Two of the four Tests in Ashes 2025-26 ended within two days: What are the reasons?

Ashes 2025-26 sees four Tests finished in just 13 days, with two ending inside two days — examining the top reasons behind it.

Two of the four completed Ashes 2025-26 Tests finished inside two days, and all four were done in a combined 13 days of cricket, an extraordinary pattern that throws the spotlight on both pitches and batting application.

The opener in Perth and the Boxing Day Test in Melbourne ended in less than half their allotted time, but the scorecards also show repeated batting errors and contrasting game plans between Australia and England.

How quickly Ashes moved
The five-match series is scheduled as standard five-day Tests, but four have been completed so far, and those four have taken just 13 actual days of play. The first Test in Perth and the fourth Test in Melbourne were both classic “two‑day” finishes; the Perth game was over early on day two, while the MCG Test ended on the second evening.

The other two completed matches stretched closer to four or five days, showing that not every surface in this series has been extreme. This split is important: it suggests the issue is not simply that “all Australian pitches are bad”, but that specific drop‑in surfaces, combined with aggressive batting, produced outlier contests.

Read More: Anatomy of a rare Test win: England’s first in Australia in 15 years

What actually happened in Perth and Melbourne?

Perth: 30 wickets in five sessions
In Perth, Australia chased 205 to win and got there by eight wickets midway through day two, as Travis Head smashed 123 off 83 balls after being promoted to open.

Across three innings (England 172, Australia 123/9 overnight, then England 164), 30 wickets fell for just 468 runs in about 113 overs, 19 wickets on day one alone and 11 more before tea on day two.

Mitchell Starc took 7/58 in England’s first innings and finished with a 10‑for, while Ben Stokes claimed five wickets to reduce Australia to 123/9 on a first‑day pitch with steep pace and bounce.

So Perth was quick, hostile and bowler‑friendly, but it was not a minefield; there was carry and movement, yet both teams also played a high‑risk brand with loose shots under pressure.

Melbourne: another two‑day finish
The fourth Test in Melbourne, officially scheduled as a five‑day Boxing Day match, finished on day two, with England chasing 175 and getting home six down to claim their first Test win in Australia since 2011.

Australia were bowled out for 152 and 132, while England replied with 110 and then 178/6. Again, 36 wickets fell for 572 runs in barely two days, with seam movement and variable bounce creating constant jeopardy.

England’s seamers repeatedly hit a good length and extracted awkward bounce, but Australia still cobbled together enough runs twice to make a game of it, while England attacked their chase and survived some nervy moments.

That meant the series had produced two completed Tests that barely went beyond five sessions each, highly unusual for Ashes cricket.

Read More: What makes Mitchell Starc the undisputed ‘Czar’ of Day-Night Tests

Drop‑in pitches: How much to blame?
Australian venues such as the Perth Stadium and the MCG use drop‑in pitches grown off‑site and dropped into the outfield block, unlike traditional squares in England or India. These drop‑ins can behave differently: early in matches they often have more grass and can offer exaggerated seam and inconsistent bounce. At the same time, they sometimes wear in strange ways rather than showing the gradual, classical deterioration of a natural square.

Former England quicks such as Stuart Broad and Michael Vaughan have argued that Australian drop‑ins can either be too flat for long stretches or suddenly too lively, squeezing the “contest over five days” that Test cricket is supposed to offer.

“The pitch is doing too much, if I’m brutally honest. Test match bowlers don’t need this amount of movement to look threatening. Great Test matches pitches, generally, they bounce, but they don’t jag all over the place,” Broad said, commentating on SEN Radio.

In this series, Perth and Melbourne clearly produced surfaces that favoured fast bowlers from ball one, and the plethora of wickets in under four days of cricket at those venues point to conditions that were tilted heavily towards the ball.

Read More: Starc’s ‘spell from hell’ sets the tone for Ashes 2025-26

Pitch or batting skills: What do numbers say?
In Perth, England were 160/5 and lost five wickets for 12 runs to be bowled out for 172, with several dismissals attributed to poor shot selection rather than unplayable deliveries.

Australia then crashed to 123/9 on the same pitch before Head’s blitz and Labuschagne’s control turned a collapse into a winning position, showing it was possible to score if batters adjusted and committed to their plan.

In Melbourne, both sides struggled, but Australia still posted 152 and 132 while England managed 110 and a successful chase of 178, with Bethell and Crawley adding crucial runs under pressure.

The pattern: when batting became more disciplined (Labuschagne, parts of Head’s innings, England’s fourth-innings partnerships), runs flowed at a decent rate even on difficult surfaces, whereas England’s collective collapses in Perth, in particular, owed as much to attacking shots played to balls that could have been defended or left.

Read More: Pat Cummins, a rare successful bowler captain: His achievements & underlying mantra

Where does Bazball fit in?
England have consistently backed their ultra‑positive “Bazball” approach, even in Australia, where extra bounce, sideways movement and drop‑in quirks demand tighter technique and more patient decision‑making.

In Perth, that philosophy was brutally exposed. Several wickets came from expansive strokes to a packed cordon on a pitch offering steep bounce and movement, while Australia in their successful chase were aggressive but also more selective, punishing width rather than manufacturing strokes.

Melbourne was a partial vindication, England’s aggressive mindset helped them close out a tense chase on a treacherous surface. Yet, the overall numbers across the two two‑day games suggest England’s batting method gave the bowlers more chances than the surface alone demanded.

So, we can agree on the point that the pitch was difficult. The drop‑in strips in Perth and Melbourne have undeniably shortened the games, but Australia’s ability to find a way to 200‑plus targets on the same surfaces where England repeatedly imploded underlines a skills and application gap.

For England, the question now is obvious: continue to lean entirely into Bazball and blame unhelpful pitches, or accept that in Australia, with grassier, livelier drop‑ins, the smarter move is to adapt tempo to conditions, respect the new ball, and cash in only once survival is secured.

Read More: Bazball or plain schoolboyish cricket – Why England fell flat in Ashes 2025-26?