There are two truths that are self-evident: the sun will rise in the east and set in the west, and England Test cricket is broken.
England cricket appeared to be in a strong position following the 2019 season. They had won the ODI World Cup for the first time and had split an exciting series with Australia two-all.
While the outcome was not exactly what England fans wanted, there was real promise of good things to come.
Jofra Archer had burst onto the scene and showed what a quality Test bowler he could be. Ben Stokes had played the innings of his life to win a Test almost off his own bat. Stuart Broad owned Dave Warner while Rory Burns scored a hundred and showed many he belonged at Test level.
Trevor Bayliss departed the England coaching scene and in came Chris Silverwood with the promise of a grand plan to wrest back the Ashes in Australia in 2021-22.
(Photo by Chris Hyde/Getty Images)
Fast forward to January 2022 and that grand plan is in tatters, with England meekly surrendering any claims to the Ashes within three weeks of the first ball being bowled at the Gabba.
No doubt there will be all sorts of enquiries established to work out what went wrong and what needs to be done to fix the problem, but the first and most obvious step is to replace Chris Silverwood.
As sole selector and coach, Silverwood has to accept responsibility for a lot of what has not gone right in England Test cricket.
Just in this series alone, he’s made very poor selection calls at the Gabba (leaving out Stuart Broad and Jimmy Anderson, and including Jack Leach), in Adelaide (leaving out Leach and Mark Wood) and at the MCG (leaving out Broad and playing both Anderson and Ollie Robinson).
Throw in a seeming inability to improve the batsmen who have been selected for England and it seems clear his days are numbered. The question is, who replaces him?
On our side of the world, Justin Langer seems to be under the pump as Australian coach, if the media are to be believed.
This is even though he took a team many had written off as no chance and helped them win the first T20 World Cup for Australia.
He also been heavily involved in the current Ashes demolition job, both as a coach and as a selector.
It’s not clear to me why he would not continue in this role, given these recent successes, but the media seem to think he’s likely to be shown the door when his contract is up later this year.
If he does get the boot, should England offer him the role as their national Test coach?
(Photo by Matt King – CA/Cricket Australia via Getty Images)
Point of clarification: this is hypothetical and I don’t believe Langer should be sacked. He deserves to continue to coach the Australian sides for at least another 12 to 18 months, given his recent results.
Before answering that, it’s important to identify where England is going wrong, on the field or with their squad.
Test cricket is all about building pressure and maintaining pressure, with bat or ball or through fielding. This Ashes series has shown England can do this sometimes, but not often.
This ability to create pressure on the opposition is as much attitudinal as it is about player ability. Langer has that ability to help players focus.
He played his cricket in an era where building pressure was a given in the Australian Test team.
He’s taken the lessons he learnt as a player and brought that to his role as coach, with obvious results in this series and in the Black Caps series a couple of years ago. He should be able to get the England squad to learn this too.
England’s glaring weakness is with their batting, with only Joe Root being able to regularly mix it with the Australian attack.
(Photo by Albert Perez – CA/Cricket Australia via Getty Images)
Langer the Test match opener was able to mix patience with sound shot selection. He was extremely good at letting deliveries go, which built pressure on the bowler to bowl to him.
Langer the Test coach has changed back to the way Australia used to build innings some decades ago.
He’s recognised we don’t have a world-class batting line-up, like Mark Taylor, Steve Waugh or Ricky Ponting had, that could play shots from ball one and rattle along at four or five an over through a Test innings.
Instead, he’s asking players to show a lot more patience, letting deliveries go and forcing the bowler to bowl in areas the batsman wants. Sound familiar?
As a result, this is a team that can bat for two days and make scores in excess of 450 on a regular basis, which is exactly what England have been unable to do over the past two or three years.
Another key aspect is what I term owning the dressing room. That is, having coach, captain and players all on the same page in all aspects of the game.
Case in point where this hasn’t happened for England are the line and especially the lengths their bowlers have been using.
Prior to the MCG Test, Joe Root came out and said the attack bowled way too short in Adelaide.
Yet at the same time, a senior member of the squad, Stuart Broad, was telling us all publicly the lengths they were bowling were okay because if they bowled any fuller, they’d get belted.
(Photo by Stu Forster/Getty Images)
Not only was Broad contradicting his skipper, he was doing so in the British press.
I’m very sure this would not happen if Langer was coach. I’m equally sure he’d very quickly stamp out any divisions in approach to batting or bowling the team might have, so they played with drive and a single purpose.
The final aspect where Langer would be strong is with the media. Joe Root’s a lovely guy by all accounts, but he has to find it tough fronting the media so often when things are going poorly for the team.
This is an area where Langer, with his elite honesty approach, could take a lot of pressure off Root.
(Photo by Darrian Traynor – CA/Cricket Australia via Getty Images)
The current English coach seems content to allow Root to take the microphone and often wear blame, whereas Langer is more than happy to speak his mind and assign responsibility for actions where they should be allocated.
