Impatient, imperfect England's Ashes defeat begs the question - what is the point of Trevor Bayliss?

Well, first of all, thanks for reading. Actively seeking out an article about the 2017-18 Ashes, when Australia have just won said Ashes with two games to spare, is not necessarily everyone’s idea of fun. So hats off to you. Take a seat in the circle and let’s all join hands.

The Kubler-Ross psychological model, detailing the five stages of grief, does not necessarily apply here. Denial is not exactly an option when you are 3-0 down in a series. Nor is bargaining likely to make much of an impact. What could Joe Root realistically walk into the Australian dressing room and offer Steve Smith in return for keeping the series alive? The toss in Melbourne? A one-Test head start in 2019? A solemn pledge to keep Moeen Ali as their sole spinner?

Then you get anger and depression, and while both are understandable reactions, neither is likely to linger. Yes, it’s a drag for the guys and girls who paid thousands of pounds to come out here, and the hundreds watching through the night on BT Sport, but it’s only cricket. Nobody died. It’s Christmas soon. The Only Fools and Horses repeats are about to start. Things could certainly be worse.

Where this will really sting, of course, is in the England dressing room. That much was evident as Joe Root strode in to face the press conference no captain wants to face. The emotions were close to the surface. “It’s bitterly disappointing,” he said. “I’ve been desperate for us to win this series. The next day or two are going to be pretty tough.”

Trevor Bayliss’s press conference, on the other hand, was slightly different. For one thing, it was almost devoid of emotion. Perhaps the England coach is the sort of guy who likes to keep his feelings locked up tight. But then, so is Root under normal circumstances. If Root was the shattered reality show contestant struggling to keep things together on live television, then Bayliss was the British Airways operative telling you that they didn’t personally lose your luggage, and would you please fill out this form and go to the back of the queue.

Any changes for Melbourne? “Haven't given it any thought whatsoever.”

Would Ben Stokes have made any difference to the series? “Hard to say.” Why had so many senior players failed to produce their best cricket at the same time? “I wish I knew. You'd have to ask them.” Why does England struggle to produce express pace bowlers? “I haven't got the answers.”

Bayliss, to be fair to him, was telling the truth. He doesn’t have the answers. Perhaps nobody does. But at this baseline moment for English cricket, you longed for a coach that might at least strive to find them, or at least strive to pretend that he might want to. It all feeds into the overarching perception of Bayliss as a coach, which is that there are certain areas in which he feels he can make a difference, and others in which he has little to no interest.

It is well-documented, of course, that Bayliss has only the most cursory knowledge of county cricket, and no real desire to change that. Forensically scouring the domestic scene for cricketers of promise is not part of what he sees as his job; that he leaves to the selectors, James Whitaker, Angus Fraser and Mick Newell, and he simply coaches what he is given.

At which point: what happens? Nobody is really sure. Bayliss’s main function is to create a harmonious environment that offers players the best possible chance to perform. In the first respect, he has clearly succeeded. This is a squad with none of the schisms and cliques of previous touring parties: a genuinely united England squad who revel in each other’s successes.

Bayliss is neither a micromanager nor a mollycoddler. He treats individuals like adults, gives them responsibility for their own success, trusts them to work things out for themselves. The coaches are there if you want them. The stats are there if you want them. In this respect, he was a clear break with his predecessor Peter Moores, whose didactic style evidently grated with many of the senior players in the team, culminating in the disastrous, data-drenched 2015 World Cup campaign.

And Bayliss owed his appointment largely to the fact that he was not Moores. He improved England’s abysmal performance in global white-ball tournaments, reaching a World T20 final in 2016 and a Champions Trophy semi-final in 2017. And his focus on allowing individuals to indulge their gifts without consequence has been one of the primary factors in England’s resurgence in one-day cricket, a format in which they now lead rather than follow. Players like Root, Ben Stokes, Moeen Ali and Jonny Bairstow have all clearly benefited from this approach.

It is in Test cricket - a radically different game these days, with far subtler demands - that England’s gung-ho culture has been found wanting. Under Bayliss, England have simply lost the ability to grind out draws - just four in 36 Tests: one weather-ruined, the other three after scoring more than 500 in their first innings, none as a result of a defensive rearguard. The patience required to bat for hundreds rather than fifties has been lacking: under Andy Flower, England averaged one century for every 15 batsmen who came to the crease. Under Moores, it was 13. Under Bayliss, it has been 28.

Is it even possible to frame England’s recent disciplinary issues as the natural corollary of an ethos in which individual expression and action without consequence is positively encouraged? You could certainly argue it either way.

We should resist the urge to scapegoat here. There is so much within English cricket for which Bayliss is simply not responsible. Bayliss is not to blame for the English climate, nor for the brutal county schedule, nor for what happens at Loughborough, nor for the economics of the game that have pushed so many of our most talented cricketers away from Test cricket and towards Twenty20. His job is simply to take England’s most talented players and turn them into a winning side.

And it is on this count that judgement will ultimately be made. Under Bayliss, England have been thrashed in India, won in South Africa, reached a global one-day final, been dumped out of their home tournament in the semis, won 15 Tests, lost 17, won an Ashes, lost an Ashes. It may have been entertaining, but there is very little to suggest progress, vision, a long-term strategy. A coach with genuine investment in English cricket might be able to dig deeper in search of these things. But Bayliss won’t be in the job in three years’ time. This, like much else, will simply be filed under “things for other people to worry about”.

Bayliss was asked after this match whether he still felt he was the right person to lead England forward. “Er... well I think I am,” he said. “You may not. That’s for people above my pay grade to make that decision, so we’ll leave it up to them.” Perhaps these next two Tests will clarify the picture. Perhaps he will relinquish Test duties and concentrate on the one-day brief ahead of the 2019 World Cup. Either way, the suspicion remains that England as a Test match side may need something that Bayliss is unable to give them.