The empire strikes back

The Edgbaston Test of 2005 was memorable in so many ways that it is hard to pick out just one, or even a couple special moments. For Brett Lee, there at both the beginning and end, the fond memories will be in short supply. There is, of course, the iconic shot of Flintoff consoling him after he took Australia to the brink in vain, but it was his part on the first morning of the Test match which was seen as significant. Marcus Trescothick, who took first ball, would have spent the build-up wondering how he was going to handle the habitual McGrath missile, kicking up off the pitch off a good length. With McGrath injured, what he in fact got was unexpected; Lee tearing in to spray the new ball to the extremity of the popping crease for a Harmisonian wide. He proceeded to be taken for 6.5 runs per over, the Australians as a whole for 5 as England blazed to 400 within 80 overs. This was, so it seemed at the time, propitious: a foreshadow of how Australia would struggle in the post McGrath era, let alone without the services of Warne, who alone kept Australia competitive that day. Now that situation is the reality, and how the Australians have responded. Having disposed of a useful Sri Lankan outfit with some excellent batsmen, they twice dismissed a glittering Indian batting line-up for under 200 in the series-opening Test at Melbourne.

And Lee, whose ability to lead the attack had been oft questioned, has been a genuine spearhead. With the ever-reliable crutch of McGrath removed, Lee has not wilted under the burden, rather blossomed into the stellar opening bowler he has not been for most of his international career. 22 wickets at an average of 16 is his tally for the Australian summer so far, but his influence has been far beyond those excellent figures. He has always had fearsome pace and big heart, but a propensity to be too generous with the freebies diluted his effectiveness. Now he has the control that has long been lacking and which makes him a fearsome prospect, as well as some useful tricks, like his slower-outswinger. No-doubt a few chats with Troy Cooley, the bowling coach who can seemingly do no wrong, have helped, but it appears that responsibility has been the real catalyst for his improvement. Perhaps we should have seen it coming; Lee's record in ODI cricket, where he has been pack-leader for a while, is exemplary. The last home series against India was not a happy one for Lee: his bowling average inflated past 30 where it has stayed ever since, and he was discarded for over a year. Four years on and he looks in the mood to set the record straight and finally bring that average back into the hallowed ground of the 20s.

But shorn of its inimitable double-act, this current Australian attack is far from a one-man show. Stuart Clark continues to squeeze the life from batsmen in a manner not seen since the mid-late 90s pomp of McGrath and Pollock. His habitual length is one batsmen can play neither back nor forward to with ease, while his consistency and ability to get just enough movement off the pitch means that taking liberties is a perilous exercise. In the first innings at Melbourne he showed another talent by giving an exemplary exhibition of reverse swing bowling, another sign of the Cooley influence. He maintains an average of under 20, an economy of 2.5 and strike rate of 45; figures for the Gods. And he doesn't get the new ball. That privilege is afforded to the tyro Mitchell Johnson, a left-armer from Queensland with a useful penchant for blasting out the big-name Indians. Despite useful early returns, one senses his Test career has yet to catch fire, and he has tended to waste the new ball a bit, bowling too far wide of the right hander's off-stump early on. But a combined economy rate of 1.66 from the Melbourne Test shows he is no leaky tug and the initial impression has been positive, although Shaun Tait will continue to breath down his neck if he can continue his excellent domestic form.

Liberated from McGrath and Warne, as was the case in 2003-4, the glitterati of the Indian batting line-up might have been sensing some heavy scoring on the same plane as that tour. But they got both their batting order and attitude wrong, errors which the Australians were only too happy to capitalise on. Poor Rahul Dravid, at his lowest ebb for a long while, was coerced into occupying the one position with which he has never been comfortable, opening the batting. Those who selected the team certainly got their comeuppance for trying to have it both ways: Dravid was beyond funereal in his approach, killing the Indian first innings and the chance Kumble had worked so hard to fashion on the first day. Yuvraj, in whose name the whole mess was contrived, flopped with a combined total of 5. Bowling Australia out for 343 was about as good as India could have hoped for, especially from 135-0. But Dravid (5 from 66) and Jaffer (4 from 27) allowed the Australians to impose such a fierce stranglehold that only Tendulkar, at his imperious best, and Ganguly, in the form of his life, could escape. Well as the Australians bowled, it was the Indian openers who placed the rope around their own team's neck. Moving Laxman to No.3 was a decisive and correct move; what a pity that the resultant shuffling of deckchairs was marshaled as if by the captain of the Titanic.

Surely Virender Sehwag, form notwithstanding, must be given the chance to inject some life into the Indian top order and take it to the Australians. With Sehwag, anything can happen, and India have a better chance in that lottery than the dirge-like predictability of their Melbourne demise. That would also give Dravid the chance to regroup at No.6: despite his bad form, he is one of India's finest ever and it is him they should be accommodating, not Yuvraj, whose only Test centuries have come on flat pitches against even flatter Pakistani bowling attacks. For if the Indians continue on their present path, Australia will both pass Steve Waugh's record and chalk up yet another whitewash in a home series. And judging by the empty MCG stands after the traditional Boxing day crush, even the home fans are getting bored by the absence of a contest.

England series ratings

Vaughan 6: Moved back to opener, at times he recaptured the sort of elegance and poise which made him one of the few modern batsmen to dominate Australia on their own patch five years ago. But he did not manage a century, albeit in unfortunate circumstances at Colombo, and his misjudgement of Vaas' in-ducker was crass and began the slide to 81 all out at Galle. For the second consecutive series he found himself out-done as captain, and the team lacked leadership in the field. Having proved himself adept at manipulating a happy ship, he must now show some Hussain-style generalship to get his team going again.

Cook 7: Recovered laudably after he was twice trussed-up by Chaminda Vaas in the first over at Kandy. A pair of half-centuries in the next Test and finally England's first ton of the tour at the last opportunity mean he can celebrate a birthday he shares with, amongst other illustrious company, Marcus Trescothick, a man whose record Cook will hope to emulate. He will be just 23, and with his 7th century behind him is still on track for the greatness he has been long-earmarked for.

Bell 6: He seems at times a peerless batsmen; comfortable facing both pace and spin, possessing the timing and lightness of touch which make his strokeplay a joy to watch. The defence is sure, and has a calm sense of permanence. Then, from nowhere, he errs - a lazy wave of the bat outside off, a weak attempt to hit over the top or a meek run-out. And he is gone, airy dominance rudely interrupted by an unseemly downfall. Were this to occur past 150, no-one would bat an eyelid and the plaudits his lucid play deserves would flood in. But, Bangladesh excepted, Bell has never been past 150; batting at 3, he has not even made it to three figures. He should have this series, and possibly just one time is what is needed to break the mental block, if that is the problem. We will wait, for if he can achieve what is in him, it will be worth it.

Pietersen 3: Asian tours are his bugbear - the three he has been involved in are the only occasions on which he has averaged less than 40 over the course of a series. Here it was under 30 and not even a half-century to his name. Considering his improvement as a player since England's last sub-continent jaunts in the post-Ashes winter, to do worse than he had then was a major disappointment. One flaw is against the short ball, which when accurately and quickly aimed exposes his lack of a cogent back-foot game; his long levers mean he can play most bowling off the front-foot, but not even he can manage that against the fastest men. Comparisons to Viv Richards have been frequent, but one thing one cannot picture is him recreating the iconic image of Richards rocking back to hook Botham into the Oval crowd. When the short ball does not get him, it seems, over-confidence will and he failed to adapt his on-the-up style of play to the slower pitches which was the problem two years ago. He will recover, and should plunder the New Zealand seamers, while he will relish his first Test encounter with the country of his birth. But for England's foremost batsman, their best against spin and big-match player, this was one hell of a letdown.

Collingwood 4: Worked well on the fringes, but England needed more from a batsman whose low backlift and mental fortitude has made him a success on the subcontinent before. Not perfect in the slips, they miss his influence in the outfield, while his bowling could perhaps have been used more. As a senior play and one-day captain, he must shoulder some blame for the team's general direction and lacklustre performances in the field too.

Bopara 1: For turning up. 42 was not his highest score but sum total of runs from five innings. Selection nightmares are rarer than they once were, in the age of central contracts, and this was more one of circumstance than character. But to plump for a man who, despite manifest promise, has just one international half-century in one-day cricket and plays a bit-part role in that team has been shown up to be a major aberration. Still Bopara is a talented player and a scrapper, so to flop completely was surprising. He will come again, but the severity of his failure and England's need for every run in lean times means his Test career could be postponed for a while now.

Prior 5: The batting deserved 7, the 'keeping about 3. He showed his batting prowess and taste for battle with a fifty each in the first two Tests, while he held out for 100 balls at the end of the Galle match. But six chances went begging on his watch, in a series when England were stumbling across wickets like oases in deserts. With a new slip cordon bedding in, a sure catcher behind the sticks is sorely needed, and Prior cannot represent England again until he has got his 'keeping up to standard. England will want him back when he has, unless Alec Stewart's true successor pops up in the meantime, for his batting is what they need in a number 7. Sadly the 'keeping is something they could only afford were Prior pulling his weight in the top 5.

Sidebottom 5: Not only were his sins in a former life significant enough to have made him wait six years for a second international cap, but they evidently merit that the punishment should continue now he has made it back. It must have been Matt Prior's doppelganger he did terrible things to, for the wicket-keeper is costing him wickets almost on a regular basis. Still, there is a sense that he lies in an uneasy no-man's land between county and Test cricketer, and worthy toil will sustain only a short career without success. Maybe it is the bad luck, more probably he is not quite up to the task. Once again he has done enough to ensure England will want another look, but he will need to start making wickets tumble in the more favourable climes of New Zealand and the English spring. His batting deserves a special mention: in a higher position than he turns out for Nottinghamshire, he showed a remarkable application and a tenacity which also typify his bowling.