I’m not for a second suggesting if Langer was appointed coach, all of their problems would go away and they’d be top of the Test rankings within 12 months.
There’s a lot of other issues that badly need addressing including the role of county cricket, player contracts, and selections.
Langer as coach would probably help resolve one issue but in isolation, this change would not be enough to make this England squad seriously competitive against the top Test nations.
There’s no doubt if Langer was appointed coach, his intensity, focus and total dedication would rub more than a few England players up the wrong way, especially some of the rusted-on older professionals. But that’s tough.
England have to regain the same levels of intensity he brings to cricket, if they’re going to be a successful Test team once more.
They’re not going to achieve that unless someone leads the way. Joe Root is not that someone, but perhaps Justin Langer is.
Brett Allen
Guest
Because it’s cricket, not football. In cricket it’s the captain that sets the tone and makes all the tactical decisions, not the coach. The coach at best does the throw downs and peels the oranges.
DTM
Roar Rookie
Before the start of this series, Leach had played 7 out of the 13 tests England played in 2021. This shows that England only select him when the conditions suit. His respectable average reflects this. The conditions at the Gabba in Dec 2021 were not going to suit him. England got that wrong. Also, the conditions at the Gabba did suit either Broad or Anderson (can't replace one player with two). I believe they went into the Brisbane test with a defensive mindset - hoping for an unlikely win but planning for a draw. Then they could release Anderson and Broad for Adelaide under lights. The plan failed because it was the wrong plan and the rest is history.
dungerBob
Roar Rookie
"I did not say that if England picked Broad and Anderson and not Leach, they would have bowled first and won. " .. Well, what are you saying then? I don't get it. You seem to be arguing just for the sake of it. .. You ask what was their plan. I think it's pretty clear that their plan was to do exactly what they did, only to do it much better than they did. If they won the toss they planned to bat first first, which is the right move 90% of the time, then use the bowlers they had to bowl us out twice. Sounds like a plan doesn't it? It's also an attacking plan, not a defensive one which you seem to think they ended up with. .. Hindsight shows it didn't work but at the time it probably seemed like their best choice. It was either that or bring the two pensioners on board and hope for ultra-English conditions in sub tropical Queensland. .. Leach has quite good numbers btw. 64 wickets from 18 tests at 31.4 which is a better average than Lyon. No straw clutching there mate. On those numbers he should be perfectly capable of bowling when and where his captain requires.
DTM
Roar Rookie
I did not say that if England picked Broad and Anderson and not Leach, they would have bowled first and won. You have to ask yourself, what was their plan? Clearly to include Leach in the team, they needed to give him the best opportunity to have an effect and that meant batting first. Leaving Anderson out was a gamble that backfired. The Gabba pitch offered enough to pace and seam bowlers on day 1 for England to have had the underprepared Aust batting line up in trouble. Remember there were only 2 sessions played on day 1 of the first test. No argument that they were outplayed but they gave themselves no chance of winning with the strategy they employed - only a chance of drawing. The comparison between Australia selecting Lyon and England selecting Leach just shows you are clutching at straws. Lyon is one of the first picked for Australia and I can't recall the last time he missed a test match. Leach is not in the same league.
Marty
Roar Rookie
It doesn’t matter what team/coach you are talking about, you can’t have a situation where senior players are publicly contradicting the skipper/coach. It’s poisonous for team unity, which is particularly important when your on tour. It’s not about individual personalities, it’s about what’s best for the team.
dungerBob
Roar Rookie
Let me see if I've got this right. You're saying that if England had picked Branderson and not played Leach they would have definitely bowled first and quite possibly won the test match. Is that correct? .. Actually, it must be. Otherwise you have no reason to say they shot themselves in the foot with their selections. Once again, I dispute this pretty wild assumption. I contend it would have may little to no difference as they were simply outplayed across the board. I also dispute that the Gabba was a raging greentop. It may have been a touch more responsive than usual but it was Ok when we batted on it. An out and out greentop won't suddenly lose it's spite by the third session on day one. No way in the world will that happen .. You also said that because they picked Leach they had to bat first. Well, maybe, although Australia picked a spinner in Melbourne and bowled first. Having a spinner does not necessarily preclude sending the opposition in though I will accept that it is fairly rare.
DTM
Roar Rookie
England were not a team with confidence when they arrived in Australia. They had won one test of their last 9 and lost 6. If their team selection and their decision to bat had nothing to do with how they perceived their own bowling strength then did they base the decision to bat on their batting strength? Surely not, as they only had one batsman with a test average above 40 and they were playing a team that had lost one test out at the Gabba in a decade or so. I wrote on this forum prior to the Gabba test that it would be a good toss for Cummins to lose. As a first time captain (and a bowler) he would have been extra cautious and batted first had he won the toss. However, Root was in a more difficult position as he was faced with a green top and should have bowled first but they picked a team to bowl last. No hindisght about it, I and many others said this before the first test started. Test cricket strategy is relatively logical so the conclusions I have come to would be similar conclusions other people would come to. England management and leadership were simply incompetent from the start of the tour.
dungerBob
Roar Rookie
Yeah, it all sounds good and logical with hindsight but it's still just speculation. Maybe they decided to bat because they thought they could see off the new ball and make us pay later on, which is what a team with some confidence might do. It may have had nothing to do with how they perceived their own bowling strength. Unless someone close to the England team has spilled the beans to you I don't see how you could know any of what you said is the actual case with any surety at all.
