Another defeat, another postmortem. This is when it really gets tough for players on tour. The series is decided; the date – 21 December – which is when the tour party flies home, keeps catapulting to the forefront of their minds, whether they like it or not.
Yet there remains another daunting trial ahead. An Indian side await in Chennai hungry to make it 4-0. Neither Virat Kohli nor Ravi Ashwin are minded to let up; they have experienced three consecutive series defeats against England and they obviously hurt. Now as captain and vice‑captain they will have no truck with anyone in their side wanting to relax. Quite right, too.
If England’s players consume the cricket reports as voraciously as Ashwin then they will see much speculation about the future of their captain, which can make for an uncomfortable dressing room. The fate of an individual has a certain magnetic attraction and, of course, the captaincy in cricket, unlike in most team sports, really matters. This helps to make it such a captivating game.
Someone usually goes after an unsuccessful expedition. If it is really bad there is also an emergency committee set up, headed by some external bigwig who is charged with the delivery of a very important, wide‑ranging report, but we are not yet in that territory.
The captaincy will be decided in January (with Joe Root the favourite to be in place by July) but there are other equally important topics up for debate in the postmortem – or, as the England and Wales Cricket Board will describe it, the post-tour review which is conducted every year as a matter of routine. Most obviously there is the thorny point of selection.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing for those of us who have a platform to pontificate without responsibility. Smugness is a less attractive quality, but never mind. Trawling back to 15 September, just before the Test squad was announced, it seems that a list of names of likely tourists for the winter was required by the Guardian sports desk; that list did not include Gary Ballance, Ben Duckett, Zafar Ansari or Gareth Batty.
Before this becomes altogether too smug let us point out that the alternatives posted may not have done much better; the chances that they would have changed the outcome of the series in India are low. To save you time those names were Jason Roy, Tom Westley, Jack Leach and Mark Wood, who was subsequently unfit for selection.
The first three would have been gambles, though there must have been some logic there. The batsmen are at least right-handed, which was always going to help a little when batting against India; Leach, albeit a novice, possessed the best figures of any spinner in county cricket (yes, I’m aware of turning pitches at Taunton, but was that really an obstacle?) For Leach touring this winter may have been an ordeal for which he was not ready but the principle that in India the best available spinner is required rather than a multidimensional support bowler remains intact after the evidence of the past six weeks. Actually we knew that after 2012, when England preferred Samit Patel to Monty Panesar for the first Test in Ahmedabad before having the wit to change tack for the second in Mumbai.
There are broader points regarding selection that Andrew Strauss must consider, which might even include giving himself a greater influence – and perhaps ultimate responsibility – since he is, at least, employed solely by the ECB. There has always been unease at having county cricket directors as selectors. Both Angus Fraser and Mick Newell are hugely respected on the circuit but there must occasionally be conflicts of interest when they sit around the selection table. Their main employers, after all, are Middlesex and Nottinghamshire respectively. Moreover, they are restricted by their primary jobs where they can go.
Inevitably other county directors will have an informal input, which makes sense but which should not be decisive since there is the understandable – and laudable – instinct to talk up your own men. At most counties Ansari and Batty would not be regarded as the best spinners in the country but that may well be the case at The Oval.
Most important of all, perhaps, is the role of Trevor Bayliss. So far he has barely had any role at all. Initially there was no other way. He came from outside with no great knowledge of county cricket and no network of contacts. He just had to trust the selectors – or Andy Flower with the Lions – to give him the best available. To his credit he has not disguised this. How often have we heard Bayliss say “I haven’t actually seen him play”? This was the system he was accustomed to when he was coaching Sri Lanka.
Bayliss is a damn good coach and he is well paid. There comes a time, like now perhaps, when his input into selection needs to expand. This is a difficult balancing act for a man whose family is still based in Sydney. In fact it is tough enough for an English-based coach since the international schedule is so hectic.
In 2017, though, there may be a benefit in Bayliss leaving the preparation for some of the many one‑day matches to his trusted deputies while he acquaints himself with the handful of likely lads on the county circuit. He is, after all, properly remunerated partly because he is reckoned to be a very good judge of a cricketer.