Hoggard 6: There was a glimpse of the real Hogard at Kandy, subcontinental king-of-the-swingers, as he cleaned out the Sri Lankan top-order on the first day to set up England's biggest opening of the series. Thereafter it was a case of the crocked Hoggard who has stumbled through 2007 managing just three Tests, as he missed the second with his back injury and was played, in desperation, but not rude health, at Galle. After a run of 40 consecutive Tests, the bad-luck has set in with a venegance and England will be fervently praying that 2008 finds Hoggard well. In their current strife, they cannot afford to lose him.

Harmison 6: No great deeds, but there was a noticeable fortitude in his bowling which had been lacking previously, and being shelved for the first game seemed to galvanise him, which was probably part of the idea. At least consolidated his position in the team, and he now has the prospect of some more helpful conditions in New Zealand and back home. His contribution over the next three series should be a barometer of how far he can go, but for the first time in a while, it is not a hand-wringing exercise to summarise his efforts.

Panesar 3: England's leading wicket taker with 8; their biggest disappointment too, by a more significant margin. As the lone spinner, he was expected to, at the very least, plug up one end and create pressure for the seamers. Some enticing aggression on his part would have been nice too. England got neither, just a desperately insipid set of performances, with the last two games yielding just a single wicket apiece. The pitches turned, but it is increasingly evident that Panesar needs bounce to be a real threat, and that was out of the question on these surfaces. But such a low return in a place where inferior English spinners have prospered in the recent past was a confounding experience for player and fans alike. Monty should not pass up on the chance to beard Daniel Vettori when the team travel to New Zealand, for he is at something of a crossroads, and England need more from their spinner, for whom there is no viable alternative.

Anderson 2: For the second successive winter, faith was invested in him at the beginning of a series and he showed once more that Test cricket is not his arena. Peversely he seems to be even worse when not leading the attack, as he did in the summer against India, and he is just not cut out to be a third seamer in Test cricket. Potentially there could be a time in the future when he will take the new ball and do well. But for now, his international appearances should be confined to the pyjama team.

Broad 4: Finally afforded his debut in unforgiving circumstances at Colombo, he can be satisfied despite just the sole wicket, although it confirmed he is not quite ready for Test cricket, even with his strong character going a long way to bridge the gap. The action is just too flimsy, the pace too insignificant for him to prosper as a hit-the-deck merchant. But those are things which advancing experience will remedy, and his time cannot be too far off.

Time to acknowledge reality's bite

It is September 2005; England have just clinched a momentous and monumental Ashes series with an epic final-day innings from new star Kevin Pietersen at a sun-dappled Oval. They have a pace attack as good as possibly any English one down the years; an all-rounder who has finally cast off the Botham shadow; and an instinctive and inspirational captain. It is a young team, one which should remain together until at least the next home Ashes rubber, by which time they could well be the first English team to dominate Test cricket for decades. 28 Tests later and players, pundits and paying fans can only reflect on a dream which lies in pieces and a two year stretch in Tests which has been as bitter as dismal as the run preceding it was sweet. If the 5-0 whitewash last winter showed how good Australia were, the subsequent results have illustrated England's deficiencies. Six players remain from the 2005 team, but that dog is long dead; the only commonality between then and now is the last digit of the year which will be raked over again and again until England find more success. Just 1 win in 15 away Tests since then says it all; a fall to 5th in the rankings is a reflection of true standing. Were the teams below them not so mediocre, it would be a generous one.

In isolation, the just-concluded series was bleak for England. There are worse results than the 0-1 reverse they leave behind them in Sri Lanka, but it was achieved ingloriously and does not do justice to the Sri Lankans, deprived of a further win by the torrential showers at Galle. Only once did England bowl out their opposition, and that when the ball swung and with their key bowler Hoggard fit to exploit it. Three other times they were little more than spectators as the Sri Lankan batsmen piled on big scores, three times in excess of 400 while England's best was 350, and that on the featherbed pitch at Colombo. Fielding was beyond sloppy, with catches going down all along a makeshift slip-cordon; the team mindset seemed rooted on the back-foot; leadership was lacking. As is customary with English debacles away from home, the denouement arrived with a stupendous batting collapse - 81 all out, a veritable recovery from 33-6. Muralitharan bowled four overs, for just one wicket; Chaminda Vaas, who took four, had earlier made 90.

England's 11 representatives are not poor, untalented or unsuited to Test cricket. But they do not function well as a unit, illustrated by their shoddy fielding and general lack of useful intensity in the field; buzzing the ball back to Matt Prior whenever the opportunity presents itself does not threaten, or intimidate batsmen, especially not the likes of Sangakkara or Jayawardene. England just end up with a tired 'keeper who has a tendency to drop the important chances when they come around. Pressure is created by tight bowling, sharp fielding and ensuring that the batsman himself starts to have doubts. Almost worse is the lack of opportunism - England often put themselves in an advantageous position at the beginning of Tests - they did it here, and even in at least three Tests last winter. But they all too rarely seize on these opportunities and take control of games at crucial junctures, while that is the point at which the best teams make sure to tighten the noose. That is why they have won just two of eight series since 2005; there is no killer instinct, and, engendered by that lack of success, no belief.

In contrast Sri Lanka, who have come far since these two teams last met in 2006, almost in direct proportion to England's regression, were highly impressive. They rely heavily on a small core of players, which is why they made no impression against Australia, but after riding England's mini-wave at the beginning of the series, they soon assumed dominance. In Sangakkara and Jayawardene they have two batsmen of the highest class and skill - both are scintillating players when the mood takes them, but also have the ability, sorely lacking in their English counterparts, to bat for days at a time without playing excessive or risky shots. They do not hold the world record partnership in Test cricket for nothing, and what were by their standards brief examples of their longevity and talent were enough to dispose with England. The bowling, as ever, was led by the duo of Vaas and Muralitharan; much was made of the former's decline and it was even mooted that his 100th Test at Kandy could be his last. The best return by any seamer in the series dispelled that notion, and the good showing of understudy Welegedera in the last Test shows that his retirement, when it comes, will not mean batsmen are free from inquisition by left-arm seam.

With the coaching team having just been uprooted and a review completed last summer, England must look to themselves for improvement. They should start with the fielding, which was a major hindrance to the efforts of the bowlers, with numerous chances spurned. It does not help that they have lost all the primary members of their once-reliable slip-cordon: Trescothick who seemed never to drop one, Flintoff's bucket hands and Strauss who used the opener's temperament which makes many of his kind good close fielders. Now Ian Bell, an excellent short-leg and passable gully, is in primary position, while Collingwood is wasted in a catching position when England really need him to patrol the off-side and threaten batsmen who risk short singles. Matt Prior again, had a torrid time of it with the gloves, a pity, as he had shown his batting prowess with a pair of fighting half-centuries, and was again looking the man England have been looking for at 7. Four catches down and two missed stumpings, however, might worry a top 'keeper if accrued during an entire year of Test cricket and although England could use his batting, they cannot afford his profligacy with precious chances. That there are clear flaws in his footwork and positioning surely must mean the selectors send him back to his county to work on his 'keeping.

There is delusion throughout English sport, and cricket fans are but minor offenders when compared to their football compatriots. Even after any aspirations to be the best in the near future went for a burton with the Ashes whitewash, there was hope that they could consolidate on their No.2 ranking. Fixtures against India and Sri Lanka were excellent opportunities. England have failed twice, and must, along with the supporters, recognise their new ranking as a true reflection of the situation. It is not a time for heads to roll, but some serious admonishment is needed - no-one doubts that the majority of this team has what is needed to succeed at Test level, so it must be openly questioned why they are not, individually and collectively. What will follow is a pair of series home and away against New Zealand, themselves enduring a barren time of it in Tests and a lesser outfit than England flattened in early summer 2004. They would hope to do so again, but now is the time to stop assuming and start proving themselves . The Ashes team has gone, and England have lost time trying to recapture it. And before endeavouring to climb the mountain from which they have slid so ignominiously, they must first ensure they are pointing in the right direction.

New Australia face the ghost of Christmas past

The status quo of Australian dominance has been established and adhered to almost unremittingly for a good decade now. What has changed over that period is the team which has looked likeliest to knock them off their perch: in the late 90s it was South Africa, who had bowling fire from Donald and Pollock, Afrikaaner grit in the shape of Kirsten, Kallis and McMillan and the inspirational leadership of the then untarnished and much loved Hansie Cronje. Yet in the first 18 Tests post-readmission they managed just 4 victories, doing no better than a pair of drawn series home and away in 1993-4. England did manage to produce a rare victory over the Australians in 2005, but their worth as rivals can be measured by the result in the subsequent series.

By far their most interesting challengers have been India. The teams of Mark Taylor and Steven Waugh suffered a trio of series losses there in the late 90s and 2000; it was dubbed as the "final frontier" for Waugh in 2000-1, the last place left for him and his to conquer. Eventually they did, in an insipid affair four years on, but Waugh could only, Moses-like, watch on from afar. But as much as the series three seasons ago failed to excite, the series preceding it were awe-inspiring, sitting alongside the 2005 Ashes as recent encounters for the ages. There was the great Indian revival in 2001 at Kolkata; the epoch-making all-day partnership between Laxman and Dravid; Harbhajan's 13 wickets; the Australian captain bitten and forever scared of again enforcing the follow-on. Back on Australian soil next time around it was the series of the bat; double-centuries all-round and mammoth totals not precluding breathtaking and tense cricket. Australia may boast forever about last winter's reverse of England's dominant position at Adelaide, but it was India who showed them the way, winning the Test there in late 2003 after the Australians had posted 550 first up. Ponting had over 200 of those, yet still lost; not to be denied, he got 257 more next game and this time won. An epic struggle climaxed in a momentous occasion at Sydney, featuring Waugh's farewell, Tendulkar's defiance of his bad form and ultimately a worthy stalemate. Four years on, it still resonates.

