Like taking out the receptionist’s frustrations in wait times at A&E, blaming England’s individual players for their series loss in India might be understandable, but it’s largely easy.
Of course, these results look ugly. And more than the results, the loss margins (317 runs, 10 wickets, and one inning and 25 runs respectively) and the paucity of batting effort – for any team to average 144 in its most recent seven innings is clearly inadequate.
Experience suggests that, in such circumstances, there will be victims. Four from the team that played the 2014 Sydney Test, for example Michael Carberry, Kevin Pietersen, Scott Borthwick and Boyd Rankin, never played another Test for England.
Some will suggest that this defeat should be a similar watershed moment. And it’s true, some England players, including Dom Bess and Jonny Bairstow, may have played their last tryout for a while.
At such times, however, it is important to keep some perspective. Yes, these last three tests have seen England humiliated. And yes, they have exposed flaws within the side, and the system, that will take time and effort to remedy. More pertinently, it will continue to be tremendously difficult for England to win in India if they do not learn to bowl and for much better purpose.
But England had won all four of their previous series, two of them (in South Africa and Sri Lanka) on the road. Until the second round of this series, they had won six successive rounds in Asia. Just a day before the fourth round ended, it seemed like they had earned an unlikely opportunity to level the series. Perhaps they simply found a better side, in conditions they rarely find. Really, was it realistic to expect them to win?
Indeed, there is a strong case to suggest that by winning a test, a result that surpassed them on their previous tour of India, England exceeded expectations. In this era, it is difficult to think of any XI that England could have drawn that would have won this series. England face a major challenge in retaining their impressive home record when India travels to play them later in the year.
Without a doubt, their rest and rotation policy caused some problems. But possibly fewer problems than if such a policy had not existed. Who knows how many of this team would have decided to miss the tour without him? Or even opt out of test cricket? It is unrealistic to expect players to miss out on IPL opportunities or spend up to five months in a biosecure bubble. Rest and rotation don’t just seem responsible; seems essential.
This England team is clearly far from perfect. There are one or two areas that need urgent attention. But if anyone thinks that there are many obviously better candidates in county cricket, they are deluding themselves. The truth is much bleaker than that.
Consider this, for example: When was the last time the county game produced a top-three hitter who demonstrated indisputable success at the test level? One could argue that it was Joe Root (averaging 39.16 in the top three) who made his Test debut in 2012. Perhaps it was Jonathan Trott (42.94) who made his debut in 2009, or Alastair Cook (45.17) who made his debut. in 2006. But either way, it’s been a long time. There are no quick fixes to the problems English cricket faces.
Perhaps that context is more important in evaluating Bairstow’s career. His firing of the first ball here, moving one to slide his leg, betrayed a mind churning with doubt and failure. And you can understand why: it was his third duck in four innings in this series, and it meant that, in his most recent nine test innings against India, he had failed to score six times, with a maximum score of 28 and an average. of 5.77.
It is not just India that he has fought against. Since May 2018, Bairstow has averaged 23.17 in 22 tests. For a man averaging 50.74 in first-class cricket for Yorkshire – a benchmark likely to prove beyond anyone who can replace him – that’s a worrisome level of underperformance. It is very possible that he played his last test.
However, that date, May 2018, is relevant. Because that’s when Bairstow was asked to move up the order. It was an intriguing decision: Bairstow, for the past two and a half years, has averaged 47.07 with the bat in test cricket. In 2016 alone, he had scored 1,470 runs, a record for a tester in a calendar year. He had also improved significantly with the gloves. His role was not really a weakness that required strengthening.
But England wanted to find space for Jos Buttler. And fearing he might run into trouble in the higher order or even in the middle, where the majority of specialty hitters are expected to play, they chose him as No. 7.
The problem with that was that England already had several players looking their best at No. 6 or No. 7. And with Ben Stokes locked in at No. 6 at the time, Bairstow had to be promoted to No. 5.
Later, when Buttler struggled to deserve a spot as a specialty hitter (he averaged just 25.10 in 2019), Bairstow gave up the gloves; more accurately, they had to be ripped out of their hands, so Buttler’s continued selection could be justified. As a result, Bairstow found himself on the sidelines as a specialized hitter and was at times forced to hit as high as No. 3.
There’s a reason Bairstow made a name for himself hitting in the middle order for Yorkshire. For all his skill, he is less confident against the Dukes ball when it is at its most difficult and most useful to bowlers. While his propensity to push the ball is often an advantage in limited overs cricket, where the white ball barely moves laterally, and in first-class games when the ball is slightly softer, it is a potential weakness against the highest quality. faster bowlers or spinners. At the test level, he averages 42.66 at number 6 and 42.35 at number 7, but only 27.74 at number 5 and 30.76 at number 3. Only one of his six centuries Test has passed number 6 in order.
His temperament is also relevant. Like many off-roaders, Bairstow thrives knowing that if he’s struggling with one discipline in his game, he can still contribute to the other. Until May 2018, Bairstow seemed to feel safe and valued on this side.
Then? Well, the statistics tell the story, really. It could be argued that any Test player has to learn to play the ball on the move and adapt to the needs of the team, and Buttler’s prioritization has been vindicated for its improvement in the last year. But you’d probably also have to accept that Bairstow was doing very well until it was destabilized by the latest quirk of selectors who claim they use data, but give every indication of simply manipulating it to justify prioritizing their latest favorite.
How else can the selection of Jason Roy as the test starter be explained? Or Ollie Pope’s pick to hit higher for England than ever for Surrey? Or Somerset’s second-choice spinner pick who averages 47 with the ball in the Second XI Championship? Bairstow is not a number 3; Judging it by its track record is like judging a racehorse by its ability to swim.
The job of managing a team is to provide a stable and calm environment in which a player has the best opportunity to develop his or her potential. Bairstow has been diverted from his position, his role changed and asked to adapt to suit other players, and he is not the only one who has suffered that fate. Yes, you have not been able to make that adjustment. But the leadership of England is, at least in part, guilty of sowing the seeds of doubt and asking it to play a role for which it was ill-prepared and ill-prepared.
None of this means that England’s national teams necessarily have to have faith in him. But it does mean that they need to be realistic about who is replacing you and give them a better chance of realizing their potential. Playing against this quality of opposition will always be difficult; doing it when you feel insecure in your role and your position is nearly impossible.
Blaming the players for England’s loss in the series may be understandable. But if English cricket really wants to see a change, it is the administration and management that require attention.
George Dobell is senior correspondent for ESPNcricinfo
.
