(Photo: Getty Images)
By Chris Stocks
If you were being uncharitable, you could ask whether England’s victory in the 2015 Ashes was beginner’s luck for Trevor Bayliss in his first series as coach.
There’s no doubt the Australian had an initial positive impact. But then again anyone, as long as they were someone other than Peter Moores, might have done the same.
The 54-year-old came into the job with an impeccable coaching record.
Yet the very reason he got the nod ahead of compatriot Jason Gillespie was the fact that Bayliss’ real success had come in white-ball cricket.That’s what stood out for Andrew Strauss, England’s director of cricket, who was looking to prioritise limited-overs cricket ahead of the 2019 World Cup.
And to that extent, Bayliss has had a sustained period of relative success, with the white-ball teams undergoing a rapid resurgence even if they have yet to gain tangible reward in the shape of silverware.
Test cricket, though, is what England coaches will always be judged on – with Ashes success the ultimate barometer. Bayliss then started off with a bang two years ago, a bounce that helped carry the team to another fine series victory in South Africa the following winter.
However, since then things have not gone so well…
This week’s defeat by South Africa at Trent Bridge – by the embarrassing margin of 340 runs – laid bare England’s weaknesses in the longest form of the game and, sadly, also the limitations of their coach.
From his admissions that he has signed off on selections without actually seeing players live in first-class cricket to the stubborn insistence that aggression is still the overriding approach his players should undertake when batting, Bayliss has, to borrow his own phrase, had a “shocker” these past 18 months or so.
No progress has been made by England in Test cricket unless you count a 2-0 home series win against Sri Lanka more than a year ago. No other series has been won since England won in South Africa at the start of 2016. It’s just not good enough.
Bayliss is a man who knows his limitations – hence why his lack of knowledge of domestic first-class players means he defers to the other selectors on the big decisions. For example, Mark Stoneman was in the running to make his Test debut at The Oval next week without Bayliss having ever seen him in action.
“I haven’t seen Stoneman bat live,” he said after Trent Bridge.
“It’s happened before, if we select a guy and I haven’t seen him, you’re always in the back of your mind got a little bit of, ‘well, is he or isn’t he?’
“You’ve just got to trust the other selectors and some of the senior players we might speak to about who is the next guy in line or what type of a player he is.”
Bayliss has a ‘hands-off’ approach to actual coaching, too, other than fielding drills, with England’s success in that area as inconsistent as their results bar the 2015 Ashes when they caught absolutely everything.
Then there is the role of the captain. Bayliss prefers to take a back seat and allow the skipper to take charge of proceedings. This in itself is admirable given he is also the man who will be leading the players on the field. A coach, though, needs to coax, cajole and stretch his captain’s horizons and intervene when he sees things going wrong.There has to be tactical input.
England enjoyed sustained success under Andy Flower, a control freak who ruled the dressing-room with an iron fist. It was an approach that went too far in the end and the players ended up rebelling against it.
Bayliss is perhaps too far the other way – too relaxed, too hands-off. The Australian needs to show a little bit more mongrel, as he might say himself.
The one documented case of Bayliss giving England’s players a dressing-room rocket came on the final day of the decisive Johannesburg Test in January 2016. The coach’s words had the desired effect as, led by another magical Stuart Broad spell, England wrapped up the series with a fine victory.
It’s all largely gone downhill since. Maybe it’s time for Bayliss to stop being Mr Nice Guy and lay down the law once again?