Hardly surprising then that the forthcoming series, beginning with the traditional Boxing Day game at Melbourne, should at least create a frisson of anticipation, even if it is muted in comparison to the grandstanding which preceded the previous encounters. On paper, there should be no contest: India are in a transient phase, caught between the titans of the previous generations and the thrusters of this one, led by a short-term captain and with several of their mainstays in questionable form. Australia, on the other hand, have won all but one of their 16 Test matches since England's summer in 2005 and are knocking on the door of the record for consecutive victories set by Waugh's Australia. Yet, convincing as their mini-series victory over Sri Lanka last month was, they still have a way to go before assuaging the doubts over their new-age team sans Warne and McGrath. Taking into account recent history, the makers of which are still numerate on both sides, if any team can probe the fissures, surely it is India.

Australia's batsmen are almost certain to make good runs, so it will be when India's take guard that the games will be decided. They have the clout to make Australia's green-tinged attack suffer, especially in the absence of Stuart MacGill. The home selectors are in a quandary over whether to bring in the next man down on the spinning list or draft in a fourth paceman in Shaun Tait. Going in without a slow bowler is always a risk, especially considering the current state of Australian pitches and India's batting stock, but there remains the thought that the wristy nous of those Indian bats would devour Hogg, who has an exemplary ODI record but averages the best part of 40 with the ball in first-class cricket. In Tendulkar and Dravid they have two batsmen of the highest talent and experience, recent form dips notwithstanding. Behind them come Ganguly, in the form of his life; the destructive Yuvraj, hard to drop after his century in their last Test and a man by the name of Vangipurappu Venkata Sai Laxman (remember the name). Laxman is one the Australians fear - he defied them with his epic 281 at Kolkata and averaged over 80 in the 2003-4 series. India should bat him at 3, where he has performed best and will carry the greatest presence, a move which would also take pressure off Draivd. Another who has worried the Australians before is Virender Sehwag, who sneaked into the touring party through the back-door but may well start anyway and probably should. Better they throw their best at the Australian's than die wondering with the likes of Karthik and Gambhir.

Pace bowling will be a crucial factor on both sides and could be the sole leaning of Australia's attack. They have a significant edge in the department, with Brett Lee looking sharp against Sri Lanka and Mitchell Johnson making a good impression. Still, they will be tested, and whatever combination they decide on, two of the four will have single-figure Test experience. India have plenty of options, although the excitable Sreesanth will not be one of them. Zaheer Khan is the pack-leader, although whether it will be RP Singh, Irfan Pathan or Ishant Sharma to back him up is up for debate. Anil Kumble should enjoy the bounce in the Australian pitches and has had some success there previously, with a pair of five-wicket hauls last time out. Harbhajan is another who has a happy history against the Australians, albeit almost exclusively at home, and is the only option as a second spinner, although that is an unlikely balance.

As ever, the collective dollar is on the Australians; India have the players to effect an upset, but probably not the bowlers and they will need a bolter amongst their secondary seamers if they are to win. More than anything, cricket needs a real hum-dinger, just as these sides have produced twice already this decade. Australians are starting to think it's all a bit too easy, and the rest of the world will watch on, hoping that the dying embers of a special generation of Indian cricketers can leave the dominant Aussies shaken and the collective melting pot stirred.

England still showing vital signs

It is not often that one could describe as uneventful a day which featured Muttiah Muralitharan twirling away at English batsmen on a fifth-day home pitch. That he was rendered toothless in such circumstances says all that is needed about the pitch; the uneven bounce and pace which saw a combined second innings total of 155-16 in 2001 and England's third heaviest ever defeat in 2003 has gone the way of all life and the heavy roller. Not much happened over the course of five days which surprised or excited, Sidebottom's early spark and Sangakkara's swift exit excepted. England did not get enough runs first up, then conceded too many in return; Jayawardene racked up his eighth Test century on his home patch before the match fizzled out into a rain-hastened stalemate. Jayawardene might have declared earlier than he did late on the fourth day, but when he said post-match that his side would have struggled to bowl England out in two days on that pitch, he was not joking.

The focus now turns to the decisive game at Galle, which has always been the most important fixture of the tour, regardless of cricket. It will be staging its first Test since the tsunami almost three years ago wiped out the old ground along with a good deal of the South-Asian coastline. It had seen just 11 Tests over 6 years, yet was still one of the most eulogised cricket venues around the world, surrounded by the Indian ocean and famous Dutch fort, which amongst other invaders withstood the TMS commentary team in 2001 when the authorities denied the BBC entry to the ground. Unfortunately for England, the fortress is symbolic as well as a survivor of the tidal-wave - Sri Lanka have lost just twice in those 11 games. However, the pitch is a totally new one, and no-one seems to know how it will play, although England can probably expect something on the slow side. They will hope that the unsettled soil will offer something to their seamers, who should be bolstered by the return of Matthew Hoggard, bowling unhindered in the nets following his back problems.

Yet while a sporting pitch is what England need, they will not relish a minefield, which would play into the hands of the more savvy Sri Lankans and specifically Muralitharan. Michael Vaughan was talking about the necessity of first-innings centuries before the Colombo match and the theme had not changed five days later. He is the man best placed to provide one, in excellent touch after he built on a cathartic return to opening at Kandy with a pair of fluent fifties at the SSC. Vaughan's conversion rate is so good he has as many centuries as halves (17) and he will not be satisfied by letting the ratio tilt unfavourably should he get in next time. Ian Bell added a third half-century of the tour, his ninth batting at 3; his first century there still awaits him. Ravi Bopara was not afforded the luxury of a second knock or indeed a second ball to face after Malinga cleaned him out first up on day 1. England had reason to select him at the outset, although it was a close call; with his bowling rarely utilised even with the opposition racking up some big totals, England may have been regretting the omission of Owais Shah, a better bet for runs. They will probably decide against a volte-face, but at the same time the equation of Bopara's all-round usefulness versus Shah's superiority as a batsman ought to be revisited in the light of the series so far.

Elsewhere, there have been some encouraging signs for England. Steve Harmison toiled manfully on the dead pitch and in a manner many would have doubted he was capable of. England can now select him for the next game without inhibition and the help he gets from Galle's mystery pitch could be a decisive factor. In a debut match which could not have much crueler, Stuart Broad showed up well too, maintaining composure and leaving with his maiden wicket as recompense. Hoggard's expected return means he will have to wait for the more favourable climes of New Zealand or home for his second go, however. England are down to their last chance on this tour, having finally lost the 2nd place in the rankings which the last two tours here helped springboard them too. Hard work will be needed to climb the mountain again, and a symbolic victory at Galle's rebuilt stadium would be a decisive way to start.

England searching for their special one

Duncan Fletcher had his England bubble, and Peter Moores has his buzzwords. Communication, ruthlessness, vibrancy all the sorts of words thrown about so frequently that one almost begins to long for the days of putting one's hand up, stepping up to the plate and coming to the party. Stop wasting chances might be the mantra better suited to this current tour; Nasser Hussain's team certainly didn't turn things round six years ago by waxing lyrical about the positive energy in Graham Thorpe's forward defensive.

In what all the England players and coaches have recognised as a scrap, a challenge and a sweat, they cannot afford to let advantageous positions slip as they have done so far. They lost in Kandy having bowled the home side out for less than 200 on a goodish batting pitch; they failed to make the most of a great start from the openers (not without a share of ill-luck) this game; while on a pitch which even the great Muttiah Muralitharan has lamented as a bowler's graveyard, they could not break the Sri Lankans at a crucial juncture today. 25-2 with the ultra-prolific Sangakkara back in the hutch is the sort of point at which the critical mass of a Test match changes. England needed someone to back up the sterling opening created by Sidebottom, who showed he remains a new ball threat even when the ambient conditions do not favour him. But the efforts of his colleagues were thwarted by the the assured blade of Jayawardene and the blunting, energy sapping one of Michael Vandort, who took the example of the like-minded Cook from the first day. England did not necessarily do anything wrong, or fall down on the job, but to win Test matches here, especially on such a placid surface, requires something more than fulfilling basic expectations.

With Sri Lanka still 250 runs behind there is still a chance, but the window is a narrow one and it will not help that the ball is all but 40 overs old. Once again, much will be down to the left-arm spin of Monty Panesar, who was insipid in his six overs. He returned 6 wickets to Murali's 9 at Kandy, a respectable ratio, but there is still the feeling that England need more from their premier spinner if they are going to win games here. Seamers have a big role to play on the subcontinent; they might, as Matthew Hoggard did, wreck an innings when the ball swings, but more likely, as with Sidebottom today, a gap will be opened up with the new ball. It is then the job of the spinner to work away, tease and beguile a middle-order playing without the freedom of runs on the board. Panesar is a fine spinner, and one who does not invite criticism; however, his staple diet of flat, accurate balls is too mundane for Asian batsmen on their own patch. He can spin the ball more, and should at least experiment with variations of flight and angle. Accustomed to a supporting role at home, where he is a brilliant foil for the seamers, Monty must now acknowledge that he is the main man and start bowling like one.

