James Nixon |
The saying “A leopard can’t change its spots” is ringing in my ears.
Brendon McCullum (BMC) signalled his willingness to adapt and evolve his methods to improve England’s Test performance in the wake of the last Ashes series Down Under. Yet all he specifically promised the ECB chiefs was to make some “tweaks” to England’s approach to playing matches, with the batting in high pressure situations foremost in mind. However, to me at least, these “tweaks” have barely been discernible in the subsequent three match series against New Zealand.
By the time the 2025/26 Ashes series was well underway, Captain Stokes (BS) was the one to get his head down at the crease and fight it out with determination, taking some others with him (most notably, Will Jacks):
T2: BS -19 (run out), striking at 38.8, whole team at 72.8
50 at 32.9, whole team at 53.2
T3: BS – 83 at 41.9, whole team at 54.5
T4: BS – 16 at 42.1, whole team at 61.3
Plus four single figure scores for BS.
I feel that BMC may well have been getting highly agitated at the Captain’s rather painstaking progress in these four innings in which he got a start, following England’s debacle in Perth.
Following this 4-1 Ashes series loss, BMC insisted that straying from the recognised “Bazball” approach (though not his label) was a mistake. Despite heavy criticism, he maintained that abandoning the high-risk style of batting was the real error, asserting “we must keep backing our adopted approach” to be successful. Stokes, most notably, differed.
“““““““““““““““““““`
The focus of this piece is on what sort of team BMC’s how-to-play-the-game philosophy is actually suited to; and when, and why, he should have had a basic change of plan. Marcus Trescothick remains the anointed “batting coach”, though BMC has confirmed that he himself has been in charge of the tactical side of matters – albeit with also giving the players a licence to express themselves, a matter returned to shortly.
““““““““““““““““““`
Hoult’s Contention and The Fall-Out
Nick Hoult of The Telegraph newspaper has written that Ben Stokes pushed for BMC’s removal at the end of the 2025/26 Ashes series in January. I don’t know his source, but it seems highly plausible.
Assuming that the team Captain really did want BMC moved-on after the Australia tour, he has been denied his wish by the ECB because those who rubber-stamped the lack of proper preparation for the Ashes series marked their own homework in the post-tour review and decided nobody was to blame for the outcome. Snippets of the resulting inquiry report being released in late-March, with the overall message: It’s hard to win in Australia and so there’s no need to change any of the key personnel.
The ECB chiefs – especially the arch pragmatist Richard Gould and the Chairman, Richard Thompson might think they have done the sacking of BMC rather well – avoiding a large compensation payment by keeping him on in white ball coaching mode. And releasing the news on Sunday 12th July while the England women’s team was playing their Test match against India at Lord’s and coming a day after England had completed a sweeping T20 series triumph over India. This timing presumably decided on in the hope of minimising the shock to the public and a possible adverse public reaction.
Yet even in its own self-interest the ECB’s timing was awry, being some six months delayed so as not to contradict themselves over the stability thrust of the Ashes inquiry report. This left only one month to appoint, and brief, a new England captain (surely not “the liable to a tactical brain fade” Joe Root again) as well as needing a suitable replacement for the disenchanted team captain – surely not the prone to be cavalier at the crease Harry Brook, nor the young inexperienced Jacob Bethell. The latter’s place in the team cannot yet be secure given his poor run of first innings scores for England (eight of his nine first digs yielding no higher than 16 runs).
An eminent of member of the ACS organisation has been privately wishing that Jimmy Anderson – now captaining Lancashire – will get the job. This would be a most sensible solution in my view. The cupboard seems otherwise bare, unless a wild card solution is adopted. How about appointing Mike Brearley as a non-playing captain while leaving the lower level on-field decisions to someone such as Ben Duckett – akin to golf’s Ryder Cup set-up.
To make matters worse, in the immediate aftermath of BMC’s sacking, Richard Gould has been harping on about the need to prepare for the next Ashes series, at home next summer – conveniently omitting to mention the WTC Championship with England currently languishing in the standings. Does Mr. Gould really think that the cricket enthusiasts who support the England team are so gullible as to swallow his often peculiar statements wholesale?
BMC’s Mea Culpa and His Achievements in Context
As to BMC’s mea culpa public statements on his sacking (“It’s a results-driven business, I fully accept that” and suchlike), I interpret these – perhaps a little cynically – as an attempt to shore up his white ball coaching position with his bosses at the ECB and not irritate them with any defensive stuff.
Most commentators laud MBC’s achievements during the initial year or so of his reign, but also fail to see the fundamental and fatal flaw of his general approach to playing Test matches, reflecting that of an inveterate gambler – in life as a whole (recall, for instance, his horse racing attachments). BMC did refresh the players’ psyches and freed them up to express themselves; coupled with a focus on what can go right, rather than being anxious about what may go wrong. In short, liberation!
That mindset changing was inspired work. However, the approach adopted to batting in endeavouring to win matches was often over-aggressive and cavalier at the wrong time – as discussed, in depth, in Chapters A, B and C of my book (63 pages of A4 size) released in May 2025, titled England’s Test Batting in the New Regime: A Critique for “Continuous Improvement.”
Recall BMC’s words early-on:
“Let’s attack the danger; let’s run towards the danger”- fighting fire with fire when in a high pressure situation and risk losing a match for a chance of winning it. A gambol worth taking for an underdog struggling team.
This delivered as part of a talk to the team during the initial three match series, at home, against New Zealand in 2022 – when England successfully chased down three challenging second innings targets for a 3-0 victory.
