In 123 Test appearances spread over 13 years, Alec Stewart probably thought he had seen it all: an historic win in Jamaica on debut, storming the Bridgetown fortress four years later, being written off in 1996 as too old at 33, a famous 9 not out on a Sabina Park deathtrap in 1997-98, losing the Test captaincy because of his team's one-day form, and smacking a century in his 100th Test on the Queen Mother's 100th birthday. But it is never too late for fate to play tricks on an old dog, and at Brisbane Stewart had the worst match of his career: three balls, no runs, the first pair of his Test career. Stewart cannot perform as badly again, but the fact is he's no longer a Test No. 6, and the sooner England recognise that fact and play six batsmen, the better.

At a push, Stewart can get by in the top six at home, but when he steps on a plane it is a different story. In his last five Test innings overseas, Stewart has made precisely 10 runs. And he has only ever made two centuries overseas when playing as a wicketkeeper - back-to-back during the purplest of patches in 1996-97, and against decidedly modest Zimbabwean and New Zealand attacks.

Stewart should be treated as the best wicketkeeper in England, which he still is, and one who happens to still have more than a few shots in his locker. Stewart should be a hit-and-miss strokeplayer, a loose cannon who can turn a game in half-an-hour if he comes off. Those expecting him to smash centuries like he used to are missing the point. If and when James Foster replaces Stewart, he will not be batting at No. 6. Indeed when Foster last played, in New Zealand last winter, England got by with four bowlers, and effectively three at Auckland, where Ashley Giles only bowled two overs.

Stewart is not the only man in the England team batting a place too high - everyone below him is. Andrew Flintoff and Craig White might have the shots of a top-order batsman, but they don't have the averages. Flintoff's (19.48) is that of a useful No. 8, while White's (24.28) is deceptive. More relevant are his averages against Australia (9.00) and non-subcontinental teams (12.13). The only justification for England playing five bowlers - and White, for that matter - is on the subcontinent, when two front-line spinners are usually essential.

In one sense, the injury to Simon Jones was the decisive piece of evidence that a team needs five bowlers, to cover all eventualities. In another, it showed that you don't: England did perfectly well at times with four bowlers, and their failings had nothing to do with the lack of a fifth bowler. Australia haven't played a fifth genuine bowler for over 15 years. It hasn't done them too much harm.

In Mark Butcher and Michael Vaughan, England have two more-than-adequate fifth bowlers; they are certainly better than their Australian equivalents, Steve Waugh and Darren Lehmann. Anyone who can gate Sachin Tendulkar, as Vaughan did at Trent Bridge last summer, deserves to bowl more than an average of four overs per Test.

The adage that if six men can't put the runs on the board then seven won't is utter gibberish. The maths are simple: six batsmen averaging 40 equals 240 runs, seven equals 280. More pointedly, six batsmen plus Stewart significantly reduces the chances of collapsing from 268 for 3 to 325 all out

It's neatly symmetrical that the last time Australia played five specialist bowlers was at Melbourne in 1986-87 ... the last time England won the Ashes. An England change might not achieve the same result just yet, but at least it would be a step in the right direction.

Rob Smyth is assistant editor of Wisden.com.

© Wisden CricInfo Ltd