There were many reasons why England were able to turn around the deficit this current team is facing in 2001, not least a fierce team spirit. But they also won because Thorpe batted with psychopathic intent, Gough bowled like a Trojan and Hussain led like a man possessed. England can be invigorated, intense, focused, vibrant and ruthless like the ever-ready men their coach rightly wants them to be. But to pull it out of the hat here, someone's going to have to be bloody brilliant too.

Time for heroes

It will be of little consolation to England that the Test match just gone, which has left them in the invidious position of one down with two to play in the series, was a rare gem, a prescient reminder of the intrigue and excitement the 5-day game can provide following a recent proliferation of dull, one-sided cricket around the world. On a pitch which suited the English seamers on the first day, Murali on the second and batsmen thereafter, England did considerably better than had been expected of them in terms of runs on the last day, doing enough to suggest that better early efforts with both bat and ball in the second innings might have swung the contest their way. They came close to repeating their escape of the last tour here, when Vaughan's century and some doughty resistance from the unlikely duo of Read and Batty prevented Sri Lanka by a single wicket from sealing victory. However, like the roof of the dilapidated Asgiriya stadium, the top order came crashing down on the fifth day, with the first five wickets going down before the first hundred runs had been posted, leaving a task which Bell and Prior came very close to surmounting until stumbling on the final block in form of the second new ball.

Unlike their last visit to Kandy, England were very much in the game, but despite nice efforts from Bell, twice, and Jayasuriya in his last Test innings, only one batsman truly mastered the deceptive conditions, playing the significant and match-deciding innings. Even in the context of the recent achievements of Mohammed Yousuf, who eclipsed Viv Richard's record for Test runs in a year and Michael Hussey, currently making a more concerted effort to deserve the title Bradmanesque than any other since the man himself, the batting exploits of Kumar Sangakkara stand out. Even before his recent rise to the stratosphere of run-scoring, Sangakkara was a highly impressive cricketer - silky batsman, skilled gloveman, and one of the most eloquent players on the international circuit. Now he has handed the gauntlets over to Prasanna Jayawardene, who himself looked an extremely nifty practitioner, one can add the fact that runs flow as freely from his bat as revered utterances from the microphone of Richie Benaud, or sensitive personal details from the Home Office. Unhindered by keeping duties, he averages 96.40 from 22 Tests (Hussey 86.18 from 18 in all, Bradman 102.48 from his first 22); on current form, he should breeze past the 1000 run mark for the calendar year in just his sixth Test, with 4 centuries and an average of 184.20 so far. The rest of the world can but offer a silent prayer of thanks that Gilchrist never considered giving up the gloves.

However, as one career blossoms and writes itself into the annals for perpetuity, another, that of Sanath Jayasuriya, his position in cricketing history long since secured, came to a dignified and fitting ending. That is to say he pummelled the crap out of England's bowlers in the second innings, took an important wicket with his left-arm spin and was generally the main pillar of support for the titanic duo of Sangakkara and Muralitharan. His statistics - Test average flush on 40, ODI one of just over 30 - indicate significant, but not special prowess; his feats however, will be remembered as fondly and seriously as those of the very greatest. Many of them have been against England, yet watching him was always a joy, regardless of the dismantling he would be effecting on your team's bowling attack. He retires as a 38 year-old who still hits the ball as hard and sweet as any player in his prime, with a sackful of memories, legions of fans and basking in the glory of one last thrash, the fitting codicil he penned for himself by slaying all six balls of a James Anderson over for boundaries.

Jayasuriya departs with a job technically only half-done, but one whose completion England can only prevent by functioning at twice their normal level of performance. Crushingly it seems they will be deprived of their slickest bowling practitioner, Matthew Hoggard, whose run of injury woe continued with a recurrence of the back problem which incapacitated him in the summer. In his absence, the England attack looks both green and threadbare. Yet, lurking in the background, remains the one link England still have to the attack which catpulted them to pre-eminence two very long years ago. Sadly since then , Steven Harmison's connection with the bowler he used to be has grown ever fainter. But England have no choice. Neither, in fact, does Harmison, if he really wants his Test career to last much longer. England have supported, nursed and defended Harmison in the face of increasing public indignation since his Ashes debacle last year. Harmison, who can be the big bully but craves the support of his cornermen, must now dig deep and find the ability to lead an attack one would expect in the veteran of 54 Tests. Sidebottom will plug away accurately, something he can be relied on for even when the wickets dry up, as they have and may continue to do here; it is Harmison who must provide the inspiration, aggression and threat. It is time he stopped being afraid of himself and the game and started instilling some fear into his opposition, as he did in his pomp in 2004.

James Anderson was unlucky in the first Test; he also went at 5.5 an over in the second innings and would be fortunate to retain his place. Stuart Broad is champing at the bit for the Test debut he has been close to since the summer; England have already backed youth in this series once by selecting Ravi Bopara, and Broad is a significantly tougher nut than his lithe frame suggests. Unless the wise-men see a pitch at Colombo which merits the inclusion of Graeme Swann as a second spinner, they must unleash twin totems Broad and Harmison. England are left with an ask which could not be much harder if Arjuna Ranatunga himself were pulling the strings of fate; they have won from here before, two tours ago, with sterling performances from the seam bowlers, spin duo and a few doughty batsmen. For Thorpe, read Pietersen; for Croft, Panesar; for Gough and Caddick, Sidebottom and Harmison. For the knowledge of that outcome and its ramifications, substitute hope and apprehension. And pray the English bats hold firm, the bowlers avoid further injury and the umpires' trigger fingers are judicious. Get grafting.

Into the fire

Sri Lanka, often cited as the most difficult place after to Australia to tour, has been a significant stopping point for England in the recent past. The two previous tours have both in a way been beginnings for a team which eventually became a unit good enough to overcome the best in the world. The success of Nasser Hussain's team in 2001 was hugely important in giving confidence to a team which had little previous cause for it, coming off the back of success against the West Indies and in Pakistan. After misjudging his first tour to South Africa, that was the winter which set the standard for Duncan Fletcher's reign. Almost three years later, Michael Vaughan's side found themselves on the wrong end of the result; that was his first tour away as captain, and under his leadership not another series was lost in the 18 months leading up to the Ashes series. Therefore at a time when the Test team is in flux and their results have begun to flag, it seems prescient that they should return to Sri Lanka as Michael Vaughan and Peter Moores, on his first winter placement as coach, endeavour to straighten out a slightly messy situation with the spectre of Australia looming two summers hence.

England have not had much luck since their zenith in 2005. Injury has denied them the influence of many senior pros and decimated a potent bowling arsenal, the tattered flag of which can now be raised only by Matthew Hoggard on a consistent basis. However, they have not played too much good cricket either, and have done nothing particularly worthy of shouting about for the past two years. Having had a summer, which by dint of containing their first home series defeat for six years must be regarded as a disappointment, to take stock, coach Peter Moores can now truly begin to mould a team, something England have patently not been since 2005. He has not stood on ceremony, and correctly wielded the axe on Andrew Strauss, reeling from the relentless schedule and the demons brought about by a long run of poor form. Steve Harmison has also been served effective notice that his selection is now very much conditional, while the absence of the team's only genuine all-rounder Flintoff is a reality which coach and captain will probably have to learn to live with.

Nevertheless, the batting unit is fairly settled, with just one area of debate. Alistair Cook will have the chance to form a new opening partnership after his alliance with Strauss never yielded the sort of returns England had become accustomed to over recent years. It is perhaps not ideal that Michael Vaughan should vacate the No.3 position, an important slot for which a player of stature is required, but on the other hand he should relish a return to opening, where he has achieved his best for England and can set the tone. Ian Bell will aim to fill the void at first drop; now a player of relative experience, Bell has to prove he can prosper in the position which has been long ordained for him, as he has started to do for the one-day team. The middle-order will be crucial: Kevin Pietersen is England's best player of spin, Paul Collingwood the man with the best sub-continental pedigree. Both must score heavily if England are to have a chance. Leaving out Mark Ramprakash was a debatable decision, but does give England the chance to make two forward-looking calls rather than fudging the issue with a short-term selection. One of the those is allowing Bell the chance to bat up the order, the other is to open up a place for another batsman in his old position at 6. Owais Shah and Ravi Bopara are the contenders, and it is a close decision which two warm-up games has not made any easier. Shah offers experience in county cricket, a good game against spin bowling and the knowledge that another chance is probably what he deserves after an enterprising debut. Bopara impressed more in the practice matches, batting more aggressively, while his bowling also made a mark and he brings top-drawer fielding and boundless energy to the cause. Shah was ahead before the tour and probably did enough in the two games to make his name the head-on-block option. However, there is a real chance that Bopara's exuberance in all aspects of the game will win him the vote. What the selectors must consider is the relative worth of the two as batsmen, their primary role, and also the need to have a second medium-pace back-up bowler with Collingwood already filling that role.

Three of four bowling places have been already allocated, with Sidebottom and Panesar already inked in, and Hoggard bowling himself back into form, and the team to victory, in the second warm-up fixture. However the identity of the third seamer - the bouncy nature of the Kandy pitch means it is almost certain Graeme Swann will not squeeze in - will have been one argued long in the selectorial debates. Despite a good haul of wickets in his domestic stint in South Africa, is is obvious that Harmison is still in the mire which has been his resting place for a few years now. In what promises to be a real battle, England cannot afford to have Harmison and his luggage, including a back-injury which has incapacitated him again recently and means his selection would be an unwelcome risk. Nevertheless, the feeling persists that England need someone who offers his pace and bounce to have an impact on the series, and Kandy of all the grounds should suit him. With Anderson, there seems the real danger that England will field a seam attack which is short on variety; one could go on at length about the differences between the three, but the reality is that three fast-mediums often boil down to the same thing, even with one being a left-armer. Still, this seems a good time to draw a line under the Harmison saga for now and wield the axe for what would be the first time since the last tour here, when he was not selected and told to sort himself out. That barb spurred him on to real success; it appears in the wake of that the management have been too inclined to offer him the carrot and a new tack is needed. What is surprising is that Stuart Broad seems to have slipped out of contention. He offers the best middle-ground, with his batting ability to boot, and if the selectors thought he was not ready to make his debut, they should not have brought him in the first place.