In his book of 2017 – On Form – Mike Brearley makes a similar point:
A concern about the prospect of failing tends, in turn, to create the outcome that we most fear. We create the very thing that we strive most to avoid happening. {Chapter 16}
A companion saying: The only thing to fear is fear itself…such as the fear of receiving a delivery with one’s name on it or getting an edge to the slips.
And this from American President, Franklin D. Roosevelt: … let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
Excerpt from his inaugural address, 4 March 1933, in the context of the Great Depression that had begun four years earlier.
A related point: BMC encouraged each batsman to weigh up the match situation for himself and decide how he could best respond – given his abilities – to maximise the prospect of the team winning a match. Such freedom can be dangerous for novices (such as an early Ollie Pope or an early Ben Duckett) and those with a rash streak (eg Jonny Bairstow) andalso those with a maverick disposition (most notably, Harry Brook).
In essence, BMC’s approach suited a struggling team with very little more to lose, and potentially lots to gain, in terms of status, competitive standing and the public’s support, which was true of the England side when he took over. It followed a slump – a dismal string of results, England having won only 1 of their last 14 matches.
The Missed Switch
Having achieved a dramatic turn-around of match results with a lot of pluck and some necessary slices of luck, a basic change in approach was required to further lift what had become a successful team in place of a struggling and dispirited one. In short, a switch to a more temperate attitude, better matching the tactics applied to the conditions and game situation. “Horses for Courses” to use a phrase BMC would be highly familiar with.
Moreover, the generally adventurous way of batting was a gamble that, sooner or later, would inevitably rebound. Just as such gambles do in everyday life – casino players being a striking example. Two of the Government’s counter-gambling addiction slogans here in Australia, regularly announced on TV run: What’s gambling really costing you? and What are you really gambling with? These are apt in this story. BMC has been gambling with the fate of England’s Test team…for far too long. The downturn was always going to come: just a matter of time.
There’s a major problem with gambling for those who can’t afford it. Kerry Packer loved it, though his wallet was fat enough to withstand big losses at the tables. (It is said that he lost around US $25 million to casinos during the last decade of his life.) But most people can’t afford to gamble frequently and substantially with money, and nor could BMC in a team coaching role. As indicated, it was a philosophical outlook he pursued that suited a lowly team, just as he did when taking over the captaincy of the New Zealand side from 2013 through to early-2016. But when England’s fortunes were resurrected, BMC unwisely persisted with it.
Which raises the question: when was a good time for England to have switched from their high-risk attitude to batting under BMC and adopt a more conservative or cautious approach when it was called for?
This would, I think, have been following the initial four Test series in the New Regime. Having, at that stage, won three of these series (against NZ 3-0 at home, against South Africa 2-1 at home, and against Pakistan 3-0, away) and drawn the last of these series, against NZ, away, in February 2023. All this within the space of nine months; and coming on the heels of series losses under the previous coach (Chris Silverwood) to West Indies, Australia, NZ and India, with one solitary match won back in early-February 2021 at Chennai. So a string of unsuccessful Test series had been decisively turned around, the England team standing tall again.
Passing over the one-off match (won) against Ireland, next up was the Ashes series at home in June/July 2023, resulting in a levelled 2-2 series (one drawn match), coming as it did prior to England’s visit to India – going down 1-4 in that series in January 2023 to March 2024. Accordingly, I pinpoint the time for a switch in strategy as around 10 to 12 months into the New Regime.
It Could Have Saved BMC!
I managed to get my “Continuous Improvement” book into BMC’s hands (through his co-operate London-based business agent), though as far as I’m aware (through the same contact) BMC never took an opportunity to dip into it – or even got an underling to summarise it for him – when taking heed of it could have saved him! Chapter F of the book contains 15 pages of (non-technical) recommendations for improvement to England’s way of batting, along with suggestions as to how best to implement them.
Who’s Been Boozing and Staying Out Late: Should Anyone Care?
All the chatter that’s been going around about the England players “misbehaving” – staying out beyond curfew times, boozing a fair amount in public, etc – has had very little, or nothing at all, to do with their performance (in my view). The likes of those who often had late-night adventures during Test matches – Garry Sobers and Ian Botham to the fore – must have laughed like a drain (in private at least) at the ECB edits about off-field behaviour and disciplinary measures taken!
This nannying of England players was, I contend, misplaced. Instead, an enlightened laissez-faire watch should have been applied; coupled with basing team selections, and rejections, on whether a player is considered to be performing up to his existing ability or is, otherwise, performing substantially below it. (Potential ability being a different matter.)
To quote from my related article on this site (14 June):
The selectors already have to make subjective judgements on a whole variety of matters when picking a Test team. The judgement required in this context is similar in nature to a number of others. Such as: how will he cope when facing express deliveries, rarely encountered so far; will he be able to cope with 100,000 spectators at the MCG, most of whom will be strongly partisan; will his recent series of coaching sessions, to iron out a particular fault, stand up in match play?
This suggested action in responding to a player’s under-performing relative to his capability would be taken whatever the reason(s) for it are – which needn’t, and wouldn’t, be gone into in the public domain. And here’s a key pay-off: no more inquests would arise into who stayed out too late; who drank too much booze where and when; was he really intoxicated when mixing with strangers on his way back to the hotel; were those players being aggressive in a public place; and so forth. So distracting for all and sundry.
And, yes, I would do away – entirely – with imposed curfews and restraints/constraints on drinking alcohol.
All told, this approach to life should, I believe, serve to more strongly incentivise those On the Fringe – and also those some way Beyond the Fringe – to strive for a place in the England team. In so doing, it should also help dampen the exodus to T20 Leagues around the world.
If there are fisticuffs and suchlike in pubs and nightclubs, the law of the land can take care of that, so long as there is CCTV in place
