LAWRENCE BOOTH: England had Australia where they wanted them

It seems almost pointless applying the usual logic to Ben Stokes’s Test team, except to say that moments before Joe Root was stumped off Nathan Lyon at around 12.15pm, England had Australia where they wanted them – Bazball or otherwise.

Three and a half hours later, they did not, despite a late rally from the tail. The Australians needed 281 to win a Test in which they have clung on thanks to a combination of their fighting spirit and England’s generosity.

History says teams don’t often chase that many, but this is a slow, lifeless surface, and Test cricket seems more prone these days to the grand gesture, partly because white-ball teams knock off such targets for fun.

And so, as Usman Khawaja and David Warner launched Australia’s pursuit with a stand of 61, the social-media inquest began. Where England might have nabbed an extra 40 runs here, or saved another 80 there? Jonny Bairstow or Ben Foakes? Ollie Robinson or, well, Ricky Ponting?

Not all of it was hindsight. When Stokes declared on the first evening at 393 for eight, it was not hard to find ex-pros in the media centre – former England captain Alastair Cook among them – who questioned his wisdom.

Ben Stokes’ declaration left plenty – pundits and fans alike – questioning his wisdom

England had Australia where they wanted the until Joe Root was stumped – then, they did not

There has been sense that England had it coming to them when they struggled with the bat, however they remain in the match

Equally, it was fair to point out that England’s sloppiness on the second day had cost them the chance to take control. All told, Bairstow’s missed stumping off Cameron Green and dropped catch off Alex Carey, plus Stuart Broad’s no-ball to Khawaja, had boosted Australia’s first innings by 107.

When Bairstow failed to swoop in the first over of their second, to collect a Khawaja edge off Jimmy Anderson, the tally grew. The contrast with Carey’s glovework was hard to ignore.

But there was also a sense – and not just among Australians – that England had this coming, that Bazball has played fast and loose with convention, that their high-octane antics would at some stage regress to the mean.

Nonsense, of course, but Test-match orthodoxy is so ingrained in so many that the ‘I told you so’ brigade are always lurking and easily triggered.

It is worth remembering where England were last year, and how far they have come. During Joe Root’s last 17 Tests in charge, they won once – a sequence that would have shamed Bangladesh. Since Stokes took over, they have won 11 out of 13, often in thrilling fashion. One of their two defeats was by a single run.

More than that, Stokes has done things few captains would dream of, not least declaring at Rawalpindi to set Pakistan 343 in four sessions on a featherbed.

Perhaps most tellingly, he has obliged Australia to take a backwards step. All the pre-game talk was about how Pat Cummins’s team might respond to England, not vice versa. And when Cummins posted a deep point for the first ball of the series, only to be thrashed through extra cover by Zak Crawley, it was clear Australia were the ones straying from their usual plans.

Criticism of the declaration, too, ignored the premium Stokes has placed on entertainment. If you’re grumbling that he’s given the other team a sniff, you’ve probably missed the point.

Looking at where England are now compared to when Stokes took over provides a stark contrast

There has, it’s true, been a wastefulness to some of England’s cricket.

Had any one of Root, Harry Brook or Ben Stokes converted their 40 into even a 70, Australia would have been chasing over 300. Had Bairstow not kept wicket like a man returning from a serious leg injury, or Moeen Ali not put his blistered spinning finger through the kind of punishment he thought was in the past, that target might have been even higher.

And yet. Root might not have got to 46 without carte blanche to play the reverse-scoop, which along with the sweep and reverse-sweep has brought him 1,194 Test runs – more than anyone.

If you are not entertained by the game and what Brendon McCullum (left) and Ben Stokes (right) are doing, then cricket may not be for you

Brook might not have got to 46 without using his feet with impunity to hit spinners and seamers alike over extra cover. And Stokes, searching for form, might have not have reached 43 without the audacity to run at Cummins and flay him past mid-on.

You can’t marvel about the good stuff in Bazball, then moan when it doesn’t come off. You can’t revel in the adventure, then regret the recklessness.

And as Broad removed Marnus Labuschagne and Steve Smith in Birmingham’s Monday-evening sunshine, and the Hollies Stand erupted, it was tempting to borrow from Russell Crowe’s Maximus in Gladiator, and ask: are you not entertained?

If you’re not – and regardless of the result on Tuesday – cricket may not be the sport for you.