Sri Lanka, like England before them, have just been sent packing from Australia, but that does not mean they are to be taken lightly. On their own pitches they are an entirely different proposition. The Asgiriya International Stadium and offers England some hope in being the venue for more Sri Lankan defeats than victories as well as housing the most seam-friendly surface on the island. It is also the home ground of a certain Muttiah Muralitharan, where he has taken over 100 of his 700 Test wickets in just 15 matches. The great man may have managed just 4 wickets in the two recent games down under, but it is very likely that he will take the 5 he needs to take the record mark from Shane Warne in just the first game. For a change, they now have some seamers other than Chaminda Vaas - fading but still a force at home - to back him up. Lasith Malinga and Dilhara Fernando will play after a serious injury to budding prospect Farveez Maharoof, who had the better of England in the one-day series, and although both were insipid in Australia, they are form and confidence bowlers. In a short series, just one spell can make a difference, and each is well capable of wreaking havoc on batting orders. England are also bound to find themselves toiling long and hard in the field, with two batsmen in particular, Mahela Jayawardene and Kumar Sangakkara, set to frustrate them. Those two will be the key, although England must be wary of the sucker punch - it is the contribution of lesser lights such as Dilshan and Samaraweera which has floored them on past tours. Despite their mauling in Australia, Sri Lanka start favourites, as was the case in the one-day series, a prediction which proved erroneous. It is now the turn of the Test team to confound expectations, something they must start doing now if glory is going to be anything other than a fast-fading memory.

The man time should not forget

Australia, and particularly their batsmen, have dominated cricket, international and domestic, for the best part of two decades. The list of Australian batsmen who have been the envy of all other nations from Allan Border on seems endless: since his mid-eighties pomp, they have been able to boast the likes of David Boon, Mark Taylor, Steve and Mark Waugh, Ricky Ponting, Damien Martyn, Langer and Hayden, Adam Gilchrist, and latterly a man who is upstaging even those eminent peers, Michael Hussey. What is more incredible is the number of batsmen who have been unable to force their way into the side due to the weight of talent. English county cricket has been the main beneficiary, accommodating the likes of Stuart Law, Matt Elliott, Michael Bevan, Michael DiVenuto, Brad Hodge and Greg Blewett when Australia could not find room for them, which was often. But good and successful as those batsmen have been for their states and counties, there is one primus inter pares, a man who has scored more runs than any other in Sheffield Shield cricket and possesses a better batting average for Yorkshire than Hutton, Boycott or Sutcliffe - Darren Lehmann.

But while high-class Australian batsmen have been commonplace recently, happy endings have not, a constant throughout cricket history. And that seemed the way Lehmann's career was going to conclude, after he suffered deep-vein thrombosis followed by an Achilles injury which led to him tearfully announcing his retirement last week. But the great champion of modern domestic cricket had one last flourish left, striking joyous centuries in both his final List A and first class games, within days of each other. His state South Australia are in crisis, something which his retirement can only deepen, but he has given them a fitting farewell, just as he did for Yorkshire with 339 in his last game to ensure their survival in Division 1 of the Championship. It is an irony that Lehmann, denied the chance to spend his career lording it with the Australian Test team, has instead devoted himself to salvaging lost causes, not without success, as his key role in Yorkshire's 2001 title-winning side showed.

His statistics speak for themselves yet leave so much unsaid: a first class average of over 57, 82 centuries and trailing only Hick and Ramprakash, over 1500 innings between them, in terms of runs scored. Nevertheless, that was not enough to earn him a long-lease on a spot in the Test side, winning just 27 caps despite an average touching 45, a figure which extended over 50 in his comeback phase in 2002-4, after he had squandered his initial chance in 1998. It was in ODIs where he had more opportunities, notching up over 100 caps and playing in two World-Cup winning sides. His power and adaptability made him perfect for the middle-order and overs in one-day cricket, not to mention the handy left-arm spin, with which he gathered well over 50 wickets, averaging 27 in both Test and ODI cricket. Having stepped aside to allow Michael Clarke the chance, poor form eventually saw the end of his Test career, although the Australian selectors might have been regretting their folly months later, as the Australian batsmen struggled in the conditions which Lehmann had become accustomed to during his time at Yorkshire. Lehmann reinforced the message the next Australian summer, with his best ever season for South Australia.

But it was his personality and character which endeared him to fans on both side of the world as much as his titanic run-scoring feats. One of the dwindling number from the generation for whom fitness was a tertiary concern, Lehmann was definitely a member of the "balanced diet is a pie in each hand" brigade, and could frequently be seen on balconies indulging his nicotine habit. Now we have fitness coaches and a smoking ban - for Lehmann the booze and fags just added to his allure. And that is not to mention the sheer brilliance of his batting; hitting the ball joyously hard, treating the best spinners as he would have his own bowling, the sweetest of slashing square cuts. He managed to twin those oft unhappy bedfellows- scoring runs and entertaining the crowd. Lehmann never bored; he seldom failed.

Yorkshire had, of course, only acquiesced to the idea of overseas players (with overseas concerning the South of England as much as South Australia) in 1992, and had had mixed experiences with Sachin Tendulkar, Richie Richardson and Michael Bevan. Yet after a career short by the standards of Yorkshire legends, not even the most grudging of broad acre curmudgeons could have criticism for him, and he was duly included in a Yorkshire Post greatest ever XI, the native of Gawler standing tall alongside the likes of Geoffrey, Wilfred and Sir Leonard. Having fallen short of George Hirst's 100 year old record for the highest score by a Yorkshireman, his reaction was typical: "George was a better batsman than me anyway." For any other born outside Yorkshire to have made an attempt on the record would have been seen as heresy; yet for Lehmann, an exception would have been made. He had won over the hardest-to-please fans in the world, and for that alone he deserves his place in history.

All quiet on the Kallis front

It is not difficult to name the almost universally agreed greatest ever all-rounder, a title which sits as easily upon the shoulders of Garry Sobers as the sobriquet of best batsman fits Bradman. Identifying the modern player whose statistics can match, and even shade Sobers, is a tad more troublesome. After all, you knew Jacques Kallis was good, but really that good? In numbers, at least, Kallis' Test career bears a remarkable resemblance to that of the great West Indian. Their Test averages differ by just 0.04, while Sobers has more wickets (from fewer games) and a better economy rate, while Kallis possesses the superior average and strike rate. There, as they say, the comparisons end, but not without serving to show just how underrated and high-achieving Kallis is in the pantheon of the modern game.

As South Africa's best batsman since re-admission, he is their top run-scorer, having just gone past 9000 Test runs with 186 against New Zealand. Only the three best seamers since 1992 - Donald, Pollock and Ntini - can better his haul of 219 wickets. Yet as neither batsman nor all-rounder has he achieved pre-eminence. Ponting, Lara, Tendulkar, Inzamam and Dravid are at least five who would be considered above him in an evaluation of the best batsmen since 2000, yet only the first can improve on his Test average of 57.74. He has a better bowling average and economy rate than Andrew Flintoff, his only contemporary in the genuine all-rounder capacity. Style plays some part - his strokeplay, while withering, is neither elegant nor dashing - there also lingers the suspicion that he only shows real willingness to bowl when there is something in it for him. Nevertheless, he is capable of producing good pace and movement, and four 5 wicket hauls in Tests mark him out as more than just a steady customer in the role of 5th bowler. Being from South Africa - a cricketing nation which has achieved excellence yet remained perennial bridesmaid in the modern age - is a contributing factor. Of the many high-achieving and talented South African players since 1992, stardom has only really visited itself on one, in Allan Donald, while often the focus on great South Africans is biased towards the generation to which circumstance denied the chance to make a mark on Test history.

It seems indicative of the Kallis paradox that one has to resort to endless statistics to prove his worth. With a player of his stature, this should not be necessary, but it is only in the numbers that the extent of his achievements are truly apparent. It is not necessary to know, or even refer to the Test average, or number of centuries of a Lara or Tendulkar. Their greatness is obvious on the field, the statistics fall neatly in line behind them; with Kallis it seems rather to be the other way around. To suffer at the hands of Kallis is not unexpected, yet the extent of his abilities seems only to be clear after he has made the fielding team sick of the sight of him; a knowledge which is stored at the back of the mind, rather than seared indelibly into the consciousness. Yet for all this semi-anonymity, Kallis is a singular, in ways unique player. Most of the great all-rounders have been primarily bowlers - Miller, Imran, Hadlee, Botham, Dev - who would take the new ball and bat in the lower-middle order. Even Sobers, like Kallis a batsman first, tended towards the middle rather than top of the order. Yet Kallis, who cannot offer anything approaching their bowling record, is a top 4 batsman, while his haul of over 200 Test wickets means he cannot be relegated into the batsman who bowls category.

