England have replaced one New Zealander with another, appointing former Black Caps captain Stephen Fleming as their new Test coach following Brendon McCullum’s departure.

Fleming’s credentials are not in question. He has been enormously successful in franchise cricket and is clearly one of the most respected coaches in the game.

But I still don’t believe he should be coaching England.

For me, international cricket coaches should represent their own country, just as the players do.

England have a huge county cricket system and numerous former international players and coaches who have worked their way through the game. Surely there is an English coach with the experience and credentials to lead the national side.

If there isn’t, England must ask some serious questions about its coaching pathways.

If you were an English coach working throughout county or grassroots cricket, wouldn’t you be disappointed? What are you working towards if the biggest position in English cricket continually goes to somebody from another country?

Appointing an overseas coach suggests there is little faith in your own system. England have the money, facilities and cricketing history to develop quality coaches. If that structure isn’t producing people considered capable of coaching the national team, that is the ECB’s responsibility.

The part I struggle with most is national loyalty. Imagine an Englishman coaching Australia during an Ashes series. It wouldn’t feel right, and it certainly wouldn’t look right.

How could he stand in front of Australian players and speak about what the Ashes means to us? How could he talk about Australian culture, our history and the importance of representing the country with Australian blood running through your veins?

Even though coaching is a professional and highly paid job, where does the passion sit? Deep down, would he genuinely want Australia to beat England?

Now imagine Justin Langer coaching England against Australia. JL was one of the most passionate Australian cricketers who’s played the game. He bled for the baggy green.

The idea of seeing him wearing England’s Three Lions and developing plans to beat Australia in an Ashes series would look wrong for every possible reason.

I experienced an overseas coach with Australia when Cricket Australia appointed South African Mickey Arthur. One of the main reasons I don’t believe it worked was the lack of understanding around how Australian cricketers operated, our winning culture and the way we played the game.

A coach can understand tactics and technique, but understanding the identity of a national team is something different.

I’m not against coaches sharing their knowledge around the world. Franchise cricket is perfect for that. Players and coaches from different countries come together, exchange ideas and learn from one another. County cricket and the various domestic leagues can provide similar opportunities.

There may also be a place for overseas specialists to work privately with players on their skills or mindset. But the more I think about even a short-term specialist position within a national set-up, the more uncomfortable I become.

At the international level, it can easily become another well-paid job and another achievement to add to a CV. Everything doesn’t need to become like franchise cricket.

International cricket is supposed to be different. It is country against country, history against history. That is particularly true during an Ashes series. Some things are worth protecting rather than changing simply because professional sport now allows it.

People will say Fleming was the best person available. Perhaps he was. But England should be asking why its best option was not someone from England.

I’m all for evolving and growing cricket, but how does appointing another overseas coach grow English cricket? The knowledge gained through franchise and county competitions should be taken home and used to strengthen each country’s own coaching system.

If players must qualify to represent their country, I don’t understand why the person leading them should be treated differently.

International cricket should remain national, and that should include the coach.