Curmudgeon1961
Roar Rookie
He probably wouldn't say much publicly but yes the player would be dropped. Possibly never to return. Langer has form with players he doesn't like, likes etc. He also competed in an era when clearly suitable players were dropped / sent away without much communication or justification e.g Waugh, Hayden, Martin etc and it would be naive to think that didn't imprint him.
DTM
Roar Rookie
England's problem in the first test was that because they picked Leach and left out Anderson and Broad (on a green top), they had to bat if they won the toss. Had they included at least one of Anderson or Broad, they could have bowled first. So, winning the toss and batting gave the strong Aus bowling attack a go at the brittle batting on a green top and we all know how that worked. Effectively, England lost the series because of their team selection for the first test. They then over corrected in Adelaide. I said before the first test, it was going to be a good toss for Cummins to lose - 1 because he didn't need to play safe and bat or be aggressive and elect to bowl and 2 because Silverwood and Root would be too scared to bowl first given what happened to Nassar.
Brett Allen
Guest
I call out BS when I see it
DTM
Roar Rookie
I bet you're fun at parties.
DTM
Roar Rookie
Really? I've been fooled for 50 years!
Tony
Roar Guru
Put me down for 7 days Paul
Brett Allen
Guest
What mess ? A couple of players tried to rough up the ball against the laws of the game. Big deal. Not the first time it's been tried, won't be the last, and the previous players who tried it got away with a slap on the wrist. The media & the navel gazing crowd made it sound like the players involved were part of a slavery ring, such was the handwringing. What did Langer do to fix this "problem" ? Nothing. There was nothing to fix. The players did the wrong thing, they got caught, they paid a hefty price, not him. Stability ? What instability was involved ? The team was as stable as could be. They'd just gone through 8 Tests with virtually the same XI. Then he had to create an environment allowing the smooth return of his 2 best batsmen in Smith and Warner He didn't have to do a thing. The 12 months that those two were out not a single Aussie batsmen made a ton. In 12 months. Not one. Do you think Mitch Starc, Josh Hazlewood, Pat Cummins & Nathan Lyon needed any convincing that the team needed it's best two batsmen ? The Paine incident. He was on the way out anyway, and he basically handled the situation himself when he quit the captaincy, the Ashes were going to be his last series before he was going to be given the tap, and picking the next captain wasn't particularly difficult. There were two outstanding candidates as well as a couple of potential candidates for the future. I don't think they picked the right guy FWIW, but Cummins is doing fine given the poor opposition. Nevertheless, it wasn't the kind of decision that gives one a migraine. It was a toss of a coin at worst. Finally, yes the England players were dismantled on day one, but that has nothing to do with coaches, that's all the players doing. These same players pumped this same England team 4-nil here 4 years ago with a different coach with essentially the same plan, (singular). Make as many runs as you can as quickly as you can to give yourself plenty of time to take 20 wickets. Hit the top of off stump as often as you can with the odd bouncer thrown in. Place your fielders where they are most likely to get catching chances, ie slips & gully, short leg. Finally, take your catches. It doesn't matter who the coach is, or who the opponent, conditions or format are, those fundamentals are all that really matter. Everything else is white noise.
Brett Allen
Guest
JL was the coach when we lost to India last season. The coach does nothing, except help with fielding drills and doing throwdowns in the nets.
U
Roar Rookie
Yes please. Fob him off to the Poms and let’s have coach Dizzy.
Marty
Roar Rookie
Yeh it’s crazy. If JL was in charge guys like Broad would be given a pretty simple choice - you can stay on tour or keep writing your articles, but you won’t be doing both.
Just Nuisance
Roar Rookie
Actually I am a big admirer of Langer . We should not forget just what an unholy mess Aus Cricket had got itself into when he was tossed the reigns . His first port of call was to bring brought stability and common sense back into the mix .. mission accomplished ..Then he had to create an environment allowing the smooth return of his 2 best batsmen in Smith and Warner ..again accomplished ..Then deal with the Paine incident . Paine wasn’t just another player .,He was Captain… The appointment of Cummins was spot on .. Finally let’s not kid ourselves, yes England have issues but they were surgically dismantled right from ball 1 . Bowlers had plans and executed brilliantly to every English player .. That’s your coach talking ..So why even considering not retaining Langer in favour of all people Ponting .. Great Cricketers do not automatically default to great coaches ..Plenty of examples around to go on .,
Paul
Roar Guru
One thing I don't get is a player, on tour, telling the world he disagrees with the line the skipper has taken about what lengths to bowl in Australia. As you say, if JL was the coach, he'd have had plenty to say in response.