That he is someone who profits by pillaging against the lesser teams is an accusation frequently leveled against him and not without foundation. Still, he is by no means alone in this, and all of his three centuries against Zimbabwe came when they were far from the token presence they have since become. An average of 48.53 in Australia and a mark of 64.6 in the three main subcontinental countries shows he is adaptable to all conditions. That his average is greater and he has more of his centuries away from home is indicative of his importance to South African cricket.

What is more, he has seemed to improve with age. In the second part of his career, his average has been 65; batting at 4, a position he assumed permanently in early 2002 and where he has batted for half of his Tests, that rises to over 70. Ominously, he is not yet a month past his 32nd birthday, while four centuries in three Tests this season show an intent uncommonly strong even in a man like Kallis. Next year, South Africa make their 5-yearly tour of England, Kallis' third and likely final visit. His record there is patchy, an average of just 37 with a solitary century, although he did bowl his team to victory at Headingley in 2003. Should he continue his current run of form, his contribution to the series could be vital in attempting to win the series in England, something South Africa have not done in their three trips since re-admission. Achieve that and maybe he will start to receive the sort of recognition which his talent and record deserve.

Rivals prepare for rebirth of old enemy

As the fortunes of England during and since the period of 2004-5 have shown, it is not the ascension to the peak that takes the most effort - although that itself is substantial - but the ability to stay king for more than just a day. And that is why Australia, for whom the 2005 insurgence was a rare pinprick in a 12 year regime, will be remembered as a team for the ages, just like the all-conquering West Indians before them. Furthermore, despite the loss of their two best bowlers and 172 Tests worth of batting experience in the form of Justin Langer and Damien Martyn; the players selected for their first Test series since their zenith of the Ashes whitewash last year look perfectly capable of ensuring it is some time yet before the Antipodean empire crumbles.

Regeneration is the cornerstone of any dynasty, and it is what Australia have shown themselves annoyingly good at over the course of the last 15 years. Surely there could be none like Allan Border, long Test cricket's most capped player, highest run-scorer and most experienced leader as well as the man almost uniquely credited as the facilitator of Australia's rise to greatness. But then came Steven Waugh: more Test appearances, centuries and victories as captain than his illustrious predecessor bar the one that was Mark Taylor, who oversaw the transition from a team who could scrap with the best to one which was utterly dominant. Waugh is now long gone, but his ghost still lingers, in the hard-nosed leadership of Ponting and the steel-willed batsmanship of Michael Hussey. The elegance of his brother Mark and Damien Martyn is also now missing, but in it's place they can boast the dashing strokeplay of Michael Clarke, whose excellent Ashes series last winter confirmed the promise previously hinted at by his century on debut in India and impressive showing in 2005, when he was Australia's least experienced batsman, and often their best.

And it is personal, as well as personnel renaissance which has been a mark of this Australian outfit. Ricky Ponting picked himself up off the floor of a Sydney nightclub in 1999 and came out the other side of drink counselling to become the foremost batsman of his generation and a leader who, after an aberration in 2005, now looks every bit as formidable as the three who came before him. Matthew Hayden returned after his first stab at Test cricket yielded an average of less than 30 to become one of the best attacking openers the game has seen; in one-day cricket, he was out of the team for over a year, but came back just before the World Cup to record the fastest ever century by an Australian in ODIs, and is currently, without doubt, the best opener in the world.

The retirement of Warne and McGrath, a unique pair of bowling predators, was always foreseen as a watershed moment by those wondering quite when the Australian dynasty would tail off. And although Australia's bowling attack will lack that same incisive edge, lent as much by reputation as reality, the talent is still there to keep them top of the tree. Stuart Clark and Brett Lee will take the new ball, something both have earned, although Lee, at least, still has to convince in the role of leading strike-bowler without the crutch of the ever-reliable McGrath. With Shaun Tait's injury, something which is increasingly becoming habitual, the role of third-seamer goes to Mitchell Johnson, a rapid left-armer who has produced the goods in ODIs and is there on merit as much as promise, although his first-class returns indicate he still has something to prove. He will be given the chance, although the presence of Ben Hilfenhaus as Tait's replacement is a threatening one to all the pace attack, especially if Hilfenhaus, that rare commodity of a swing bowler in Australia, can go some way towards matching his mammoth 60 wicket haul in last year's domestic competition. Stuart Macgill has long been Warne's No.2, and has managed 40 Tests along the way, sweeping up almost 200 victims with his outrageous side-spin, although verging on 37 and with a suspect knee, it remains to be seen whether he has withered too long on the vine. Brad Hogg, whose ODI record and strong showing in the Pura Cup game which served as an audition, has earned him a squad place alongside Macgill, although the selector's preference for the leggie will probably override Hogg's superior recent record and the all-round option he offers with useful batting and fielding.

For Langer's replacement, Australia have the remarkable reassurance of being able to select, for only the third time, the left-hand dynamo Phil Jaques. He has been down the Hussey road of success in county and Australian domestic cricket, and already has 10,000 FC runs and 32 centuries to his name. It is the privilege of the current Australian selectors to replace talent and experience at Test level with equivalent long-standing in domestic competition. Still on the sidelines are David Hussey, brother of Mike and with a FC average almost identical to Jaques' and with just one less century, and Brad Hodge, seemingly destined never to secure a permanent Test position, despite his average of 58.42 from his 5 games so far. Hodge's desperate attempt to reinvent himself as an opener shows the difficulty of forcing a way into the Australian batting line-up, while a player of his talent would be long into a Test career with any other country. In view of that, Andrew Symonds can maybe count himself somewhat lucky, with rather less flattering statistics. In one-day cricket, he is the kingpin, with an astonishing record since the 2003 World Cup. Yet only twice has he broken free in Tests, smashing a 70 against South Africa before finally reaching three figures at Melbourne in the Ashes. As much as that innings is being regarded as an epiphany, it must be said that England's bowling plan to him, the theory of which was left on the floor of the pavilion bar, was horrendous, allowing him to play the innings as he would in an ODI. The idea of Symonds, as a destructive batsman, livewire fielder and auxiliary fifth bowler, is a good one, so crucial in the shorter form of the game, which is why the selectors have shown faith over equally deserving specialist batsmen. But Symonds must make his mark in the near future; Australian selectors give only so much leeway, while Shane Watson, long since earmarked as the man to fill the No.6 slot, cannot stay injured forever.

It is 9 months since Australia last played a Test, delivering the crushing denouement to England at Sydney. In the next 7 months they play 13, taking on four different Test nations. That should be a sufficient period for any gremlins which have sneaked into the system to be ironed out and the results will show to what extent the loss of Warne and McGrath will hurt them. Do not hold out too much hope for a change; this team looks set to retain the hydra like qualities which have led to such sustained success over the last 12 years and they are far from finished.

Taking aim

It rarely does much good for a public figure to rile the media, as many a sportsman, coach and manager will lament. Exhaust your small supply of favour with them and the only protection left to you can be the shield of success. And it is as good a testament to Duncan Fletcher as any, that only now he has been six months out of the job and had his autobiography serialised, the hacks have truly bared their fangs. True, the reaction to England's Ashes and World Cup debacle last winter was vitriolic, as well it might have been, but only with the publication of his memoirs have the press truly let loose.


The main rumpus has arisen from his account of Andrew Flintoff's drinking exploits as captain. Yet while this has been largely heralded as a betrayal, in fact the "revelations" are nothing new. Immediately following the events during the World Cup, which showed he had rather lost sight of where the undrawn line of acceptable behaviour resides, rumours began to circulate about his drinking exploits in Australia. All that is new are the details which have furnished the multiple tabloid headlines on the subject. Indicting Flintoff in such a way, an act akin to pouring a bucket of cold water into boiling oil, was always going to bring criticism onto Fletcher, for he is not the national hero, yet it is his right. Unlike Mike Catt and Lawrence Dallaglio, Fletcher has left a reasonable cooling-off period, while an expurgated account of events would have been of use to no-one. Geoffrey Boycott has suggested that two years should be the arbitary waiting time, although this shows a surprising lack of awareness to the time/money ratio to one normally assosciated with commerical astuteness.


The more disturbing aspect to this issue is the reason expressed for awarding Flintoff the captaincy, essentialy that he hoped it would curb his more reckless habits; that is weak and muddled reasoning, and a fair criticism. Also interesting is his comment, "The problem was, in the absence of Vaughan, there were so many unknowns." Here he shows how important the relationship between him and his captain was. Twice he forged successful alliances, first with Nasser Hussain and then Vaughan, and it is surely no coincidence that England's slide in Test cricket coincided with Vaughan's continued absence from the scene. Some of his statements show a curious lack of certainty and leadership in one who had appeared often so confident and autonomous. He failed to deal with a divsive issue at a crucial time, and for that he must shoulder blame. However, it is still hard to escape the conclusion that the extent of the media reaction is as much down to their having been cut out of the loop first time around as the gripe itself.


His comments on certain characters have also led to a considerable response, not least from those personally singled out, some of whom have taken the opportunity to respond in kind, only serving to make themselves look as petty and grudging as they accuse Fletcher of being. He is not the first to call Ian Botham useless as a selector and damaging as an influence; Geoffrey Boycott a pest and hypocrite; and David Graveney a weak Chairman of Selectors, with his excessive desire to keep all concerned happy often ending up with the opposite outcome. Wihtout doubt, there is something of the grudge-merchant in Fletcher, reflected in the way he has gone about writing the book. Yet he is by no means the first to have gone down this road, and it seems that some of the criticism arises from personal issues people had with him during his tenure, which they did not have much scope for expressing, given the general success of the England team.


