Evaluating Bayliss: Is 5/10 Fair?

We need to talk about Trev. As Bayliss waved goodbye to English cricket at the end of The Oval test it suddenly struck me how little we’ve talked about him over the last four years. We’ve talked players, we’ve talked ECB chairmen, we’ve talked CEOs, we’ve talked selectors, but Bayliss has been largely ignored. It’s really odd. After all, we couldn’t stop talking about his predecessor Peter Moores.

I assume Bayliss’s role went under the radar somewhat because he’s the antithesis of Moores. I assume that’s why Strauss appointed him. Whereas Moores was all energy and bad soundbites – “I’ll have to look at the data” – Bayliss was quieter, more thoughtful, and essentially hands-off. He stood back, observed, coordinated, and guided rather than coached. 

There’s little point analysing whether Bayliss’s methods work. His achievements in cricket have been phenomenal. He’s clearly an excellent head coach. However, what we can debate is whether his methods have been the best fit for this particular group of England players over the years. And I think the jury’s out on this one.

The perception is that Bayliss has done stellar work with the white ball teams but our test side has failed to progress (or even gone backwards) on his watch. It’s hard to argue with this. England were embarrassing at the 2015 World Cup and he’s turned the team around completely. The test team, on the other hand, has been often been mercurial and occasionally ghastly.

Our ODI record has been excellent under Trev. We’ve won 63, lost 24, and tied one game during his tenure – although Kiwis might argue that it should be won 62 and tied 2! Although our T20 team’s result have been somewhat mixed (won 19, lost 14) this doesn’t mean a great deal really. As the shortest form of the international game 20 overs per side can produce a few random results. Plus we shouldn’t forget that we did reach the last World T20 final.

When it comes to the test side, however, there’s no doubt that England have disappointed during this four-year cycle. We’ve won 26, lost 25, and drawn 7. This is a poor record for a team with England’s financial resources. Peter Moores, for example, won 12, lost 9, and drew 11 of his 32 tests in charge. And he was sacked twice during this period.

At times, most notably during England’s horrible 0-4 Ashes defeat down under, Bayliss’s hands-off style became a bit of a joke in media circles. Tim Wigmore once wrote What Is The Point Of Trevor Bayliss? because his laid back style seemed so ineffectual. This might seem harsh but it was entirely understandable at a time when supporters craved a coach who’d kick the team up their jacksie.

However, one could argue that England’s test woes weren’t all Bayliss’s fault. During his tenure England tried a whopping 26 new players but only Jofra Archer, Rory Burns, Jack Leach, Sam Curran, and maybe Ben Foakes looked like they belonged. Meanwhile the likes of Keaton Jennings, Tom Westley, Ben Duckett, Alex Hales, Jason Roy, Zafar Ansari, and Jake Ball were simply terrible picks by the selectors. I severely doubt Duncan Fletcher or Andy Flower could’ve got more out of players who simply weren’t good enough.

Because Bayliss has little input into selection – he famously remarked that he never watches county cricket – it’s hard to blame him for England’s failure to unearth new talent. Yes one could argue that he should’ve tried to unearth some diamonds in the rough like Fletcher, but it’s easy to forget that Duncan already had extensive knowledge of the county game thanks to his time with Glamorgan. He therefore had his ear to the ground all along.

What’s more, as he explained in his recent interview with George Dobell, England’s insistence on picking white ball specialists and all-rounders rather than genuine red ball players was never Bayliss’s strategy. This ridiculous philosophy came from Ed Smith. Indeed, Bayliss has admitted that he’d like to see Zak Crawley and Dom Sibley awarded test caps in the immediate future.

However, although England’s test flaws are very much a product of the county championship, which is no longer producing test-ready batsmen, one cannot escape the feeling that Trev never really got English cricket. And this itself has been a problem.

Although Bayliss is right to point out that county batsmen can’t play long innings at domestic level because the ball moves around too much, his suggestion that the championship should be culled to ten teams misses the point. The number of counties in England isn’t the problem; it’s partly the time of year that matches are played.

