In a successful cricket team, even the things that go wrong tend to be swept under the carpet so that the grime does not detract from the spectacle of the victory parade. It is how the atmosphere of the England team under Andy Flower was able to sour during its decadent period. How Nick Compton, the undisputed champion of county cricket in 2012 was unable to retain his place in the side because his face did not fit. How relationships between Kevin Pietersen and Andrew Strauss, and later Alastair Cook, were able to deteriorate. As long as England kept winning, none of these things really mattered.

Similarly, in a losing team, nothing is safe from scrutiny. No player’s form is left unconsidered, and no aspect of the team’s planning and preparation is immune from criticism. And so, as Australia’s fourth consecutive Ashes defeat in England was confirmed at Trent Bridge, former wicketkeeper Ian Healy stuck the boot into the players’ wives, partners and families.

“All their partners are here and some of the most respected cricketers I played with hated that distraction. They weren’t allowed on tour until after the series had been won.

“Your mind needs to be completely focused on it. Cricket is a sport that requires complete concentration. You need everything going for you and I’m not sure they’re pushing for that hard enough.

“Their hearts might not be that strong … are they together as a team? Do they fragment from here? Do they meet and talk about it tonight? Will they confront it?”

On one level, Ian Healy’s comments are simply sexist and offensive, a desperate way to avoid the more complex issues behind the failure of Australia’s cricketers to break a 14-year winless streak in England. On another level, the association of having families on tour with distracting players is a poisonous and incorrect insinuation that should not be given the credence it might acquire if left substantially ignored or unchallenged.

One of the most common themes of Test cricket debate in recent years has been how difficult it is for teams to win Test series away from home, especially on long tours. Seven of the last eight Ashes series, for instance, have been won by the home side.

While the differences in on-field conditions undoubtedly play a huge part in the home team’s natural advantage, the practical implications of touring a foreign country for months and trying to play cricket to the best of your ability must also be a factor.

English cricketers have spoken about the hostility they faced from the Australian public, both during and between Test matches. Taxi drivers, people in restaurants, the environment of an Ashes series in which emotions run high for the public make being thousands of miles away from home a difficult prospect to face, even for the bravest and manliest of international stars.

Many players have suffered from homesickness that affects their performances away from home. Steve Harmison battled homesick-related depression for ten years, and his bowling average suffered as a result (he averaged 36.61 away from home as opposed to 28.47 in England). Kevin Pietersen has spoken about feeling and playing better when his family is with him on tour. His wife Jessica was in India between the first and second Tests in 2012, after which he scored his famous 186 at Mumbai. England went on to record a historic series win.

Australian batsman David Warner has his young family with him on tour for the current Ashes series, and fake-beard related inter-cricketer violence has suddenly dropped 100%.

For some players, then, the support of family on tour is essential to their performance. Not to mention that cricketers often live with their families during a home series, and so would also be susceptible to any “distractions” that family life brings on. If families distract the visitors, they could have a similar impact on the hosts. Therefore, it is an inadmissible excuse for being unable to win away series.

Ian Healy’s idea that the absence of wives and partners will enable players to focus wholly on cricket is also rather quaint and naïve. If someone is disposed to be diverted from their sport by external distractions, they could find them just as easily, if not more easily, without the presence of their significant others. The benefits of having families present are difficult to establish through anything other than anecdotal and conjectural evidence.

What is clear, however, is that different players need different things on tour to perform well. Some may need their families there to prevent homesickness. Some may need their families there to keep them out of mischief. Some, of course, might be better off without their families.

It is a decision that must be made by the player, the management and their family on a mature and informed level to give them the best chance of playing good cricket. Banning partners and spouses could damage the form of one player and help another concentrate – it should be decided on a case-by-case basis, and not on the sexist excuses of a former professional.

Ultimately, though, the responsibility for success on the cricket field lies with the player and the management. If a batsman is so distracted by his children being on the tour that he cannot score a run, that says more about his professionalism and his skills than it does about his children. If a bowler delivers three wide long-hops an over because he had dinner with his wife the night before, then he is probably not worth his salt as a bowler.

Wives and partners might be seen as easy scapegoats by pundits like Ian Healy, but some players are better off for having that support network on tour. Roger Federer’s family is always on tour with him, and he has said that if they weren’t allowed to accompany him, he would just retire. The over-crowded cricket schedule has enough of an impact on the lives of cricketers and their families without them being forcibly separated by over-zealous and misguided team managers. Some people need their families, some need space, some are not affected either way. Let the players, managers and families decide on the best course of action together – they are all adults, after all.