Nightwatchman would not have halted England's crime wave

A day that had promised much for England was suddenly rendered "a massive disappointment," in the words of their assistant coach, Paul Farbrace.

Facing the prospect of reaching stumps with just three wickets down, two set batsmen at the crease and with realistic expectations of a total in excess of 400, England lost two men in the final seven deliveries of the day to leave them facing a battle to reach even 300. And, on a surface on which Dawid Malan reckoned 450 might be around par, that is likely to be deeply insufficient.

England's problem is not just the loss of late wickets. It is not just the sense that they squandered a day of hard work with a loose final few moments.

It is the knowledge that, when the second day starts, their diplodocus-length tail - Tom Curran is so high at No. 8 you wonder if he needs the help of oxygen and a Sherpa - is protected only by Malan, who continues to bat with calm and class, and Moeen Ali, who looks horribly short of form and confidence. There is a real danger that 228 for 3 - the score before Joe Root was out - could become 275 all out.

There will, no doubt, be talk of Jonny Bairstow's decision not to utilise a nightwatchman. And it is true that Malan admitted to being "surprised" when Bairstow walked out to bat with nine deliveries left in the day's play. He had been offered the option of a nightwatchman and Mason Crane, on debut, was padded up and ready to go.

"I'd always have a nightwatchman," Malan said. "Good on Bairstow for backing himself. It takes guts to go against what normal people normally do."

But that decision is a red herring. England's issue is not the decision to forgo a nightwatchman - that might be considered the responsible, brave and logical thing to do - but the fact that their batsmen continue to make the same errors without either learning or suffering the consequence.

Mark Stoneman, for example, was caught as he fenced at one he need not have played. James Vince, who had looked a fine player, was caught behind moments after a drinks' break and Root failed to turn an excellent start into a match-defining innings. All those descriptions could be prefaced with word "again." England aren't learning; they are repeating.

So it wasn't Bairstow's decision to bat ahead of Crane that was the problem. After all, Crane has a top first-class score of just 29 and would have been confronted by a high-class, high-speed attack armed with a new ball. It was Bairstow's decision to attempt to push firmly at a ball - a new ball - in the final over of the day.

It was a fine delivery that drew the stroke - Josh Hazlewood went wide of the crease and persuaded the ball to leave the batsman just a fraction - but Test bowlers will bowl fine deliveries. Sometimes they can be defended rather than batsmen feeling they need to demonstrate their positivity.

"It sort of sums up where we've been on this tour," Malan said. "We've been on top, then we make mistakes and let them back in."

While the England camp have tended to overplay the extent to which they have dominated sessions of play - they could have been asked to follow-on in Adelaide, for example, and they were pulverised in Perth - it is true that there have been moments when they have shown they can compete.

But the fact is, England's top-four have just one century between them in the series. Two of the top three average under 30 in the series and, midway through their 12th and eighth Tests respectively, Vince and Stoneman have averages of 22.94 and 29.33 respectively. Vince has made two half-centuries in 19 innings and Stoneman has a top-score of 56 in 13. They are desperately fortune to be playing in this age of patient selectors.

It is true that both have, at times, shown glimpses of the class to suggest they can thrive. But glimpses won't do and nor will half-centuries. Ultimately, players have to be judged by how their performances shape and define games and both Vince and Stoneman are doing just enough to survive but nowhere near enough to help their team win. Like visiting a casino, they offer just enough wins to keep you gambling but nowhere near enough to challenge the truism: the house also wins.

Despite that, it seems both men will be selected for the New Zealand Tests. And it is true that continuity of selection is hugely preferable to the panic-driven selections of the 1980s. There aren't obviously compelling alternatives for the top-order positions, either.

But it also seems to be true that, by continuing to select such players with such records, England are accepting mediocrity. Twelve Tests is not a small sample size; an average of 22 is not good enough for a No. 3. England are losing anyway and, in the shape of Haseeb Hameed, Liam Livingstone, Dan Lawrence and Joe Clarke, they have other options.

Nothing that happened on the first day in Sydney should surprise anyone. And that is a damning indictment of the lack of improvement and development within this England team. It is increasingly hard to avoid the conclusion that, for all their glimpses of snatches of promise, they're going nowhere.