This summer’s schedule has been a joke. Most of the matches have been shoehorned into April, May, and September – hardly a recipe for good pitches – and those which have taken place in the warmer months were randomly sandwiched between T20 Blast fixtures. It’s crazy.

Furthermore, Bayliss ignores that division one of the county championship used to be a very good breeding ground for test cricketers. In the early 2000s more matches were played at a sensible time of year and the country ranks were packed with quality Kolpaks and overseas players. England’s country structure therefore provided the best of both worlds: opportunities for young English players plus a high level competition in which runs and wickets were hard-earned and meant plenty.

When England won 4 out of 5 Ashes series between 2005 and 2013, many Australians lamented how eighteen counties provided bountiful opportunities for our youngsters. Many Aussies, on the other hand, had to leave their families and board a plane for England in search of first team cricket. And when they arrived they often found that the cricket was tough.

Back in the 2000s new England players like Andrew Strauss, Matt Prior, and Jonathan Trott immediately looked at home on the international stage and scored hundreds on debut. Even as recently as 2010 England plucked players like Chris Tremlett and Tim Bresnan from county cricket and saw them perform admirably on Ashes tours. The problem was that constant tinkering with the system thereafter slowly undermined it.

Given this context, it seems harsh to blame Bayliss entirely for our test woes. But we can’t absolve him of all blame. England’s flakey batting performances – we’ve been dismissed in a single session four times on Trev’s watch – displayed an alarming lack of intensity. But is this any surprise when the coach himself allegedly lacks intensity?

Bayliss laments the inability of our batsmen to concentrate for long periods but it seems too convenient merely to blame the championship for this. What about the infamous team ‘culture’ that Bayliss has done so much to nurture?

One can’t escape the feeling that while supporters were ranting about England’s lamentable collapses, Bayliss’s reaction was invariably to have a quiet word and make the odd suggestion. This certainly seems inadequate to the average fan. There’s nothing wrong with the hairdryer treatment now and again.

The other area where I question Bayliss’s record is his influence on Joe Root. It just hasn’t really worked. Yes Bayliss’s method is to operate in the background, and we understand his view that international players shouldn’t really intense need hands-on coaching, but what about mentoring?

When Root became England captain he had very little experience. I’m sure that Trev has done his best to advise his skipper and give him ideas, but many of us question whether Root is progressing as either a leader or tactician. One wonders whether the chemistry between the two was right? Because Root seems a tad passive from a distance, one wonders whether he’d benefit from a more proactive coach who drives him forward and isn’t afraid to take a more active role strategy-wise.

So how should we judge Bayliss overall? And will we miss him? Personally I will. He’s amiable, interesting to listen to (even if one gets the impression that he’s holding a lot back) and sometimes it’s better the devil you know. Many of us wanted shot of Andy Flower until we realised that Peter Moores would be his replacement.

And what about that 5/10 mark that Bayliss gave himself when asked to judge his tenure? Personally I think this mark is harsh. If one gives him 9/10 for what he’s done with the ODI side, he’d need a terrible test grade to average out at half marks. His time in charge of the test team has been disappointing but not a disaster – although those 0-4 defeats in India and then Australia stung at the time.

Personally I’d be inclined to give Bayliss a 7 overall. That’s 9 for the white ball stuff and 5 for the test team. I doubt he’d be happy with that but somehow I sense he’d agree.

The big question now, of course, is who should replace him? One assumes the ECB have been too busy with Harrison’s Harebrained Have A Hit to think about fundamental questions like who the next coach should be. They’ve known that Trev was off months ago but they still don’t have a replacement lined up. Heaven knows why they’re only prepared to appoint a caretaker for the New Zealand tour.

The leading candidates seem to be the same old faces – Jason Gillespie, Tom Moody, Mickey Arthur, and Ottis Gibson. Interestingly Mike Hesson’s name has been mentioned too. Although Gillespie would inevitably go down well with the masses, personally I’d prefer an English coach this time unless Gary Kirsten can somehow be persuaded to take the reins (which I doubt).

