England's decision to field three frontline bowlers has been met with criticism by fans and pundits- rightly so as well.
The experiment in Ireland failed - William Porterfield hit a century as the hosts posted a high score, England saved themselves with the bat that day.
So why then would the selectors pick a very similar XI with the same bowlers that failed in Malahide?
With Steven Finn, James Tredwell and the inexperienced Boyd Rankin you have a consistent 30 overs of accurate bowling.
But what about the other 20 overs; that's a big chunk of the innings that are bowled by part-timers Ben Stokes, Ravi Bopara and Joe Root.
It allows Australia in those 20 overs to set up a platform in the rest of the innings as well as the chance to heave some boundaries.
For example, Both Stokes and Bopara bowled before Tredwell who has always been reliable for England, that meant the batsman were allowed to settle down and be more expansive against Tredwell who suffered.
It reflected in Australia's 300 plus total.
Yes, because of the bowling mistakes made it tough for the batsman but i also felt the batting line-up was disjointed and looked as though it hadn't been thought through.
It was as if there was a role-reversal of earlier in the summer when it was Australia who had the unsettled line-up.
Kevin Pietersen, usually in the middle order, was opening despite the presence of test opener Joe Root who was down at number four.
Stokes was down at eight when he usually bats much higher for Durham.
It just seemed like a rushed, jumbled line-up.
For too long there has been a feeling that the ECB are so stubborn and aren't prepared to admit they are wrong until its too late, something needs to change.
Write for GiveMeSport! Sign-up to the GMS Writing Academy here: http://gms.to/130seMa