One of the beauties of a five-Test tussle is it allows a team to chisel away at small weaknesses. Imperceptibly, these can then morph into something that drags a side down over the course of a series.

For all Australia’s formidable fast bowlers and the multifarious skills of Nathan Lyon, there is a lone foible with their bowling attack: the absence of a genuine fifth bowling option. Given how the rest of the series has transpired, this could almost be considered England’s sole major advantage over Australia, with even Jofra Archer’s magnificence at least equalled by the combined venom of Australia’s pace bowling options.

While Ben Stokes’s batting is increasingly more important to England than his bowling, Australia’s second innings provided another reminder of his qualities as a fifth bowler. Rather than merely be used as a change-up option, Stokes is a fifth bowler who possesses a genuine wicket-taking threat. He has taken 135 wickets in his Test career, including two six-wicket hauls in the Ashes.

Stokes also has the stamina to cover up for failings, or injuries, elsewhere in the bowling attack. In Australia’s second innings, he effectively bowled a spell of 13.2 overs - broken only for four balls by Jofra Archer bowling until hobbling off. This combination of his skill moving the ball around, and his own sheer force of will, at least helped to limit Australia to 246 in their second innings.

Ben Stokes is a fifth bowler who possesses a genuine wicket-taking threat credit: AFP

Historically, Australia have rarely possessed such an allrounder. But the perennially mocked Shane Watson played 59 Tests for Australia, ending with a better batting average than Andrew Flintoff and only slightly worse bowling average. Such figures conceal as much as they reveal, of course, but Watson’s unstinting parsimony liberated the rest of Australia’s bowlers to attack in shorter spells, knowing that he could be relied upon to help Australia maintain control.

Even in the 2013/14 Ashes, remembered for the devastating cocktail of Mitchell Johnson and Ryan Harris, Watson contributed importantly with the ball. He yielded just 2.55 an over throughout the series - so that, on the rare occasions England got through Johnson and Harris, they did not need to be rushed back into the attack - while snaring four wickets.

The dynamics of this series ought to have intensified the importance of such unobtrusive contributions from a fifth bowler. For all Australia’s forensic planning for this series, Pat Cummins had come off playing in the World Cup. He, like Josh Hazlewood and James Pattinson, has a troubled history with injuries. The relentless schedule - with two pairs of back-to-back Tests - ought to have been the cue for England to take advantage.

Briefly, at Edgbaston, England hinted at doing so. Their first innings 374 at Edgbaston was augmented by Australia’s hotchpotch of auxiliary bowlers - Travis Head’s unassuming off spin, Steve Smith’s seldom pitching leg spinners, and Matthew Wade’s seam, which betrayed why he has spent his professional career as a wicketkeeper - bowled a combined five overs for 23. It ought to have set the template for England’s batting in the rest of the series: for England to bat with discipline and deep, with the aim of wearing Australia’s attack down, and exposing the lack of a fifth bowler akin to Watson or Stokes.

Jonny Bairstow runs out Marnus Labuschagne credit: GETTY IMAGES

Instead, it took two full Tests after Edgbaston, fresh from the detritus of 67 all out, for England to even threaten to make Australia rue their lack of a serious back-up bowling option to their frontline attack. While Marnus Labuschagne’s leg spin offered more control than Australia’s auxiliary options earlier in the series, he has a first-class average of 43. England’s lament is that they could not force Australia to bowl him until they were left needing an encore of the Headingley Ashes miracles of 1981 and 2001.

England’s broader regret will be that they face squandering the Ashes to a team with conspicuous weaknesses. Australia’s openers this series - all three of them - have been abject. Their number three averages 20. Their number six is so flaky he has been dismissed four times in six innings for single figures. Their number seven averages 12, selected as much for his captaincy as his cricketing ability.

A generation ago, England were familiar with losing the Ashes at home. From 1989 to 2001, they did so on four consecutive occasions. But, for all the venom of Australia’s 2019 attack, the holes in this side are far more detectable than in those successful Australians teams of yore.

And so, even the admirable discipline with which England showed in a situation that seemed forlorn and futile was nestled with disappointment. The way that England batted provided just a gentle reminder of Australia’s flaws - and what could have been possible had England showed similar application in the first innings and earlier in the series. What will most irk England, should they indeed squander the chance to regain the Ashes, is the knowledge that they have failed against a flawed team.