Second fiddle?

Is Moeen the best spinner in the current England set up? Undoubtedly. Does that mean he is the first spinner? No, apparently not. During the last test there was a lot of talk on TMS about the shameful way he had been relegated to appear after Liam Dawson. Don't worry if you missed it - I'm sure we haven't heard the end of it. Aggers and Vaughan were indignant. It was a remarkable response to a test match in which, clearly, the troubles of the batting line up played the greatest part. Perhaps it is a welcome distraction from endless discussions of what ought to be done about the batting difficulties.

Anyone who actually listened to anything which Trevor Bayliss said about Moeen would know that it was not “Moeen bowled so badly last week that we've decided to call him the second spinner.” Rather he spoke about “Taking the pressure off” and Moeen's own desire to be seen primarily as a batsman who bowls. All of this points to a decision to use the labels 'first' and 'second' spinner purely for psychological reasons.

One of the most basic but also the most fascinating aspects of sport psychology is the way some people perform better when the pressure is off and others step up when the heat is on. Stuart Broad often talks about falling into the later category as he did so memorably at Trent Bridge in 2015. Many of Johnny Bairstow's innings, last week's test aside, have come at a time when England needed him most. It's readily accepted, and rightly so, that some players have another gear (such episodes are, appropriately enough, referred to as 'clutch performances') when called upon for a miracle. Perhaps it's less acceptable to create space for the player who needs less pressure. There is the rhetoric about being “mentally tough” and having the right temperament for playing international cricket.

My background is in birth education and support and I have always been interested in the way pressure upon women creates delays in labour. So many women talk about feeling 'like a watched pot' and feel that labour happens more easily when either no-one is present or when the midwife or birth partner is unobtrusively supportive. It's not an easy comparison to make, the hormones involved in labour are a huge factor, for a smooth labour the level of stress needs to be low to enable the production of oxytocin, a 'shy' hormone which is only produced well when women feel safe, private and supported, in the absence of stress hormones. What the two activities: giving birth and playing test cricket, have in common is that in both cases adrenaline plays a complex part.

Anyone who plays cricket at international level must have to get used to an enormous adrenaline rush, walking onto the pitch, bowling or facing a first ball, seeing the first chance, up in the air headed straight for you. To a great extent adrenaline is friend rather than foe in these situations. I'm reminded of Mitchell Johnson, pumped and stalking in like a panther desirous of bringing down a warthog for tea presumably both a steady hand and some inner fire a part of his attack. Alastair Cook (no warthog in anyone's book, of course.) facing him displaying adrenaline enough to engage rather than flee. I'd contend that the batsman might have a slight advantage. The batsman who walks onto the pitch body humming with nerves, trembling and feeling nauseous certainly exists, probably more commonly that we assume, but once out in the middle there are always balls to be faced. The 'threat' is more consistent. Once the first run is scored the level of stress drops and as he plays himself in the level of stress becomes manageable and allows him to think more clearly, to innovate, to judge risk more accurately. Like a soldier who learns to eat and sleep in a war zone he adjusts to the stressor.

A bowler rather has to learn to switch gears. Many times he will return to his mark, breathing space during his partner's over or between spells allow him time to think, to relax and then all eyes are on him again. The match situation plays an enormous part in the level of expectation he will feel. This must be particularly true of a spinner. If the opening bowlers, and typically change bowlers have come and gone without much luck the spinner is often seen as the solution. Being an opening bowler carries it's own stresses but there is something about facing up straight away which is quite appealing. Hanging around in the field for hours watching the pace attack struggling against entrenched batsmen can only up the ante for the spinner.

But then no-one seems to deny that Moeen might find bowling stressful. The suggestion is more that it is in some way 'soft' or 'silly' for Bayliss to make any effort to alleviate the stress, even if, in fact, it works and he performs better. Perhaps it's not important for the BBC's commentary team to have a detailed understanding of Sport Psychology but the time devoted to an issue which is apparently producing no negative effect on Moeen's bowling seems extraordinary. Jonathan Agnew's insistence that Bayliss should 'build up' Moeen and tell him how well he was doing was almost touchingly naïve. He was speaking to Michael Vaughan interestingly enough, who has a reputation as a positive captain who praised and celebrated his team. Yet Vaughan drew criticism from James Anderson for his inability to see what individual players needed and respond to his crisis of confidence as a young player. Some times the praise is not enough. Sometimes, in fact, praise increases the feeling of pressure and scrutiny.

Until recently derisive comments about players leaving international cricket because of stress or depression were being made by prominent commentators. The message that this is unacceptable seems to have got through and yet there is little recognition that the environment in which players train might do something to alleviate the stress experienced. Bayliss and his fellow coaches seem to have created an environment where individuals can thrive. Players leaving the squad struggling for air like Jonathan Trott or Marcus Trescothick seem thinner on the ground. When Nick Compton left the squad last year, in his words 'down' and 'emotional' after a bad run of form which seemed hard to escape he made the very balanced decision to take some time out and returned to County cricket rejuvenated 6 weeks later. It's hard to know what part the coaching staff played in his decision but all their rhetoric was certainly supportive of the man and his choice.

It wont have escaped your attention that England women won the World Cup on Sunday in splendid style. It was thanks in no small part to the contribution of Sarah Taylor behind the stumps. Just over a year ago Taylor took a break from cricket to receive cognitive behavioural therapy. She was suffering from debilitating anxiety and decided that an indefinite break would give her the space she needed to begin to surface after as she put it 'hitting the bottom of the pool'. Her return in time for the World Cup is a testament to the open communication and supportive involvement of the coaching staff and her team. It's also a result of the kind of 'mental toughness' which some players will never have to find within them. A player overcoming feelings of panic and acute stress to come back and play the sport they love is embodying the 'right temperament' to perfection. It is an ongoing process, Taylor has indicated, the struggle continues and the support has to be continuous too.

The PCA's new video makes the point better than I can in the words of players who have coped with the psychological pressures of playing professional cricket. So I really marvel at passionate opposition to a coach trying to take pressure off a player. What possible objection can there be?