England bowlers failed to create ample wicket-taking opportunities © AFP

It has been quite some swing in fortune. After whitewashing Sri Lanka before Christmas, the feeling ahead of the series in the Caribbean was that this England team may have finally got its act together in Test cricket after five years of consistent inconsistency. But now, following their 381-run defeat in Barbados, the same old questions about this team's quality and toughness have reared their ugly heads.

Such chastening defeats have not been few and far between for this group of players, despite their recent victories over India and Sri Lanka. Far too regularly, England seem to collapse in a heap when the going gets tough. There have been times of course when they have not - think Edgbaston against India as one example - but soon enough, a calamity comes along such as the one observed over the past four days at Kensington Oval.

It's difficult to know the reasons for this. England, ranked third in the world, are a good Test team. They have highly talented players who work themselves as hard as any other team in the world. They can and do produce fine long-form cricket. So what goes wrong when, such as in Auckland against New Zealand last year when they were bowled out for 58, England end up with egg on their face?

Most pertinently, perhaps, was the observation after the game from head coach Trevor Bayliss that his team need to toughen up in difficult periods. "I think it gets down to a bit of guts and determination to get through those tough periods," he said. "It's not the first time that we've succumbed in a short space of time. The boys are in the dressing room hurting and I'd be worried if they weren't.

"Do they lack mental discipline? Personally, I think so. You don't have to have perfect technique to be able to score runs or take wickets: it's how you go about using it. On this occasion, we've certainly been lacking in that department. I'm not sure I can repeat what has been said [in the dressing room].

"They did bowl well, but every time a team does that we shouldn't be expecting to get knocked over for 77. In the second innings, the guys looked like they were trying, we made good starts but at this level, you have to be able to bat longer than that."

England's first innings was shocking enough but at least the West Indian destroyers were the four fast-bowlers. In the tourists' second dig, it was the off-spin of Roston Chase, Test bowling average before this match in the mid-40s, which did the damage as England lost six wickets for 31 runs after Rory Burns had given them a solid enough start with his highest Test score. As bad as the first innings was, to get bowled out by Chase was hardly any better.

"Chase bowled a good line and a good length," Bayliss said. "He didn't give us any easy runs to get off strike. He built that pressure up, broke down our techniques on a couple of occasions and there were some poor shots on some occasions. That adds up to eight wickets.

"It's not the first time this has happened. Every time we lose a wicket it's the beginning of a collapse. And to be honest, I don't know how to explain it. There's nothing that stands out in your preparation or the lead up to the game that is any different to when we win. We have to work out what's the difference between when we put on a partnership after losing a wicket and losing eight or nine quick ones."

Probably the only positive to come out of the game was the performance of Burns, who made 84 in the second innings while looking composed and solid against a hostile West Indian bowling attack. The Surrey captain looks to have the game for the highest level but his opening partner, Keaton Jennings, is struggling. "Burns has shown enough," Bayliss said. "He looks like he's been here for 20 or 30 Tests, not four. He's still learning and will still get better.

"Keaton is struggling a little bit. I'd be lying if I said we're not worried about it and I'd be lying if I said he hadn't been thinking about it. He's one of the hardest workers we've got and he's going to leave no stone unturned in making it better."

While complacency can reasonably be ruled out - it is too simple an accusation and cannot be based on anything that has been seen in the way the team has trained - it is fair to question whether England's preparation gave them the best chance of performing in Barbados. They had just four days of match practice before the first Test and refused a request from the Cricket West Indies to make it a first-class game, preferring two two-day, non first-class matches instead.

It was the same preparation England had in Sri Lanka, where they won, but Bayliss admits it is tough to get the balancing act right given the cramped schedule and the desire to give all squad members some preparation time. "We prepared the same way as we did in Sri Lanka," he said.

"Two two-day games. But we knew what we were going to get in Sri Lanka. Here we were a bit unsure. We were expecting it to be not as dry and go in with four seamers and one spinner. Personally, I would like to play some first-class games before the series, but you've only got four days scheduled, and if you want to give everyone a go, it is difficult. It's the way of the world these days."

England's selection in Bridgetown has also been called into question and captain Joe Root admitted after the match that they may have made a mistake in picking Sam Curran, who had a poor game, above Stuart Broad although Root pointed out, rightly, that selection didn't cause England to be bowled out for 77. "We made a decision in the belief that the five guys we picked would go out and bowl as well as they can do," Bayliss said. "Unfortunately, on this occasion, they didn't.

"When we saw the wicket we were going to go with two spinners. Unfortunately, we didn't bat well enough in the first innings to get through to the fourth or fifth day, where the two spinners could take advantage. And I think they would be disappointed [with their performance]. Chase bowled very few short balls, but we let them off with easy singles so you can't put pressure on the batsmen.

"It was down to Curran and Broad [for the final seamer]. Our gut feel was Curran as he has done well for us over the last six or seven games. It didn't work out like that, the young bloke has had his first bad Test in his career. It won't be his last but he's a good young player who will learn from it.

"One of the advantages of playing someone like Stuart is that he doesn't go for too many runs, hopefully, picks up some wickets, but gives us control. That stood out in this match, with only [James] Anderson and [Ben] Stokes being able to provide that line-and-length bowling and a bit of pressure on the opposition. We'll have to revisit that in the next match."