Are England actually honest with themselves? If they are, they’ll know they have to change | Mark Ramprakash

It’s not over yet. There is still hope. Before the Ashes started I had plenty of it, because of England’s fantastic array of fast bowlers and because I felt they had improved on their crash‑bang‑wallop, one-size‑fits‑all approach to batting. Then the series got under way, and while the bowlers did their bit, the batters failed badly. After the two-day humiliation in Perth they are inevitably under the microscope – but while everyone is questioning England’s approach, how much are they challenging themselves? I based my optimism on some of what I had seen over the summer. In the first innings against India at Lord’s Joe Root and Ollie Pope put on 109 runs at almost exactly three an over, staying calm and building a foundation that eventually won their side the match. I watched that and admired the way they had refined their attitude, becoming more adaptable to the match situation, the surfaces they were playing on and the challenges presented by the opposition – in that case, in particular, the need to negate the brilliant Jasprit Bumrah. Related: England can’t change now: Bazball approach must be seen through to its conclusion | Taha Hashim I thought that India series, five tough matches against excellent opposition, would have really helped prepare the side for the Ashes. This England team have absolutely battered some teams, who haven’t been able to cope with their quality and their approach, but in their most recent Test series they faced a group that had the resilience and the skill to cope with it – ideal preparation for what they were going to face in Australia. Then they won the toss in Perth, chose to bat, came out and got absolutely mauled by Mitchell Starc. The emotional intelligence, the situational awareness, that impressed me at times over the summer was nowhere to be seen. Instead England, pumped up on adrenaline and the desire to “put the bowlers under pressure”, surrendered to their attacking instincts. To some degree I can understand it: on a pitch with pace, bounce and movement, a lot of players will feel the need to be proactive, feeling that sooner or later they’ll get a ball with their name on it. But in that second innings none of Pope, Root or Harry Brook faced that killer delivery: they were all out driving away from their body, at balls that were a good length. Australia cannot have believed how easy it was. After the match Ben Stokes said he thought the players who made runs on that wicket had been very proactive, and to an extent he was right – Travis Head certainly had been in his match-winning knock. But sometimes you’re up against good bowling on a helpful pitch and you just need to get through it. A team that never want to back off, that just keep throwing the bat, will find their approach pays off on some days, and on others leads to complete meltdown. At times it feels their approach is a total lottery, and not one you would expect from an elite, winning side. England were very vocal about getting matches into players before this series, and I thought their chances of winning the Ashes were really boosted by the fact they look a very settled unit – nine or 10 players in that team pretty much pick themselves. They have the experience, the continuity of selection, and they have a lot of quality. So how did it all go so wrong? When it came to it, they seemed to get dragged into this gladiatorial thing, where they walked into the arena, with all this noise and hype, and felt they had to go out from the start and show Australia that they felt no fear, that they were going to play their own game, and that it would be better than anyone else’s. Every batter in that team has been selected because they are very aggressive. No one with any other method – and there are some brilliant batters who have had great success in the County Championship and been completely ignored – has a chance of getting in. So what happens when aggression is not the best approach? In my experience the best teams have a blend of batters. It’s great to have someone who can take the game away from the opposition very quickly, but you also need people who are capable of playing an innings over many hours, or even many sessions. Stokes and Root have both played that kind of innings in the past, but now seem to prefer a different approach. Stokes always talks about blocking out the external noise … The thing is, sometimes that’s bloody difficult The thing is, from 105 ahead and one wicket down, the position they found themselves in just after lunch on the second day, the aggressive option is to be completely ruthless. One way to do that is to attack, and there are occasions when that is the right approach. One other way, which has been accepted for about 150 years, is to give nothing away, provide no encouragement, be remorseless, and bat yourselves into complete dominance. They are both ways of putting the bowlers under pressure. The pitch was getting better, the ball was getting older, several of their opponents appeared to be injured – what an opportunity, in the first Test of the series, to make a statement. But the world of cricket has seen how England play, and Australia knew there was no need to panic – they would probably just get themselves out. At Lord’s in the 2023 Ashes they just kept bowling short and batter after batter fell into their trap. In Perth they went wide of off stump and it happened again. England’s batters wanted to keep going at five an over and within half an hour they’d lost the match. Now they have to use this extended break before the second Test. They may not be using it to get match practice, but they must take this opportunity for reflection. They have to be completely honest with themselves. It’s hard to know how much of this actually goes on within that batting unit, because when he speaks in public Stokes always talks about blocking out the external noise, doubling down, knocking them off their lengths, being proactive. The thing is, sometimes that’s bloody difficult. Something has to change over the next 10 days, because if the pink ball moves around at the Gabba in the second Test they’ll be faced with the same situation, and the same answers are likely to produce the same outcome. And then it surely will be over.