Before the 2006/07 Ashes, the Australian Test squad completed a boot camp.

It was not the sole reason we later won that series 5–0, but the bond and commitment created among the players and coaching staff was noticeable.

We genuinely bought into playing for Australia, playing for everything the set-up represented and playing for the person beside us - the coaching staff included. That commitment showed in how we presented ourselves away from cricket and how we performed on the field.

If you did not buy in, you found yourself out. It was one in, all in. The head coach and permanent assistant coaches of the Australian cricket team should be non-negotiable in terms of commitment.

That is why I struggle with assistant coach Daniel Vettori missing Australia’s recent home Test series against Bangladesh because he was coaching Sunrisers Leeds in The Hundred.

Vettori has been an assistant coach with Australia since 2022 and is highly regarded within the group. He is also head coach of Sunrisers Hyderabad in the IPL and Sunrisers Leeds, and director of cricket at Sunrisers Eastern Cape in South Africa.

This paints an interesting picture. His expanding franchise commitments could reportedly reduce his Australian role. The South African competition may also overlap with Australia’s five-Test tour of India next year.

This is not the first clash. Cricket Australia allowed Vettori to leave during the 2024 Perth Test against India to attend the IPL auction in Saudi Arabia. I am not a fan of it.

Are you completely committed as a coach if you leave during any Test series, let alone an Australian Test summer?

We would question a player who picked and chose the Test series he wanted to play, so why should coaches be judged differently?

While we can blame Vettori as much as we like, CA permitted these arrangements. CA appears concerned that it will lose highly-rated coaches to franchise cricket if it demands complete availability. I do not see another reason for allowing it.

A coach knows what an international position entails before signing a contract. If the commitment does not suit, do not sign on the dotted line. A national coaching position should not simply be another impressive entry on a CV between franchise jobs.

Franchise cricket has changed coaching. At some point, chasing every available position comes at the expense of loyalty, the team and the job already accepted.

It is also why the Mike Hussey situation is interesting. England’s incoming Test coach Stephen Fleming has informally approached Hussey about becoming their batting coach. CA has since reportedly approached Hussey as Australia attempts to address its batting problems before the 2027 Ashes.

If CA genuinely believes Hussey is the right person, it should offer him a proper role with genuine responsibility and finances, not a temporary position designed merely to keep him away from England.

Hussey has enormous knowledge to offer. He worked his way into the Australian side later than most, became one of our most dependable players and understood what representing Australia meant. He was the keeper of the team song and a passionate Australian cricketer who loved beating England.

Seeing Hussey coach England in an Ashes series would not sit comfortably with me. It is not something I could imagine doing unless I had exhausted every possible coaching opportunity in Australian cricket, right down to grade cricket and private coaching.

That is a personal view, and Hussey will make his own decision.

I also understand why people ask why Ricky Ponting or another former great is not coaching Australia. It is a two-way street. National coaching brings significant travel, responsibility and pressure. The timing, money and family commitments must suit the individual. Sometimes strong personalities and egos can also clash inside elite teams.

But I would rather have a coach with top-level experience who is fully committed than a bigger name who is only available when the calendar suits.

At the highest level, players are often searching for the one percenters. I spoke with Dennis Lillee outside the Australian set-up, but I also trusted the coaches travelling with us. They understood my bowling and knew me personally. They recognised what made me perform at my best and how to help when I was struggling.

That relationship cannot be built by coaches continually arriving and leaving for other jobs.

I do not want to sound like a former player with a chip on his shoulder about the modern game. Today’s players and coaches have opportunities we never had, and everyone has the right to choose.

But choices influence cricket’s future. Allan Border’s decision to create a tough, uncompromising Australian team affected the generations that followed. Our choices also affected those who came next.

Money has increasingly become cricket’s main conversation, sometimes ahead of integrity. T20 leagues have grown the game, but Test cricket represents something deeper.

Australian cricket should demand the same commitment from its coaches that it expects from its players.

One in, all in. Anything less eventually comes at a cost.