A cursory glance at the headlines this series gives the sense that there’s only one side with any agency in the contest. England, playing the game on the edge, straddling the line between courageous and reckless, either the architects of their own victory or downfall. Australia, the passive counterparts whose fate rests entirely on the exploits of their opponents.

If that’s the narrative you want to spin, you can argue that it played out once again today. England swayed between the sublime and the ridiculous. Harry Brook’s performance was perhaps the epitome of that narrative, responsible for the knock of the day and an innings-salvaging partnership but also whose over indulgence not only contributed to his own demise on 85 but also should have seen his downfall on five when Alex Carey dropped a routine catch following a loose drive.

In isolation it looked like England were the sole script-writers. Zak Crawley injudiciously driving on the up, Joe Root chopping on to end a brief but uncharacteristically frantic stay at the crease,  Jonny Bairstow playing looking to feel bat on ball, Moeen Ali totally abandoning caution after picking up a groin injury. Other than Ben Stokes, who not for the first time in his career was comprehensively bowled by Mitchell Starc, England, after providing the entertainment, were responsible for their own downfall.

But those moments didn’t come in isolation; almost all of them came after a building up of pressure. As much as England are trying to change the game, pressure still brings wickets. If anything, that applies to them more than any other team. In their own style, Australia were brave. Pat Cummins was lambasted by sections of the Australia media for his perceived negativity in Manchester after England piled on the runs in record time. But he stuck to his gameplan, one that has largely worked since the series began.

Ever since the first ball of the series, the sight of a deep point at the start of the innings has been described as ‘un-Australian.’ After his 182-ball 189, Crawley even acknowledged the number of boundary riders allows him to pick up singles off good balls prevent the bowlers from lining him up. The posting of a deep point for the first ball of the fifth Test was, in a way, defiant. Ignoring the noise that surrounded their Manchester performance and sticking to the philosophy that brought them so much success in the first two Tests. But it didn’t work first up here. Under leaden skies on a pitch with more than just a tinge of green, England once more raced off to a flier with that deep point allowing for the rotation of strike but rarely preventing the boundary.

[breakout id=”0″][/breakout]

After loose opening bursts from Starc and Hazlewood, there was an early change in tact as deep point was brought into the infield. Starc, looking for the magic ball, served up a rank full toss first ball that was dispatched the boundary. By the end of that over there were three men on the fence. In Starc’s next over, Crawley and Duckett picked up six singles. Was Australia’s passivity playing into England’s hands? Cummins was more flexible here. He was quick to stray from Plan A but even quicker to revert back to it when Plan B didn’t look like working either. The idea to bring the deep point in lasted no more than a few balls.

It was Cummins himself who changed vibe of the match and posed England with a consistent threat for the first time in the match. He should have taken a wicket with his first ball, David Warner dropping a regulation chance at slip. Cummins consistently beat the bat – after perhaps his worst Test of his career, the Australia captain was right back on it. And even with that deep point, the run-scoring, particularly off the blade of Crawley slowed down.

After eight overs in Manchester, Crawley was 17 off 18. Here he was 10 off 20. Australia just bowled better, offering fewer hit-me balls and bowling more balls of genuine threat. Cummins in particular, slamming it down just back of a length, was a constant nuisance. Was it the execution of the plan, rather than the plan itself, that was wrong in Manchester? The difference between the opening few overs here and the ones that followed where England lost 11-3 was the quality of the bowling.

Australia’s other game-changing spell of the day coincided with a period of control. In Manchester, they seldom enjoyed periods of play where England weren’t running riot. The presence of a frontline spinner in Todd Murphy surely helped. When Moeen pressed a button to go from gear one to seven after tweaking his groin, Cummins brought young Murphy into the attack and Murphy dismissed him third ball. Mark Wood was in a similar mood after tea and Murphy once more  made the breakthrough with the third ball of his spell.

Between the dismissals of Moeen and Brook, Australia claimed four wickets for 28 runs over 55 deliveries. Australia’s plan isn’t particularly revolutionary – slow England out of their comfort zone – but it still requires the execution to work. As Duckett got England off to a flier, Australia were loose. With the exception of Moeen’s 10-ball post-injury onslaught, from that point on Australia exerted control. Brook’s partnerships with Stokes and Bairstow saw England score at below three an over.

Just as England have been guilty of going too hard at times this series, Australia have occasionally retreated too far into their restriction-first approach. But just as how with England, it’s the execution and not the plan that goes awry, that applies to Australia, too. Australia are in a prime position to go 3-1 up and secure their first series win in England in a generation. Messrs Ponting, Clarke, Smith and Paine led sides to England and at best returned with a draw. Cummins’ side look good value to outdo the last five touring Australian teams. If they get over the line here, they will have been the architects of their own victory.