Consequently I’d like the ECB to look at Alec Stewart, Graham Thorpe, and Paul Collingwood. Chris Silverwood is also highly rated and could be in pole position. However, I’ve got an even better idea. One that would go down brilliantly across the shires. Let’s give Peter Moores another go. Third time lucky and all at.

I’m kidding of course. If Moores gets the job I’ll give up on England, start supporting Australia, and rename this blog The Full Bunga.

James Morgan

27 comments

  • 10/10 ODIS
    7/10 T20
    4/10 Tests.

    We’ve regressed horribly as a Test team. The selection policy may not be directly his fault, but it betrays the same issue as the lack of progression of Root’s captaincy- namely that he’s too hands off. We’ve put in some horrific performances under his stewardship.

  • I would love to see Alec Stewart take over as coach. I would also love to see Ed Smith’s role as chair of selectors disappear and the head coach and captain choose the squad with the help of county scouts. I feel having three people trying to choose creates too much indecision and potential disagreement. Why not simplify the system? It works for rugby and other sports.

  • I think the popular perception of his tenure is correct. That it is, in relation to red ball, is hardly his fault as he never should have been given that role in the first place. Strauss and the ECB erred badly in not splitting the two jobs, given that they were appointing a white ball man tasked with winning the World Cup. I simply don’t buy the ‘we couldn’t afford it’ argument. The ECB is wallowing in media cash and had the will been there, a red ball coach would have been well within their budget. I agree with you, James, that he is under scoring himself. He must be worth a white ball 9, and given the ECB’s focus on the white ball game, how many other coaches would have scored 5+ On red ball.. Not many, I suspect, operating under those constraints and the often chaotic structure which Jane refers to.

    • Strangely enough Bayliss says that he loves red ball cricket. I really think he would’ve loved to develop a successful test team too. Although the ambition was to win the World Cup, I still think overseeing an improvement in our red ball fortunes was part of his brief.

      • I’m sure that was indeed part of his brief but it was obvious at the time of his appointment, he was not the guy to do that. I do think however that given the ECB’s focus on white ball, any red ball coach would have struggled, but TB’s hands off approach at a time when so many players clearly needed help to make the transition to Test level was hardly ideal. Very few batsmen improved on his watch, and the number of players discarded having failed to make the transition seems to me to be high, although of course we have no benchmarks for that.

  • Entertaining as always. Really will have to write a defence of Ed Smith as a counter to James’s views.

  • Have huge respect for Alec Stewart as a player, man and coach. Best English opener in all my time watching the team. Easily.

    But his views on TMS and Sky are embarrassing. Every Surrey player for every England spot under the sun. He’s completely myopic. He sounded very unenamoured with Sibley for example, because he didn’t do it for Surrey.

  • Again, a decent summary. Leaving aside Baylis’s 50 over excellence…

    Baylis has done a poor but not disastrous job with the Test side – agreed with 4 or 5 out of ten.

    As for blame? He must surely have recognised he was bad at Test coaching.

    Well, has he done anything to try and make things better? Has he spoken out, using the influence of his position? Has he pushed for a separate specialist Test coach? Has he tried to get the batters to play properly in the long game? Does he evaluate the batters by proper criteria? Doesn’t look like it…

    (I have noticed that the sports media have, like all the mass media, gone very quiet over the past five years. Hardly anybody gets criticised for bad performance in the way they used to – media venom is reserved for issues of political correctness. Presumably this comes from the editors – who are more and more political about everything, so I don’t really blame the journalists.)

    What follows is off topic, with apologies, but intended as a suggestion/ stimulus for a future post:

    What about international T20? Results are irrelevant. One or two games per series. It’s a joke, isn’t it? As you say, the results are almost random (as are the team selections). But this is exactly what would be expected in a game approx the length of baseball.

    Consequently, there are essentially no one-off baseball games except as novelties/ friendlies. To find out who is best at T20, a series of at least five liek baseball post-season), preferably seven (world series) games is needed. I don’t actually want this, because T20 is essentially a club game; but lacking some such system, international T20 will continue to be what it always has been: a circus; and the result: a dice roll. But who cares, really?

