Put aside spin, coaching gurus are the great deceptions

Sri Lanka’s head coach Chris Silverwood.

An old friend stands between ­England and the T20 World Cup semi-finals. Chris Silverwood is not the bitter type – a friendlier, more straightforward man it would be hard to meet – but given the way his tenure with England ended, amid an Ashes defeat and stories of ill-discipline among the players, it would provide him with a footnote to cherish if his team, Sri Lanka, could progress at its ­expense.

Silverwood is one of a number of foreign coaches with teams at this T20 World Cup. Jonathan Trott is in charge of Afghanistan, Matthew Mott is the head coach of England – with a decidedly Australian feel to his backroom staff, too – and Jamie Siddons, the former Australia batsman, coaches Bangladesh.

For Silverwood, though, the match against his former employer carries special significance.

It seems remarkable to think now, given all that has happened since, that Silverwood, 47, was the most important man in English cricket only a year ago.

Not only had this relatively ­inexperienced international coach been given responsibility for England’s Test and limited-overs teams but he had been put in charge of selection, too.

It seemed wrong then; even more so in hindsight.

The changes to the England set-up since reveal just how ­ambitious that was. What Silverwood was charged with doing alone is now down to a variety of people: Brendon McCullum has taken responsibility for the Test team, Mott for the limited-overs sides – and each has his own dedicated backroom staff – while the job of the national selector has been advertised and should be filled by the time England leaves for three Tests in Pakistan, starting on December 1.

When Ashley Giles, the ECB’s former managing director of men’s cricket, decided to give Silverwood more power than any other England coach had enjoyed since Ray Illingworth in the 1990s, the rationale was that it would provide clear lines of ­accountability. It was, Giles said, time to break with tradition and haul management, coaching and selection into the 21st century. That all sounds fine until it goes wrong – and then that one man finds himself with nowhere to hide.

The danger with such an autocratic system is that you end up with a football-style scenario, with head coaches departing every time there is a downturn in results. Now, with diffused ­accountability and responsibility shared between multiple people, it is not quite so easy to know where to point the finger. It also means that if you do need to make a change, you can do so without up-ending the whole structure.

A personal view is that there are very few coaches who make a significant difference.

There is the odd outstanding technical coach (Duncan Fletcher), the odd outstanding character (McCullum fits that bill) and a handful who combine both (England was lucky to enjoy the services of Andy Flower) but these are few and far between. Mostly, head coaches have little impact.

The rise of the managerial, coaching class in cricket has been one of the great deceptions, sucking resources from the game for relatively little return.

When Phil Simmons announced he was stepping down as the head coach of West Indies after a bad run at this world cup, the results under different coaches over the past two decades or so were noted. Broadly, they were similar no matter who was in charge; in that period across formats West Indies won roughly one match in three.

My view is Silverwood was not one of those rare, exceptional coaches who made a significant difference. It was not that he did a bad job – the players said that, ­organisationally, he was sound and ran a happy ship – but nor did he really improve things.

There was sympathy for the predicament in which he found himself during the Covid lockdowns but it was clear that by the end of the Ashes he was overwhelmed by the size of the job.

A change could not come soon enough for him or the team.

Given the way things ended with England, it was good to see him get another chance so quickly. Sri Lanka came calling and success arrived almost immediately with a surprise win in the Asia Cup.

In that tournament, Sri Lanka won all three of its games in the super four stage and then beat Pakistan in the final. It was an ­unexpected result.

The cool, damp early-season conditions in Australia have not played as well to Sri Lanka’s strengths and it has been no surprise to see the team struggle more here.

Still, it will be motivated to win knowing that qualification, while unlikely, remains a possibility. Having beaten Afghanistan and Ireland but lost to Australia and New Zealand, it must win against England and hope that other ­results fall its way.

Recent results against England give Silverwood little in the way of hope.

Sri Lanka has not beaten ­England in this format since 2014 – since, in other words, some of its great players left the stage – and is on a run of seven straight defeats, including three in England last season and one in the T20 World Cup a year ago.

The venue, the Sydney Cricket Ground, should suit Sri Lanka more than, say, Perth or Melbourne, where there has been more pace, bounce and movement. Sri Lanka has the skiddy pace of Lahiru Kumara but relies on the leg spin of Wanindu Hasaranga and Maheesh Theekshana’s flickers in the middle overs.

Hasaranga leads the bowling charts with 13 wickets and has brought energy in the field to a team that has one of the lowest successful-catch percentages in the tournament.

England has superior firepower with the bat and is looking good again after a thrilling win over New Zealand in Brisbane. The top order fired at last, with Jos Buttler and Alex Hales making 50s, and the bowlers held their nerve as the match became tight towards the closing overs.

They are coming together ­impressively and have the advantage of playing last in the group stage, so will know what they need to do. They should be too strong for Sri Lanka.

The Times