England resumed their battle with Shane Warne and Kevin Pietersen led the way © Getty Images

Instead we saw an intriguing battle, the latest chapter in an age-old duel – England v Shane Warne. Here, as in no other department of their game except Andrew Flintoff’s bowling, England managed to recapture the mood of 2005. In that series, they handed Warne loads of wickets, but refused to let him dominate. For years, Warne and Glenn McGrath had been both attacking and defensive at the same time, adding up to a quadruple whammy for their captains. Under Michael Vaughan, England’s approach said: we can’t stop you taking wickets, so we’re going to make you pay more for them.

Warne went for 3.15 an over last year, the first time he had been above three in an Ashes series. England took 797 runs off him in 252.5 overs, whereas 12 years earlier, in the wonderball series, they scraped only 897 off 439.5, at the ridiculous price of 1.99. Kevin Pietersen fearlessly laid into Warne; Flintoff played block-or-bash; Vaughan showed his usual flair; Andrew Strauss slowly learnt to survive; Geraint Jones managed better than usual against high-class spin. Only Bell and the tail were mesmerised.

In this match, England have again shown Warne a healthy disrespect. Pietersen sashayed down the track to him as if he was Mark Ramprakash on Strictly Come Dancing. Paul Collingwood, far less predictably, took the same route. He perished by it, but not before he had made far more runs than many people thought he was capable of at no.4. We knew he was a scrapper; we didn’t know he could be this fluent on a treacherous pitch.

Warne wasn’t at his best, sending down more bad balls than usual and letting that economy rate nudge up again, to three and a half. But he also showed the qualities of a champion. He nabbed Bell with the wrong'un, a delivery he discusses more often than he actually bowls it. He bagged Cook just the way he used to get Strauss in their first few meetings, with a big leg-break out of the rough. (Whether he will do the same to Strauss again, we’ll never know, if Strauss remains addicted to the hook.) And he lured Flintoff into one of those straight mishits of his which turn mid-off and mid-on into vital catching positions.

England helped themselves to a hundred runs off Warne, and yet he had the nous, the will and the resilience to end up with four wickets. Knowing him, he’ll be looking for a nine-for.

	Steve Harmison should have been thrown the new ball when Australia batted again © Getty Images

That series ended in a draw, 2-2. The result in 2005 you may conceivably remember. Which isn’t to say that England will recover in this series – just that it’s not over yet.

For the first two days here, Australia were immense. Today they were merely efficient. Glenn McGrath was greatly flattered by his figures: a gift from Strauss, a joint gift from Pietersen and Billy Bowden, a push down the wrong line by Jones, a couple of tail-enders … the only major wicket conjured by McGrath himself was that of Cook.

England made just the mistake they went out of their way to avoid last time – playing the man, not the ball. The openers managed to attack McGrath, but when they perished, nobody else could summon the bravado to stick to the plan. His last 17 overs went for 25 runs, the same as his first six. Pietersen, for once, erred on the side of caution.

The worry for England – well, another one of many – is that Stuart Clark got wickets too. Between them McGrath and his mini-me took nine for 71. If England can’t cope with tidy, accurate, bouncy medium-pace, they are sunk.

Ricky Ponting’s decision not to enforce the follow-on was a weird one. It took the heat out of the match, just when England were going up in flames. I can see why some of the punters walked out. The game had switched from annihilation to an academic exercise. But Flintoff may have mishandled it too. He should have grabbed the opportunity for rehab and thrown Steve Harmison the new ball. There wasn’t much point in giving it to Anderson: he was already, surely, heading for a week off. Ponting the batsman has done so well, with strong support, that Ponting the captain can make as many mistakes as he likes.

	Australia's experience has shone through on the first two days at the Gabba © Getty Images

Australia have played the first two days superbly. What they have done is to apply their experience.

Justin Langer was scratchy early on – the comment from Bob which provoked such outrage here contained a grain of truth – but he imposed his will, converted nerves into nervous energy, and targeted Steve Harmison as surely as Harmison targeted him last time round. Ricky Ponting was back to his magnificent best, and showed with his anger at getting out that he wanted a second hundred as much as the first.