    • You can’t leave aside what he was ostensively recruited to achieve. The fact that our test team has gone backwards is not down to him, as he has always made public his limited interest in the long game. This seeemd quite acceptable to his bosses so you’d be better off leaving that aside in order to give a realistic assessment of his performance.

  • If I was Strauss I’d be over the moon with what he’s achieved over the last four years. He was hired ostensively to reverse our white ball fortunes as Strauss has repeatedly said. He has done that in no uncertain terms, so you’ve got to hive him at least a nine.
    The fact is that he has always piblically declared his limited interested in the red ball game and this has seemed to be quite acceptable to his bosses. Strauss has also admitted red ball has taken a back seat since the last World Cup, at the establishments behest.
    You can’t blame Bayliss for the shortcomings of his appointees. He has never been under pressure to achieve on the test match front, as long as things were improving in white ball. It’s just a question of priorities. Now it’s clear Strauss is keen to reverse that trend and Giles is there to implement. Though quite what he can do with the present jokers in charge is hard to imagine. We clearly need a coach with a mind of his own who understands the different qualities required for batsmen and bowlers in the long game and certainly someone who understands you cannot simply transfer form from one format to another.

  • Hi James
    This is just a piece of fan mail. I have been receiving your blog for some years but suddenly felt bad that I have not given any feedback to you.
    I have really enjoyed receiving TFT this summer. I’ve enjoyed your breadth of opinion, depth of knowledge and height of affection for The Great Game!
    Good writing, tolerance of other views and a devotion to Cricket which shines through, even after another England batting collapse.
    Keep it going. You have developed TFT into something you should be proud of. Well done.
    Bye
    Mike Beck

  • Seven out of 10 is just about right – but what do any of us really know? During the Oval Test it emerged (to my knowledge, at least) that Bayliss and Stokes have formed an unlikely but special relationship, if you’ll forgive that expression. In his post-match interviews, Stokes referred to how much he would miss the coach, without going into detail. Something about Bayliss’s laissez-faire approach to life, cricket, floppy hats and everything obviously chimed with Ben. What exactly was it? Were there private counselling sessions? If so, what took place? I guess we’ll have to wait for Trevor’s memoirs to find out, but I wouldn’t blame him if he never tells us. Whatever took place, it’s clear that he picked our star all-rounder off the floor and in a few months readied him for the biggest sporting battle of his life. So make that eight out of 10. Well done Bayliss.

  • My gut feeling is that the ECB appointed Baylis to win the World Cup and he has achieved that goal. 9/10. I don’t believe that the red ball game was remotely on anyone’s radar and as I have said before a 2-2 series draw is a price worth paying for winning the World Cup as far as the ECB are concerned. Job done, cheers Trev.

    So what now get a coach in and say right we need to win the Ashes down under and don’t worry about the white ball game because we’ve just won the World Cup and we can cruise along a bit in that format. Call me a cynic, but I think that’s the type of people we have at the ECB.

    It will be interesting to see who they pick.

  • 7 or 8 for me too. We won the World Cup (well, that’s what it says in the scorebook…) and the Test team has been mixed – the bowlers have developed, the batsman have gone backwards. Not sure how much of either is attributable to Bayliss.
    I don’t think Jennings was a bad pick for sub-continent, they just persevered with him far too long. The moment it was apparent he was making no effort to change his method, he should have gone. Liam Dawson, Dom Bess and Mason flippin’ Crane were 3 awful picks you didn’t list.
    As for the new coach, Gillespie for me, or Stewart. Definitely not Thorpe, he’s really not covered himself with glory with the batsmen.
    Thanks for another summer of entertaining reads and debates, btw.

  • Our first-class cricket system is soft and weak, and it’s producing soft, weak players.

    That’s the number one reason why our Test team isn’t very good.

    • The problem isn’t the quality of the Championship, ask Mone Morkel, it’s that its relegated to the bookends of the season, to play hit and giggle rubbish. Next year there is only 3 games in the whole of June, July and August. Coach? To be honest it would make little difference if it were Humpty Dumpty. You can’t develop Test cricketers if you play hardly any cricket in the best months of the summer. What do we want Tests or endless 20/16.4 over crap? Well they seem to now want to improve red ball. Don’t think you can have it both ways. World Cup. Great match but always a draw in my book. Was it worth it? Mmm….

