The Debate Should Trevor Bayliss be sacked as Test coach?
The fundamental importance – or
rather non-importance – of England’s
head coach was beautifully illustrated
in the two-Test series against Pakistan.
In the fi rst match at Lord’s, England
were woeful and lost by nine wickets to
a team who had only four players who
had played a Test in England before.
There was widespread criticism of
England’s approach and preparation. In
the second Test at Headingley, England
won by an innings. They, of course, played
much better, smarter cricket. There
were various comments that they had
prepared better and seemed more of a
team. Now here’s the thing. I spoke to
Trevor Bayliss after the game. He looked
like a father who dotes on his kids but has
to keep an even countenance because
he never knows quite what they are going
to do. “The inconsistency is frustrating,”
he said, “but it is inevitable if you look atYES
Simon Hughes,
EditorHuw Turbervill,
Managing Editorsaid; and Peter Moores (34 per cent, over
two spells). It is below that of Duncan
Fletcher (43 per cent) and Andy Flower
(42) but that is not necessarily the reason
for a change, per se.
It will also be argued that Bayliss
can only work with what he is given:
a 20-year-old o e still learning; a
battery of right-arm seamers who bowl
82–85mph; a phalanx of openers who
struggle to make the transition from
county to Test cricket, and so on.
In an ideal world, of course the ECB
would not upset the applecart until after
the World Cup. But it just feels the time
is right for the ECB to make a statement.
Despite Andrew Strauss placing emphasis
on white-ball cricket when he appointed
Bayliss, the Test game is the format so
many of us are desperate to protect.
Its supporters are not happy to accept
substandard. They are not prepared to
sacrifi ce performances in fi ve-day cricket
to facilitate an improvement in limited-
overs matches and tournaments.
Strauss has hinted that the ECB will look
at separate coaches when Bayliss departsentirely next year.
Why wait until then? England’s Test
team must not be allowed to tread water.
Bayliss appears laidback, similar to
Duncan Fletcher’s consultancy-style take
on the job. But he had hands-on skippers
who knew exactly what they wanted, in
Nasser Hussain and Michael Vaughan.
Joe Root is a rookie. The job is proving as
hard as everyone expected it would be.
He is worried about his batting. He needs
somebody more proactive to help him.
A tactician and motivator... somebody
like Hussain, or (if he doesn’t want to
leave Sky), Alec Stewart, or (if he does not
want to leave Surrey), Graham Gooch.
Kevin Pietersen can insult him as much
as he wants, but just listening to Gooch
deconstruct batting leaves me in awe. He
knows the Test game inside out, he loves
it to his core. Make him stop-gap Test
coach if you like, but give him a go. Let’s
get a bit of passion back into it. It’s time
for more of a football-style manager.
The Test team is important. It is struggling.
Don’t let’s see it disappear amid a painful
and prolonged period of apathy.By arguing that Trevor Bayliss should be
relieved of the Test aspect of his portfolio,
I do not wish to overly denigrate his
performance in the role.
No one seems to be seriously
advocating him relinquishing white-ball
responsibilities, humiliating defeat to
Scotland aside. He has taken England
to No.1 spot in 50-over cricket, and they
look pretty well positioned to tackle next
year’s World Cup.
England’s Test record under him has
been poor, however – 16 wins, six draws
and 20 defeats in 42 Tests.
That is a win percentage of about 38 per
cent, better than many who came before
him – Micky Stewart (21 per cent), Keith
Fletcher (19), Ray Illingworth (18), David
Lloyd (26) – all of them hamstrung by the
failings of England’s domestic structure
and lack of central contracts, it has to beNO
YES
13%
NO
87%
Results
from June
Do you believe the
100-ball concept
is a good idea SAEED KHAN/AFP/GETTY IMAGES
the make-up of the team, which is a few
older players and some others who arepretty inexperienced. We didn’t prepare
di erently for the second Test than we
did for the fi rst.” All he advised was to
“be decisive” in defence or attack, and
“commit” to the shot.
So, you see, results are not the coach’s
fault at all. Performance is the players’
responsibility. The coaches give them
all the scope and tools to prepare, but
ultimately it is the people on the fi eld
who determine what happens. Bayliss
has presided over a one-day team now
ranked No.1 in the world because a
collection of brilliant one-day batsmen
have emerged all at the same time. He has
overseen some erratic performances by
the Test side because of the inadequate
skills of some of the batsmen and the lack
of a reliable spinner.
None of that is his fault. The county
system is to blame. That problem will
not be fi xed by getting rid of Bayliss as
Test coach. His greatest asset is his calm,
unfl appable demeanour after another
hapless performance, the personifi cation
of Kipling’s immortal line to “treat those
twin imposters just the same”. He is a
good man. Leave him be.thecricketer.com | THE DEBATE | OPENERS