OPINION: Why Jon Lewis should remain coach and who should be in the 50-over squad for the World Cup

Please note that the opinions of guest contributors to CRICKETher do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editor.

By Andy Frombolton

The clamour for Jon Lewis to be sacked as England coach continues – without anyone explaining what he’s done so wrong or, more pertinently, what anyone else could realistically have done differently or better.

Heavily shackled by having to primarily select from a centrally-contracted group whose limits are well evidenced, and additionally limited by the paucity of credible ‘ready-to-go’ alternatives, Lewis has done as well as could be expected with the hand he was dealt.

Meanwhile, Charlotte Edwards is widely heralded as The Answer to the Problem. Whilst there’s no denying that she’s enjoyed significant achievements as a coach, recent results suggest that success doesn’t invariably follow wherever she goes: Vipers finished third in last year’s RHF Trophy and the CEC; Sydney Sixers finished fifth and sixth in the last 2 WBBLs; and MI were third in last years WPL (and hold the same position currently). In her early coaching days she also undoubtedly benefitted from the ‘Lottie Effect’ – attracting good players who wanted to be in her orbit with the resultantly-strong teams routinely crushing their opponents.

And what would her conditions be for taking the role? The right to ditch established players (however embarrassing for the ECB – and financially wasteful – this might be if they hold long contracts)? To prioritise trialling players during the upcoming summer series over results? For the ECB to publicly acknowledge that re-building will take a few years and may entail some low ‘lows’ en route? If those freedoms are what’s needed, why not just give Lewis the same?

It’s my strong view that Lewis is a good coach and that he should remain, perhaps with Edwards appointed as an advisor or deputy.

My earlier use of the term ‘rebuilding’ was deliberate because, for all the investment in the England team and for all the record-breaking crowds, the simple fact is that the current England squad’s collective zenith isn’t high enough to beat Australia or India in 50 over cricket.

Defenders of individual incumbents might seek to cite ICC rankings or statistics to justify their continued selection – but this ignores the fact that the majority of their performances are against international teams which are weaker than the better Tier 1 counties. The true test of an international cricketer is how they perform against the strongest opponents and, as illustrated in my last article, the performances of most of the current England squad crumble when playing Australia.

In which case, what possible purpose is served by continuing to pick this same group of players? Sometimes you need to accept that no amount of coaching or training or additional match experience is going to transform a player into a world beater. Business people refer to the ‘sunk cost fallacy’ to describe a cognitive bias that causes people to keep investing in something even when it’s no longer beneficial. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the original decision was wrong – just that it didn’t work out as hoped.

With the freedoms referred to earlier, whoever’s head coach this summer should therefore announce a series of England vs England A games to be played across the summer pitching incumbents (desperate to prove they still warrant their place) against challengers (eager to show that they don’t).

These games shouldn’t be hidden away, played behind closed gates as if they’re some sort of shameful talent slugfest, but promoted to encourage crowds and media scrutiny; with the best performers selected for the summer international series. (If some centrally-contracted players subsequently lose their places, the message can be all about the opening-up of the selection process to hitherto-overlooked talent rather than the ousted. That’s what PR people are for!)

The best performers should then play in a series of England A games versus the touring teams. (No touring team should turn down the chance for more match practice.)

The sooner the rebuilding starts, the sooner we’ll have an international team capable of matching Australia and India.

Here’s the 3 steps needed:

1. The ECB clarifies the head coach situation and announces a series of England vs England A matches; explaining that the purpose is to identify the group of players capable of (A) winning the 2026 World Cup (to be held in England), or (B) the Ashes in 2027.

Players should be given a proper ‘run’ to prove themselves at the highest level. Remember, Knight didn’t score a 50 until her 10th ODI innings and her second in her 33rd whilst Wyatt took 48 innings to score her maiden ODI 50. We cannot go back to the days of e.g. Gordon, Lamb and the two Smiths being discarded after a few games.

2. To commence the reset, start with the only truly world-class player we have – Nat Sciver-Brunt – who needs to be asked to take the ODI captaincy until after the October World Cup. A separate T20 captain should be appointed.

2. There needs to be a volte face in selection criteria. Chris Guest, head coach of the Under-19s, recently observed in a Cricketer article that “if you’ve got someone who is outstanding within their skill and can’t field as well as someone who is less good within their skill but can field brilliantly, the skill still takes precedent at the moment.”

Numerous games turn on moments of fielding brilliance but England have only one exceptional fielder – Wyatt-Hodge – whilst most of the other centrally-contracted players are not international-standard fielders; several to the point where it could be posited that their mistakes and lapses in the field outweigh any ‘delta’ skill in their principal discipline over their nearest rival.

A stunning catch or a sharp run-out is more likely to impact a result than having a fractionally-worse ER or a slightly-lower batting average/ Strike Rate. Hence this prevailing attitude needs to be reversed.

Going forward players need to know that they won’t be selected unless they are (or have the potential to rapidly become) world-class fielders.

In the last article, I proposed a new-look T20 squad and promised my ODI squad would follow. Given the short timeframe I’ve proposed a transitional squad to participate in the October World Cup plus possible contenders for each slot. For ease of reference, I’ve also included my (slightly modified) T20 squad for next summer’s World Cup.

Note: Ecclestone’s omission was explained in my previous article.

Amy Jones’ recent ODI batting form has been good. However, a keeper’s role goes beyond catching and stumping; a great keeper additionally covers a huge area behind the stumps, intercepts all incoming throws to make them look good, manages fielding angles for their captain and acts as the vocal drumbeat of the team. Jones doesn’t do any of these things well and hence October’s World Cup should be her swansong.

I’m assuming that Bryce, like Gordon before her, can be persuaded to swap allegiances if adequately incentivised. If not, Heath has just a few months to seize her chance. (If she doesn’t, Smale is breathing down her neck.)

In the last 18 months, Knight has turned herself into a versatile and creative T20 batter. (In the last 2 years her T20 average is 33.6 SR 129, before that her figures were average 28.3 SR 116.) This evolution warrants her inclusion as a specialist batter notwithstanding her decreasing agility in the field.

Capsey might need to replace Scrivens to provide a sixth bowling option. (N.B. Wyatt could extend her career if she returned to bowling. Admittedly, she hasn’t bowled in internationals since 2020 but her stats are decent and even a couple of overs per game would give a captain more options.) Regardless of when she enters the senior team, Perrin’s bowling needs to be encouraged. Australia’s men’s and women’s teams demonstrate the advantages of having lots of batters who can bowl a few overs.