      • The reason Morné Morkel, Kyle Abbott and all the other Proteas are here is to paper over the cracks. Why? Because the CC is soft and weak.

  • To me the question is not was it worth it but how, for the future, can you have your cake and eat it too.
    By this I mean why has one format to be sacrificed in the pursuit of another. Surely if you split the controlling factions into specialist coaches and administrators you leave behind the need to prioritise one over another as each has their own remit, with the time and resources to concentrate on the job in hand. The present system of trying to be all things to all people rarely works in any form of life, let alone cricket, where it produces the Derek Pringles of this world, not really good enough at anything in particular, but serviceable in terms of versatility, clearly the mantra of the present moronic brain’s trust.
    With the county championship now defunct as a breeding ground for test cricket, how do we produce and protect those qualities needed for the long game and not sacrifice them for the white ball cash cow. As a Warwickshire man I’ve seen the likes of Sam Hain, a very talented and initially technically pretty correct opener reduced to a wristy accross the line chancer in the persuit of more white ball success. The coaches must be given the incentive to develop specialist young talent rather than dumb down and improvise for the sake of versatility, almost flying in the face of red ball requirements. For this to happen we need to prioritise the county championship by playing matches during the summer, not just in the spring and autumn when the pitches and conditions are not conducive to preparing good cricket wickets. Play your white ball knockabout stuff at the beginning and end of the season, where it’s far less adversely affected by the prevailing climate.

  • You keep on writing good, rather thoughtful, articles, James.
    I wouldn’t disagree with anything you say but I wonder if we place too much emphasis on the coach, as if he was equivalent to a football manager. But in cricket the length of the game and the opportunities to make on field decisions mean the captain will always be more than a cipher. The incoming coach might not think much of Joe Root as a captain but won’t be able to change him, as that (I think) is Ashley Giles’s decision.
    Similarly it’s hard for the head coach to move his choices into the set up given Thorpe and Silverwood are quite new to their roles as batting and bowling coach.
    In selection the coach has to work as part of a panel. I get the impression that under James Whitaker and Geoff Miller the chairman of selectors was prepared to defer to the coach and saw their job as doing the hard yards around the counties in the Ford Mondeo with the Travellodge gold card in the glove compartment. Ed Smith sees himself as more of an executive box kinda guy. And on top of all the people with formal power the two Andies still have a role at the ECB.
    I’m not sure the coach can do much more than keep everybody chilled out, go in front of the press and generally act as a buffer between the people who make the decisions and the consequences of those decisions. Bayliss did all that rather well I think.

  • A propos of nothing Bayliss related in particular, just read an article on ‘The Hundred’ in The Cricketer magazine. It’s the best I’ve read yet, informative and opinionated without having an agenda to preach.
    I urge those with any interest atall to check it out. It’s titled, rather imaginatively I thought, ‘How do you solve a problem like The Hundred’. It’s available on line, as are many of the magazine’s editorial style articles.
    The most interesting point for me makes concerns where the game is going using traditional counties as a fan base, rather than the more easily identifiable city. I doubt most school kids these days could name 20 English counties, let alone feel identified with them, as most have been absorbed into metropolitan districts. Although I’ve always thought of myself as a Warwickshire man it now appears I am either from the West Midlands or a Brummie. As populations become more city suburban and the countryside depopulates, traditional county boundaries become a blur. Only Yorkshire and perhaps Cornwall would consider themselves to have a county identity now, as they’ve always viewed themselves as a country within a country.
    After all in Victorian and Edwardian times sides were identified by their sponsor or town of origin, counties are hardly a tradition set in stone, so The Hundred’s idea of city teams maybe the way forward.

  • 1905 700463Id should talk with you here. Which is not some thing I do! I spend time reading an write-up that could get individuals to feel. Also, appreciate your allowing me to comment! 979046

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER

copywriter copywriting