I have spoken to England captain Ben Stokes in the immediate aftermath of two defeats on this Ashes tour. The Stokes I encountered after the loss in Brisbane was completely different to the man in front of me following the defeat in Perth. It was clear he had things to say.

Stokes was looking beyond the person holding the microphone and instead speaking to fans at home. There was a clear point he wanted to get across, and he did it very powerfully. To me, the Bazball message is dead.

That does not mean the personnel has to change or regimes need to be swept aside – those decisions will come at the end of the series – but it means there has been a realisation by England that the way in which they play their Test cricket must be altered. The philosophy of Stokes and Brendon McCullum was necessary when they took over the England team in 2022. It was a breath of fresh air. But it was also unsustainable. It was straightforward for good teams to work out.

Somewhere along the way, the rhetoric ran away from England. It got out of control and cost them matches. Now, there is a sense Stokes has observed something in the Australia team. When Stokes said his dressing room is "not a place for weak men", he was making a comparison to the way Australia play their cricket. There are no loose shots, there is a willingness to soak up pressure, to not leave the job to the next man.

However, if Stokes and McCullum are questioning the mindset of the players, they have to look at themselves. Have England got into this situation because of a feeling of pressure or expectation to play in a certain way? When England have fallen in a heap, it is usually because of the batting.

Have the players been able to bat in a way that is comfortable for them, or have they been acting out of an obligation to conform? It is telling Stokes led a common-sense approach on the fourth day of the second Test, alongside Will Jacks. Remember at the beginning of his captaincy, it was Stokes who was striding to the middle, running down the pitch and clothing catches to mid-off. It was the captain showing his team how to play, saying that if he gets out in that fashion, there will be no ramifications for the rest of them.

Now there is the suggestion of a reverse. In one sense, that is encouraging for the rest of this tour and the future of this England team It is also a clear sign that Stokes and McCullum must reflect on the messaging of the past three years.

There is also the issue of the freedom of the players to question each other and the leadership. Is there space for an individual to go against the mantra? Take Harry Brook, as an example. He has got so much talent. He could score thousands and thousands of Test runs. Is anyone taking Brook to one side to discuss the drive he played at Mitchell Starc in the first innings in Brisbane? To say to Brook "that's rubbish, you have let the team down".

If there is not the space in the England dressing room for those conversations to take place, I would say that is as much of a weakness as anything that might take place on the field. The debate will rear its head once more this week, as England spend their time between Tests on a break in Noosa.

In the gap between the first two Tests, none of the XI who played in Perth went to play in the England Lions game in Canberra. I find it so hard to believe that none of the batting unit wanted a hit in the capital. Did they feel able to express that feeling? I understand the need for England to get away from cricket on this tour, but it does not mean I believe they are making the right decision.

In discussing things like planning and preparation, Stokes has often referred to the way things were done on tours of the past. The old-school method would have been to play a tour match against a Country XI - essentially a group of farmers - in a place like Port Pirie. The benefit of that would have been to give those out of form the chance to find it, and for those out of the team the opportunity to press their claims.

Crucially, it would not be one-size-fits-all. If someone had done well in the Tests and felt they wanted a break, it would be permitted. If we were to use the example of Joe Root, who has just scored a hundred in Brisbane, he would go off for a break. Why can't that be the case here?

I find it strange that there is a long break between Tests and the first idea is to play golf, rather than play cricket. In the same way that England need to find adaptability on the field, they have to be adaptable off it. The major concern with this regime is a need to fit in. If a player goes against the grain, they might be out. It is very difficult to lead in that manner, because not everyone is the same.

Eventually, the management will be accountable for their decisions. If Brisbane is a turning point for the way England play their Test cricket, there is a way for Stokes and McCullum to remain in charge. On balance, English cricket is better off with them at the top.

Now we need to see evidence of a change, rather than soundbites from Sunday evening. England have options for Adelaide, albeit not many of them. If Stokes and McCullum are asking for an altered style, do they give the same set of players the opportunity to show they can change? Do they freshen up the team?

Bringing in Jacob Bethell comes with an element of risk. Jamie Smith's form worries me, but the only other wicketkeeping option is Ollie Pope. Whatever England decide, they will be aware of the magnitude of their task. To be 2-0 down with three to play in an Ashes series is incredibly serious. Stokes knows there are jobs, careers and reputations on the line. That is what he will be saying to his players.