Mike Hussey, a highly experienced novice, played shrewd second fiddle. The tail rubbed England's faces in it: Stuart Clark batted with the fearlessness of a man who waited a long time for the limelight and is going to enjoy it while it lasts. Glenn McGrath was gifted one wicket, but had the nous and skill to produce a snorter next ball and turn one into two. Only Adam Gilchrist failed to make his experience tell.

The seven most seasoned players on the field are all Australian. The most experienced Englishman, Andrew Flintoff, is also having to be the captain, the talisman and the leader of the pack. His one clear mistake today was not to realise that his best bowler was himself and bowl at the start. Around him, there was plenty of bowling experience, but with Harmison's action in tatters, it was only when Matthew Hoggard had that one over of brief, belated glory – with a little help from the massively experienced Steve Bucknor – that it made any impact.

England's batting is extremely unused to Australian conditions, and it showed. Andrew Strauss made a misjudgment, and one wicket became three. But as the series goes on, experience should become less of an advantage, and youth more of one. The god of injuries, currently smiling on Australia, should change sides. Tests two and five, the back-to-backers, should be easier for young legs. But not if England are regularly kept out in the field for two days.

This was always the Test Australia were most likely to win. On top of the Gabba factor, England were underprepared, missing two or three players, and their selection was both too defensive (no Monty) and too risky (lashings of rust). If England get out of jail now, it will almost feel like a victory. If they don’t, they will just have to do a 2005 and bounce straight back. They can afford to lose two Tests in this series – but not the first two.

	Australia's batting has already broken free, as it never did in 2005 © Getty Images

There are not many conclusions you can draw from one day of a Test series, and the feeling of doom and gloom that has spread over England like one of our clouds is premature. The fans think the team slip back too easily into their old ways; the team could say the same of the fans.

Some things, however, we can state with confidence. The Australian batting has already broken free, as it never did in 2005. This match is conforming to the pattern for Brisbane, where Australia average 507 this century and rattle along at 3.8 an over, rather than the new template struck for Ashes matches in 2005, when Australia didn’t reach 400.

England have a minor crisis with their new-ball attack. Andrew Flintoff and Ashley Giles, rust and all, took a very decent three for 100 and kept it tight. Harmison, Hoggard and Anderson took none for 200 and kept it loose. That will change at some point, but it has to change fast and dramatically to affect the momentum of this match.

Four years ago, England got the nerves out of their system on day one and bounced back well on day two. But even if they do that again, Australia will have 450+. The bowlers can claw back some respect, but they can’t put England on top. The follow-on is already a distinct possibility; the key to this game is how England bat in their first innings.

Andrew Strauss has to be as busy as Justin Langer. England don’t have anyone who can be as elegantly imperious as Ricky Ponting at his best, but they have Kevin Pietersen, who can lord it in his own way. If these two don’t make serious runs, England will be staring 1-0 in the face. Pietersen found big turn; Warne will get far more.

England did three things better than expected today: captaincy (nice variation and invention), catching (no bloopers), and slow bowling (solid stuff from Gilo; not Monty, but not bad). And they did one thing worse: fast bowling. Unfortunately, that’s the one that decides the fate of touring teams in Australia.

	All too easy for Australia © Getty Images

England have just had the first hour from hell.

First they dropped the man who was their best bowler over the summer. The man Duncan Fletcher recently called “the best finger-spinner in the world” was no longer, apparently, the best finger spinner in this squad. It was the most depressing selection since England went to India 14 years ago without David Gower.

Then they lost the toss. Actually that may have been a good thing.

Then their national anthem was mauled by a nice-looking young woman.

Then Steve Harmison bowled the first ball: a wide. And not just an ordinary wide. There's a moment in the film The English Patient when Ralph Fiennes chews on a piece of fruit and pronounces it “a very plum plum”. Well, this was a very wide wide. And the English didn't feel very patient.

Then Andrew Flintoff made his first mistake: not having a third man. Justin Langer, living dangerously, helped himself to four fours there. The old pros who bang on about having a third man are not always wrong. If a batsman plays square of the wicket, you need a third man.

James Anderson replaced Harmison after two overs, but the method remained the same: all over the shop. Only Matthew Hoggard was himself. It was Test cricket at one end, and Twenty20 at the other.

There was a sniff of a run-out chance, but Anderson’s throw was just awful. Flintoff brought himself on to restore order. He bowled two no-balls. England had put their trust in rust, and they were paying the price.