What of course gets forgotten amongst the lurid details and loud personalities, is the great work Fletcher did over the course of his first six years with England and how he helped turn England from the worst Test team to one which beat the undisputed best. His account of that is what the genuine cricket fans want to read, and, with such publicity, Fletcher and his friends at the relevant tabloid newpaper have ensured that there will be a fair number of buyers; meaning that, once again, it is Fletcher who can walk away with the wry smile.

Flawed England caught between two stools

With the volume of one-day cricket England have been involved in over the last month or so, it seems quite a long time since they last played a Test match. And for what must be the first time in a significantly longer period, there is greater confusion over the composition of the Test, rather than one-day side. Since the Ashes victory in 2005, their Test record has been distinctly average, bordering on poor. Away from home, just one Test has been won since the tour of South Africa in 2004-5, while seven out of eleven have ended in defeat. Even at home, where until this summer they had not lost a series for six years, results have suffered: in addition to the loss against India, they failed to put away a Sri Lanka side in the springtime climes which are as unfamiliar and unfair to the islanders as the conditions this England side will be facing in the forthcoming series. Wins were achieved against West Indies and Pakistan, but the former was against such inferior opposition as to render it a non-achievement, while Pakistan were unable to field their three frontline seamers while the series was at stake.

England still, just, rank as the second best Test team behind Australia, although that gap is as cavernous as their margin over the chasing pack is slim. It seems fitting somehow, that they should find themselves in Sri Lanka at the crucial stage, scene of one of England's greatest modern triumphs as Nasser Hussain led a team comprising the talented yet misguided bunch who had suffered repeatedly througout the 1990s to a series victory after a thumping defeat in the opening match of three. That victory, along with the earlier success that winter in Pakistan and the previous summer's demolition of West Indies, was the high-point for an underachieving generation and can be seen as the genesis for much happier times in the first half of this decade. And while Hussain's legacy was converted by Michael Vaughan into an elusive Ashes victory, the ill fortune surrounding that team has meant that, while it should still be that same unit powering towards the next home Ashes in 2009, only four players will go to Sri Lanka guaranteed a starting place.

Where England have struggled is bringing together the remnants of that team and the new faces to form a team capable of beating all-comers, as was the 2005 vintage. Far from the smooth transition as envisaged and planned for by Duncan Fletcher and Michael Vaughan, injureis and loss of form have meant that new players have had to be thrown in. Some, notably Alistair Cook and Monty Panesar, have prospered and nailed down places. However, such a situtation meant an inevitable painful struggle for some; Liam Plunkett and Sajid Mahmood are two such- extremely talented bowlers, neither was anywhere near the level required for Test cricket. The raw material was there, but they had been given no time to develop consistency and nous, two of the more crucial weapons for bowlers in the era of flat pitches and turbo-charged bats.

Indeed the composition of the bowling attack will be casuing most headaches for David Graveney and his selection panel as they thrash out the options for the touring squad to be announced tomorrow. In 2005 the balance was perfect, with Flintoff's presence at 6 allowing a five-man attack with variety in the seam bowling and the stoicism of Ashley Giles combining to form a potent arsenal. Since then, that unit has disitegrated almost completely. Flintoff and Simon Jones, the two stand-out bowlers in 2005, are both hostage to a chronic injury and conceivably neither will play another Test match. Harmison's form has dropped off markedly; no longer can he repeatedly find that awkward length to make the ball rise at the batsman's chest and throat and more worryingly he has lost his line as well, essaying the leg-side far more often that is expected of an experienced international bowler. Hoggard alone remained unbowed in the period between Ashes series, but since even he has fallen foul of injury, which permitted him to play in only the most meaningless Test of the seven last summer. Harmison, after a shocking start to the West Indies series in which he improved but did not assuage doubts, was also injured for the India tie, meaning that England fielded an attack with not a single Ashes winner, the varied success of which has made picking a four man attack a minor nightmare now old opening pair Hoggard and Harmison are back fit.

A quick perusal of the domestic averages might persuade one that the old allies should be instantly re-united. Harmison comes in at 3rd, his wickets at 16; Hoggard 7th with an average of 20. However, especially in the case of Harmison, there are statistics which come under the auspices of damned lies. Most of his wickets came early season, which paved a way for him to lead the attack in the early summer Tests. Yet for the large part of the four match series he was hopeless, and with injury claiming the latter half of his season, he has no form behind him. To address this, he has signed a short-term deal with a South African province, which will give him two first-class games in which to make a point. His reputation and central contract should guarantee his place in the touring party, but his form does not justify a starting place, and he has much to prove. Less so Hoggard, who has made a habit of not letting England down, and is an automatic selection as the most consistent seamer as well as the most experienced and successful in the subcontient. The focus then shifts to the trio who held the fort well against India: Anderson, Sidebottom and Tremlett. Sidebottom, who had the worst series statistically against India, is nevertheless at the head of the queue, in view of his excellent one-day series and the variation he offers with his left-arm bowling. Tremlett and Anderson are then left in a scrap with Harmison for the third seamers slot, should that be the balance chosen. Anderson has a good claim both as leading wicket-taker against India and in vbiew of his consistent performances with the one-day side and recent experince of the conditions. However, what may count against him is the wish to play one of the skyscraping seamers, which also brings Stuart Broad into the equation. He would add batting prowess, but his bowling still appears too fragile for Tests, especially in Sri Lanka as part of a four-man unit.

Monty Panesar will take care of spinning duties, although the excellent performances of Graeme Swann on international recall have guaranteed his selection in the squad. Ideally, as is their wont in Asia, England would like to play him as second spinner. However, previously there has been a pace-bowling all-rounder - Craig White then Andrew Flintoff - allowing a good balance of spin and seam. Opting for two spinners out of four bowlers is a high risk strategy, as Pakistan recently discovered to their cost, and the reality for Swann is that he will be reserve barring injury to Panesar or extreme conditions. That is sad, as Swann is an attacking off-spinner, capable of giving the ball a good rip, and would also give the batting security at no.8, the Giles- sized void yet to be filled.

And while the composition of the bowling attack is a puzzle, the batting positions are also far from decided. Five players - Cook, Vaughan, Bell, Pietersen and Collingwood - can feel safe, although the identity of the last man in will have significant bearing on how they line up. Andrew Strauss has not missed a Test match since the tour of Pakistan in late 2005, and that was compassionate leave to allow him to be present at the birth of his child. Since his astonishing debut in summer 2004, when he ended the career of one stalwart, Nasser Hussain, and displaced the captain Michael Vaughan from the opening slot, his place has never been directly threatened. However, following his turbo-charged entry to Tests, encompassing the summer and an amazing debut tour, averaging 72.88 in South Africa, his results have depreciated. He has not averaged 40 in a calendar year since 2004, and this year he has not managed even 30 and has gone without a century in 8 Tests. Much has been written on the causes and reasons for such a slump, not least on this blog; what remains to be said is that he has expended the period of grace given to a player of quality without justifying the faith shown in him - nor has he made his case through county cricket, scoring his runs for Middlesex at 35 in 7 Championship games. What is more, he has failed to establish a successful alliance with Alistair Cook, and with Cook having runs and youth on his side, Strauss will lose that battle, and in all likelihood his place in the team and possibly the squad.

There is no shortage of players fighting over the final batting place. Owais Shah looks to be the best bet; he backed up success with the ODI team with runs for Middlesex, and is a cert for the party of 16, if not the starting XI. Ravi Bopara also made a case with an excellent summer with Essex, while his bowling would be a bonus in the absence of Flintoff. But it is the situation regarding Shah's former county team-mate Mark Ramprakash which has caused the most recent debate. His county form, with two 2000 run, 100 average seasons behind him is historically unmatched. What counts against him is his age, 38, and his Test average, 27, a figure reached after 52 Test matches of struggle over the course of 11 years. The first figure can be partially disregarded; despite his advanced years for a sportsman, he is still a consummate athlete and his Surrey contract takes him up to the summer of 2009, judgement day for this current England side. It is a Test average, which he has doubled in first-class cricket, and faulty temperament which are harder to explain away. His demeanour at The Oval over the last few season suggest a man who is significantly more relaxed, and he attributes that and a small change of technique to his monumental run-scoring. There is a good chance that Ramprakash, if recalled, would succeed, and it would be a nice symmetry for one of the most precocious young talents in history to make a comeback in his cricketing dotage and have the dominance once expected of him at Test level. However, it seems unlikely that the selectors will take a risk on a 38 year old, and although sentiment would dearly love Ramprakash to return and succeed, cold logic seems set to carry the day, and that is probably the right decision.

The wicket-keeping slot is an area of debate (of course), but on this occasion it seems an area which the selectors are unwilling to make a battle-ground, and Matt Prior should get the nod after missing out through injury in the ODIs. Phil Mustard did not make much of his opportunity in his stead, while he was never ordained to be a Test player anyway. The likes of Tim Ambrose and Steven Davies will bear consideration at some point, but for now it seems best to stick with Prior, who deserves at least the winter Tests to prove one way or another whether his century on debut was the sign of things to come or a false dawn. And at the midway stage between two home Ashes series, England's thoughts will be very much on the same lines.

All change please

It is unusual to accuse any sportsman under the age of 30 of being a resident of the last chance saloon. Yet for two former England players who both today left the county which reared them it seems fitting. The reasons for the continual absecne of Simon Jones and Rikki Clarke from the international scene are, of course, polar opposites; however, both find themselves in the same situation as regards their future - a hard road with only a small chance of reward at the end.

