Have you gotten over what happened on Monday morning? Neither do I. An autopsy is underway, but not well. You can tell it’s Nathan Lyons handsome.

forgive. Things are so bad that even a cheap prank at the other man’s expense couldn’t cheer me up today – especially since the news that he’s currently dating this gorgeous blonde. What a sad state.

Anyway, I digress. I’m not here to talk about athletes’ love lives. I’m here to talk about our first love: the England cricket team. What a cruel and unfaithful whore she is. The Australians really have a way with her.

With that in mind, it’s time to discuss upgrading our team for the younger model. But which players should stay and which should go to Dempsville? Don’t act like you haven’t made up your mind yet.

England’s plight is particularly delicate as we don’t have a squad of talented young players to take the place of senior statesmen. Twelve years of ECB mismanagement ended that. So where do we start? Let’s not talk about the players, let’s start with the head coach.

While I support Bayliss appointment – I think his greater international experience gives him an edge over Jason Gillespie – it seems both Lord Brockett and I were wrong. Bayless has a bad record, very bad. He’s lost more than 40 per cent of friendly leaders (twice as many as Peter Moores and Andy Flower), and it’s clear from his recent interviews that he doesn’t know how to fix things.

Before the interview, I’m willing to defend Bayliss. After all, if he doesn’t have players (which he obviously doesn’t), there’s not much he can do. However, I’ve changed my mind as it’s clear he’s still out of touch with county cricket.

When Baylis was named, I had hoped he would immerse himself in our domestic game (time permitting) and identify promising young players the way Duncan Fletcher did. Maybe some rough diamonds like Marcus Trescothick?

Instead, it looks like Bayliss will simply shrug happily and admit “I don’t have the answers.” On the one hand, I appreciate his honesty. On the other hand, I thought, “Well, then why are we paying you?”

I’ve heard suggestions that Bayliss should be fired as Test coach but retained as our white ball specialist. So why not? He actually rode pretty well with the fancy Danse. The problem, of course, is that Bayless is a heavyweight coach who might be less open to relegation. Why should he suffer such stigma when he could walk away and find work elsewhere — in a warmer place where players don’t urinate in the outfield or pour drinks over their heads?

So I think maybe it’s time to part ways with Trev. I wouldn’t be too sad if he stayed, but given the option I might prefer to start over. As long as his replacement isn’t Mick Newell or Ashley Giles. I’d be surprised if the latter isn’t at the top of Brockett’s list.

Next we move to the top of the batting order. Yep, time to talk about Alastair. Now, many people may be surprised by Cook’s failure in the Ashes series. After all, wasn’t Chef the greatest British batsman of all time? The problem, however, is that he isn’t. He wasn’t even close. And he never was.

Cook has been a technically flawed opener with incredible resilience and focus. That means he excels against mediocre bowling (or good bowling on a badminton bed) as he grinds his opponents to ashes with his untested technique.

However, when really tested — as in the series — he usually fails. He might get weird scores like any test #1 to #7, but you can’t expect him to do well in tough conditions.

If you don’t believe me, go back and check out Cook’s every test century on his cricinfo profile page. You’ll find the vast majority of his 31 Test centuries against (a) scoring against weak attacks, (b) scoring against Hilfenhaus and Siddle at the 2010/11 Ashes, (c) scoring in India in 2012 (when He’s great even on a dry deck with no seams moving) or (d) over a decade ago.

So it didn’t surprise me at all that Cook failed miserably on this tour. There’s a reason he averaged significantly less points per game than anyone else against Australia (36) and South Africa (35). Still, I’m not ready to throw a player with a 31 Test score in the trash.

The fact remains, Cook is still a viable test opener. And he’ll probably go on to make big plays against mediocre bowling — which, let’s face it, isn’t a bad skill. So I’m glad Cook will continue to play for England unless Haseeb Hameed starts the season like a train. If he really wanted that.

Next on the list is Moeen Ali – I’ll reserve judgment on James Vince until the end of the series. Mo’s problem is that he’s not batting well enough as a batsman to finish in the top six (especially at the Australian pitch), and he’s not good enough to be a front-line spinner for England. He’s fine at home, but useless outside.

However, Moeen is a very practical all-rounder. He’s an ideal #2 spinner and a tasty low hitter. With Ben Stokes likely to return at some point, England’s versatility means we can afford a luxury player like Mo. We just shouldn’t expect him to play against senior Pacers on a court tailored to expose his flaws.

Finally, I want to say this

By x59ok

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *