more within the first five. Even though he had a couple of decent innings later, the opening partnership never gave England enough time at the crease.

Ollie Pope started positively but was dropped after the 3rd Test, having survived just 189 balls at an average of 20.83.

Jamie Smith’s horrendous shot, Will Jacks’ dropped catch, the list goes on. At least Stokes fought, but even he ended up a walking wicket by the end of the series.

Why Australia Win the Big Moments

This was supposed to be the worst Australian team of the decade. And maybe it was. No Hazlewood, Cummins barely played, Lyon hobbled out of the series.

And yet, they still found a way to get the job done.

In the first Test, Australia were 83/6. Carey and Starc did the bare minimum and hung around for 35 runs to take the total to 132. Enough to swing momentum back to Australa.

Weatherald and Labuschagne did not set the series on fire. Yet they batted 288 and 404 balls respectively. On his worst days, Labuschagne took screamers at slip and plucked wickets before lunch bowling his Dibbly Dobblies. Khawaja, out of form, batting out of place, sidelined by golf injury & controversy, with risk of a mid-series career-end, came back to score crucial knocks of 82 & 40 at Adelaide.

Even Scotty Boland wasn’t at his accurate best, yet he and his fellow 35-year old pacers, Neser and Starc, maintained their fitness level and discipline through the series.

Add in-form players, Mitchell Starc, Steve Smith, Alex Carey, Beau Webster, and Travis Head, and you’ve got a world-beating, Ashes-conquering side.

Commentators say Australia won the ‘big moments.’ I say, they just did the bare minimum, and England crumbled under pressure.

The Australian Test team managed to show up. They did not put up a Zero even on their worst days.

The Counter Argument: Fortune Favors the Brave

It is easy to criticize this England side through the lens of recency bias.

England’s peak from 2010-12 was built on a simple formula: The grit of Cook-Strauss-Trott at the top, with the KPs and Bells to capitalize further down. It worked brilliantly.

In the following decade, England tried to replicate this strategy without much success. Stoneman, Carberry, Compton, Lees, Hameed, Malan, Vince, Sibley, Denly, Burns. A revolving door with the same result.

And so, the pendulum swung the other way. England overcorrected.

Fortune favors the brave. Eoin Morgan showed it can be done in limited overs cricket, so why not try that out? Surely, it can’t be any worse than 68/10 at MCG in 2022, right?

The Compromise: England Needs an Insurance Policy

So, where do England go from here?

The easy answer: England needs more Joe Roots, players who can adapt to Bazball on their best days, but have an inner Cook-ball when the situation demands.

But that’s easier said than done. County Cricket does not produce dozens of Joe Roots anymore.

What England need is an insurance policy. A compromise blending the old and the new. Think Sehwag-Dravid, Smith-Amla, Langer-Hayden, Fleming-Astle, partnership-builders alongside dominators.

Even when Crawley scored 267, Burns and Sibley had dented the swing threat for 27 balls. When Pope scored 135, Joe Denly batted exactly 100 balls, Sibley 95, and Crawley scored 44 (137). Stokes, meanwhile, had the advantage of a 55.3-over old ball when he came in to bat before his 258.

A strong batting line-up needs all sorts of characters.

I am not suggesting that England go back to Sibley-Burns. That experiment has failed, but the Crawley-Duckett-Pope experiment has not delivered either.

Crawley averages 31.98 in FC cricket, 31.18 in Test cricket, 32.22 in the preceding India series, and 27.30 in the Ashes. Is that the standard England want to settle for? Is flamboyance more important than victories?

Also Read: Ranking England’s 65 Greatest Cricketers of All Time (Men’s)

Why Don’t England Succeed for Long Periods of Time?

On the TalkSport podcast, host Jon Norman asks Jarrod Kimber and ‘Bumble’ a deceptively simple question, “Why is that England don’t maintain their success for long?”

Apart from the 1950s, there is not a single period of Test cricket dominance in their cricketing history unlike the West Indies of the 80s, Australia of the 2000s, or the current Indian age. They show glimmers of brilliance—think Ashes 2005, the 2010-12 era, and the early days of Bazball.

The pattern is clear: England’s peaks come when everything falls into place, but they lack a backup plan on their ‘bad days.’ As James Clear says,

“In a lot of ways, the bad days are more important the good days…What can I stick to even on the bad days, and that becomes the baseline. That’s where you start from, and then on the good days, you have got capacity to go ahead and ramp it up.”

High ceilings are useless without a floor, and that is why long-term success has always eluded them. Hopefully, England management recognizes this and can harness the talents of Jacob Bethell, Asa Tribe, and James Rew to build that floor for future Test dominance.

****

On a personal note, this year I am optimizing my schedule for non-ideal days. Too early to say if this system is working better to build habits, but I am definitely more consistent now than without this mindset.

Thank you for reading.

BCD#407 © Copyright @Nitesh Mathur and Broken Cricket Dreams, LLC 2023. Originally published on 01/16/2026. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Broken Cricket Dreams with appropriate and specific direction to the original content (i.e. linked to the exact post/article).