Clarke, announced today as the new Derbyshire captain, has been living in a comfort zone at The Oval for a few years now, not the first promising player from that club to fall into such a trap in recent times. Ever since his first taste of international cricket in 2003, he has failed to make a realistic claim for a regular spot with domestic runs and wickets, and his chances have generally come when the selectors have been raking up the dregs to make up numbers in the one-day side. With Andrew Flintoff now absent and possibly never to return, the need for a pace-bowling all-rounder is keenly felt; but the call comes at possibly Clarke's lowest ebb - last term his runs came at less than 25, the wickets at over 40. From stand-in captain in the opening game, he first slipped down the averages, and then out of the team, as old attitude problems began to flare up and a move away from Surrey has been forecasted since mid-season. He is still only 26, and the chance to both captain and act the role of star player is a wonderful opportunity for Clarke to realise his multi-faceted talent and make his pitch for a role in a future without Flintoff if that should arise. Peter Moores has shown his willingness to select those who impress at county level; Derbyshire have shown faith in his cricketing skill and a personality which has been questioned on more than one occasion. Now Clarke must fulfil his side of the bargain and bring home the bacon; he owes it to his new county, and in truth he owes it to himself and the potential which is a few wrong steps away from being perpetually unfulfilled.

When Simon Jones made his England debut five summers ago, in the same series as Steve Harmison, it seemed to herald a new era in English pace bowling. He picked up 4 wickets in his first Test, not before he had blasted a quickfire 40 as a warm-up. He was still, to use the technical term, "wild and wooly", but had all the attributes to be a top fast bowler, foremost the ability to bowl at a genuinely express pace. But that same winter, the world which had appeared to be at his feet came crashing down about his ears, as he snapped cruciate ligaments in Brisbane having just picked up his first Ashes wicket. It looked career threatening, but Jones pulled through, and was finally rehabilitated on the 2004 tour of the Caribbean, as England triumphed 3-0, and the fast bowling quartet which was to be the basis for a perfect year was born. Progress thereafter was somewhat stilted; he did not hold down a place in the return series that summer, and has a largely miserable tour of South Africa with Michael Vaughan seemingly unwilling to bowl him for extended periods. As the Ashes series loomed, he was definitely regarded as the weak link in England's attack. No-one, English or Australian, could have predicted the magnitude of that series or indeed Jones' significant contribution in it. He was the creator of so many great moments in a contest littered with them, the best perhaps a massive hooping reverse-swinger to which Michael Clarke shouldered arms to give those watching the best view of his off-stump being uprooted. Cruelly, in the middle of being architect for Australia's demise at Trent Bridge, and handed the new ball for the first time, his ankle gave way. He did not bowl again in that Test, although at the time it was hoped he would recover for the decider. 26 months later, and that is still his last match for England. His ankle problem mutated into a knee injury which kept him out until the beginning of 2007, with attempts to rush him back just leading to setbacks. The season just gone was supposed to be a renaissance one for Jones; as it turned out, he picked up just one wicket in Championship cricket in 89 overs of bowling. His knee would not let him alone to bowl; by all accounts, he did not look fit even when he turned out, and had none of the zip which knocked over 17 Australian wickets in 2005. Now he has turned his back on Glamorgan, and been offered refuge by Worcestershire. Perhaps a move away from the county which is his home in every sense is the best thing for Jones now, although his chances of a full recovery seem negligible. He will take comfort from the progress of Michael Vaughan, who recovered from a similarly low ebb in summer 2006 to play a full programme of Tests the next year. And while there is a long queue of prospective Test seamers, the positions are not nailed down; there is still a place for a fully fit Jones if he can recapture his best. But that is several galaxies away as we stand; hopefully he will be able to use the winter to work on the knee and at least get some overs behind him next season. For unlike Clarke, there is only so much that he can do.

A game in flux

Exits, farewells, downfalls. These have been the staple of one of the busiest ever years of international cricket, at the end of which it is hard to refute the suggestion that the generational shift which must occur in every cycle has come about, and that a mini golden-age has come to an end. Australia, as they have for the last decade or more, have led the way, both in terms of success and goodbyes. The Ashes whitewash and third consecutive World Cup title were epoch making, while the departure of Warne and McGrath marked the end for two of the supreme practitioners of their respective arts and the cessation of one of the greatest ever bowling partnerships. Other luminaries were denied the glorious ends which their careers and talent deserved; Brian Lara, his batting talent matched by none of his era and few of any, suffered a miserable denouement, a reflection on the decline of West Indies cricket over the course of his international career, which only his genius could transcend. Inzamam Ul Haq, who combined the lifestyle of a 1980s cricketer with the demands of a modern one and whose batting was a unique mixture of bulk and deft touch was given a contrived end to his 120 Test career, but fell 3 runs short of eclipsing Javed Miandad's record. The bell has also begun to toll for Shaun Pollock, dropped for the first time in 107 Tests and 12 years, while for Sanath Jayasuriya and Adam Gilchrist, an opening partnership which would grace any all-time ODI XI, 73 combined years of experience suggest the end is not too far off.

And it is not just great players who are on the way out. Captains have been on the merry-go-round, with India, Pakistan, New Zealand and England all under different leadership in at least one form of the game. Coaches too are in transit after a longish period of continuity: gone are Fletcher, Buchanan, Moody, Chappell and, tragically, Woolmer. In come Moores, Nielsen, Bayliss and Lawson. Household names none, reputations very much to be proved. Even the form of the game being played is under question, especially when one views the respective successes of the 50 and 20 over tournaments.

Perversely, it could be Australia who are hit hardest by the changing of the guard. Gone are Warne and McGrath, the magnitude and greatness of whose efforts cannot be explained ed or rationalised in words. The cold, harsh reality is that their two most consistent matchwinners are no longer available; include the retirement of opener Justin Langer, and it is well over 300 caps which have waltzed off into the sunset. Langer's position should be the easiest to fill, although the identity of his successor is open to question. One option is to promote the next opener in line, probably Phil Jaques. However, were they to reassign Mike Hussey to his original calling at the top of affairs, it would open up a middle order spot whose owner could be chosen from a larger pool, including Brad Hodge and the younger Hussey David. With Hayden probably looking no further than 2009, it might be a shrewd move to promote Hussey to the top, leaving at least one experienced hand when the second half of the modern game's greatest opening partnership calls it a day.

The composition of the bowling arsenal will spark much more debate and is the more vital issue. Warne and McGrath cannot be replaced in kind; the latter a once in a generation bowler, the former a once in a lifetime. But Australia do have formidable seam resources ready to fill the breach. Stuart Clark is at the forefront after a stupendously successful beginning to his Test career; he is not as much a McGrath clone as is generally claimed, but that does not stop him from being an extremely fine bowler, well capable of continuing to take lots of cheap wickets. Brett Lee will also have to make the step-up from support shock bowler to leading man, a role which previous experience has suggested he would be better served acting with guitar rather than ball in hand. If he struggles he could soon find himself cast aside, with his wonderbollocks reputation threatened on two fronts, gunslinger Shaun Tait and scourge of India Mitchell "magic" Johnson. English fans will have happy memories of Tait, who suffered when thrown in at the business end of the 2005 Ashes; his run-leaking spells and Kevin Pietersen's aerial assualt on his fine-leg boundary at The Oval are what will be boorishly recalled, although not to be forgotten the sort of delivery which sent Geraint Jones' off-stump on a walk long enough to warrant sponsorship for Sir Ian Botham's Leukemia Research. Less is known about Johnson, but he has turned in enough matchwinning performances in his short ODI career to put Dennis Lillee's much heralded comments about him in the valley of possibility. Alongside these sleek, flashy new motors is a relative tractor, Tasmanian brickie Ben Hilfenhaus. His state of origin may be less fashionable, the name lent less to an easy headline, but Hilfenhaus could well turn out to be the best of the bunch. His persistent outswing earned him 60 wickets last Australian season and his state Tasmania their maiden Championship, reward mostly achieved on the surfaces at the Bellerive Oval in Hobart, about the most unforgiving in the country.

And that is just the seamers. The question of who would replace Warne has been the most loaded in Australian cricket for a few years now, and still there is no heir apparent. And, conceivably, there will never be, not in this lifetime. Staurt MacGill will do a good job for a few years, or Bradd Hogg if the selectors' patience with MacGill's temperament has finally expired. But beyond the near future, no-one is poised to step into the breach. The two most likely are off-spinner Dan Cullen and leggie Cullen Bailey, both of South Australia, but neither has a particularly flattering First Class record. The simple truth is that bowling spin in Australia is an ever more difficult task, and that the Australian bowling attack will have to recalibrate itself to the setting of pace, with the spinner more an interlude than the symphony Warne continually produced.

Australia are not alone in experiencing a transitional phase. England may be seen by many as the second best Test side, but they have won no real series of note since 2005, victories against Pakistan and West Indies both mitigated by the weakness of the opposition. The attempt to meld the remaining Ashes winners with the new guard has produced a result which still shows the fissure-lines of its formation, and injuries and the absence of key players continues to drag them down. India defeated them away from home, a significant achievement, albeit with England's entire first-string bowling missing. However, the power trio of Tendulkar, Ganguly and Dravid have begun to look tired and out of place. A new Test captain is needed, while the one-day side has really suffered, defeated unexpectedly in England and thumped at home by Australia. Pakistan are similarly struggling to compete in the brave new world without Inzy and Shoaib, while Sri Lanka have glimpsed the future without Muralitharan and with Jayasuriya and Vaas struggling.

The uncertainty does bring some excitement to the international game, and the chance for the first time in a long time to challenge the Australian dominance. However, this will be well achieved; without Warne and McGrath they will win fewer games but defeating them will still be a formidable proposition. But, nevertheless, the new ingredients have been tossed into the melting pot, and it remains to be seen whether this heralds an exciting new dawn, or just longing for what has now been and gone.