2-1 up. Nobody saw that coming. Perhaps we never do.

A lifetime of following the fortunes of the England cricket team has been instrumental in forming my world-view, and I’m all-too-aware that – in life, in cricket – pessimism and realism are all-too-often one and the same.

The nature and scale of the defeat at Lord’s was enough to fear the worst, and the changes made to the team didn’t inspire confidence. Sure, Bairstow was in the form of his life, but he hadn’t been facing anything quite like Mitchell Johnson. Was Ian Bell’s worrying form a blip or terminal decline, and how would moving to three help? And Steven Finn – unselectable not so long ago – was something of a risk as a replacement for Mark Wood.

Then Australia won the toss. All over. Whoever wins the toss wins the game.

I’m not sure what was more remarkable about what happened next: England’s display, or the durability of English pessimism. The latter withstood Australia being skittled for 136. It held firm when England ended Day 1 just three runs behind with seven wickets in hand. It felt justified when Johnson bombed out Bairstow and Ben Stokes. Mooen Ali and Stuart Broad put on 87, England led by 145 on first innings, yet pessimism prevailed. At close of play on Day 2, Australia were effectively 23-7, and yet we were still nervous. How many would you be happy to chase? It’s got Trent Bridge 2005 written all over it, and I’m not sure I can stand a repeat of the unbearable tension.

If ever proof were needed that pessimism is at the very core of the kind of Englishness that is associated with the national cricket team. 23-7, for crying out loud.

But if the cap fits…

It’s no baggy green. Australians wouldn’t have fretted if fortunes had been reversed. History has it that Australia expect to win, and England hope to win. But that is to ignore recent history. Sure, very recent history is fairly traumatic – whitewashes tend to be – but a broadening of perspective should inspire confidence among England fans. Australia haven’t won an away Ashes series since 2001. Since Lord’s in 2005, Australia have won just one Test in England – at Headingley in 2009. Ryan Harris has retired. Michael Clarke perhaps should have.

But forget that. Forget 23-7. They are Australia. He is Mitchell Johnson. We are England. In terms of expectations, we are forever stuck in the 1990s.

It’s 1-1 with three to play. We’d have taken that, for sure. Now is not the time for knee-jerk reactions.

Something, however, has to be done. England can’t keep being 40-3 and expect to win Test matches. An incredibly talented middle order cannot always ride to the rescue.

The first problem is the opening partnership. While it is heartening to see Alastair Cook back to his best, the search for Andrew Strauss’ successor goes on. It’s worth remembering that Strauss retired as far back as 2012. Since then, Nick Compton, Michael Carberry, Sam Robson and Jonathan Trott have all failed to convince, and the jury is still out on Adam Lyth. Just four Tests into his international career, it is too early for any conclusions. We might be closer to a conclusion – and Lyth himself might be slightly more comfortable in the role – had the selectors picked him in the West Indies. But they didn’t, and the lack of any credible replacements means that they will (and should) persevere with him.

Whether the same can be said for Gary Ballance and Ian Bell is less clear. Michael Vaughan has for some time advocated swapping them in the order to bring variety to a left-hand-heavy top order. There is also a case to be made for Joe Root moving to three. Perhaps the strongest case of all is being made by Jonny Bairstow. While England were folding meekly at Lord’s yesterday, the Yorkshireman was compiling another hundred. This season, he now has 906 runs at an average of 100.66 in the first division of the County Championship. He must bat at five, replacing one of Ballance or Bell and necessitating a rejig in the order. Or, more radically, Bairstow could keep wicket and Jos Buttler could bat at five.

You know the saying: form is temporary, class is permanent. Both Ballance and Bell have history to suggest a certain class. Bell has 22 Test centuries to his name, and almost single-handedly won the 2013 Ashes, while Ballance is the reigning ICC Young Player of the Year. But nothing lasts forever. Both are really struggling this year, particularly since returning from the West Indies.

Bell’s struggles stretch back further – almost as far back as Ballance’s trigger movement. The question is whether his current form is a blip or terminal decline. Since his glorious summer of 2013, he has averaged 28.48 with just two centuries. If the time afforded to Cook is any kind of precedent, Bell will be given forever to prove his class. Unlike Cook, however, it is much harder to assess Bell’s form. Sure, he is not producing the runs, but he doesn’t look to be hopelessly out of form. He bats with an easy elegance that extends to the way he gets out. With Ballance, as well as being an issue of form and confidence, it is whether he has been found out. Left-armers bowling full and straight would say he has.

Perhaps it is worth examining the two batsmen’s contributions to the first Test at Cardiff. On the face of it, Ballance’s 61 in the first innings and Bell’s 60 in the second look similar. Both were equally useful contributions to England’s surprisingly comprehensive win, but, while Bell’s innings appeared to be a return to the fluid, effortless brilliance of yore, Ballance batted like a nightwatchman. True, his stonewalling – reminding me of a left-handed Matthew Hoggard – was the perfect foil for Root’s punchy counterattacking, but it hardly filled me with confidence that England had a truly world-class number three. I’m sure the sight of Ballance – roots in his boots, shoelaces tied together – doesn’t unduly worry the Australians. It may have worked in the past – and may yet work again – but hopping back in the crease doesn’t seem to fit with England’s Brave New World.

There is also a personal reason for choosing Bell over Ballance. I’ve always identified with the idea that his confidence isn’t commensurate with his talent. Aside from that 2013 Ashes, Bell has been somewhat of a slipstream player, coasting along in the wake of other’s success or surrendering along with the rest of them in tough times. Even when there isn’t money on it (cheers, Colin), I still find myself willing Bell to succeed.

The fact that the next Test is at Edgbaston should also work in Bell’s favour, and it must be hoped that the pitch will prove more helpful to England’s bowlers. Quietly, Stuart Broad is bowling as well as he ever has, as 4-83 on the featheriest of all beds in the first innings at Lord’s attests. Sadly, it seems England are more worried by what Mitchell Johnson and co are capable of than what their own bowlers might achieve. As it is, if the pitches remain so lifeless, then England needn’t worry overly as to the make up of the team, instead praying that the toss is won. The toss of a coin could be used to decide which of Ballance or Bell is dropped, but I know who I’d choose.