Aggression is not always the answer when England have to ‘bat time’, writes James Taylor

Despite that, England were bowled out for 133 in 44.2 overs. It was as though the players did not trust themselves to bat for two days, so they went on the attack instead.

So are these players capable of getting their heads down, of batting time? I think so — but because they are always encouraged to be positive, they are probably less inclined to do so. You will never see England bat through a day and score only 250, whatever the circumstances.

I love watching these guys play shots, because it is entertaining — but it is not always the right way to bat. If you’re trying to bat time on a placid pitch, you can be aggressive but that doesn’t mean trying to hit over the top and being caught in the deep. You can hit the ball hard along the ground, for four. That way, you push the field back but you don’t risk giving away your wicket. Play low-risk, high-reward cricket.

At The Oval, they have to apply themselves better and show some guts. It is as simple as that. People may wonder if the rise of Twenty20 has changed the attitude of international batsmen, but it should not. Yes, you can make serious money in the Indian Premier League, but only a handful of England players are picked up by the franchises.

It is understandable why a county cricketer might prioritise the Twenty20 game to improve his chances of earning a contract in one of the big competitions around the world, but England players make very good money from central contracts and a significant proportion of that comes from playing Test cricket. The best players can adapt to any format or any situation — and they shouldn’t take their eye off trying to become the best possible Test player they can.

We all love watching exciting cricket. We love to watch batsmen going at a run a ball in Tests, or seeing them play ramp shots, switch hits and reverse flicks in the limited-overs game. It’s fantastic. But you still need the other side of the game.

When the going gets tough in the middle, it is far easier to play a few shots and risk getting out than it is to bide your time and wear down the bowling attack.

Sometimes, though, that is the most rewarding way to play. If they find themselves in trouble this week, hopefully England will show what they’re made of.

We’re missing Woakes… but he musn’t be rushed back

Chris Woakes's return cannot come soon enough for England because he brings such balance to the team.

With Woakes as the first-change bowler, the attack immediately looks stronger. He had a superb year in Test cricket in 2016, taking 41 wickets at 25.4 apiece and establishing himself as a vital member of the side.

His batting is valuable, too. If you have Woakes coming in at No8 or even No9, the line-up suddenly looks much stronger. He scored two Test fifties last year and ended up averaging nearly 31 — excellent numbers for a lower-order batsman.

Woakes has not played international cricket since he damaged his intercostal muscle in the first game of the Champions Trophy, against Bangladesh on June 1. I can appreciate that he will be desperate to get back but England have to be cautious.

They need Woakes to be 100 per cent for the Ashes. If that means he misses this series, so be it. When England walk out at the Gabba on November 23, they’ll need their best XI and they need them fully fit.

I have spoken before about young, England-qualified bowlers in the county game but the Curran brothers, Tom and Sam, continue to impress me for Surrey. If Woakes, Ben Stokes, Stuart Broad and Jimmy Anderson are the key pace bowlers today, I expect Tom and Sam to play international cricket regularly in the future.

Tom’s 22 and has already made his England debut and despite being only 19, Sam won’t be too far behind. In terms of skill, knowledge and nerve, they are ahead of most other young bowlers I’ve seen.