England's grip slackens

Ever since 1995, when the baton of power in international cricket was wrenched from a West Indies team in the last throes of a glorious era, it has taken something very special to topple Australia. The ruthless, win at all costs attitude, conceived by Allan Border in the fallow era of the mid-1980s, and begat to Taylor, Waugh and Ponting, allied with a talent pool which stubbornly refuses to dry up, has made them into a team against whom victory is the ultimate for any other side.

Consider the performances it has taken to defeat them; only against Brian Lara and Sachin Tendulkar, two batsmen who defined a generation, did they stumble in the late 1990s. For England to at last regain the Ashes, it took an effective reincarnation of their two 1981 nemeses, Botham and Brearley, to overcome them. Four years earlier, when vanquished by India in the titanic struggle of 2000-1, VVS Laxman touched a level, albeit briefly, that has been unsurpassed since, and for some time before.

A good start is not just enough against this ilk of Australian teams. It is never sufficient merely to position boot on throat; initial success must be followed up, for, even when an Australian team is at the lowest of lows, and the fat lady has long since gone hoarse, the fight never dies, and the spirit is never totally suppressed until the coffin has been firmly nailed and buried deep underground.

England have suffered on this account numerous times - a winning start to the 1997 series was effortlessly turned around into an Australian series triumph; even in the successful campaign of 2005, an England team at their very peak was made to prove their mettle time and time again. At Lords, they responded to being bowled out for 190 by skittling England for 35 less and piling on the agony second time around. They came close to the impossible at Edgbaston, and were only defied by one of the great rearguards at the Oval.

More presciently, on the previous occasion these two sides had met in the World Cup, Australia, on their knees at 135-8 in pursuit of over 200, squeezed home. Again today, England batted first, with the habitual top-order failings, unaltered by the recall of Andrew Strauss, followed by a more pleasing recurrence of a big stand between Ian Bell and Kevin Pietersen. At 164-2, with the two batsmen motoring along and McGrath licking his wounds after an early mauling by unlikely predator Bell, Ricky Ponting invoked the delayed powerplay, so often the harbinger of wickets. The result was as predictable as it was miserable for battle-weary England fans: Australia knew that one wicket would open the door, giving them the foothold they are expert in converting to dominance. It was Bell who gifted it to them, slapping McGrath straight to cover, and precipitating a mini-collapse which saw off Collingwood, re-accustoming himself with failure, and Flintoff, in such bad nick that it is almost a relief to see him depart, so that one no longer has to witness the excruciating spectacle of him scratching around for runs.

Pietersen, sublime as usual for his first 50, tried his best to give it away in the 60s, as he so often does, although Matthew Hayden refused to tango, shelling an easy chance at mid-off. Much has been made of his inability to convert half-centuries into the real thing, something he had not managed for over two years. It looked at times as if he had forgotten how, although the second chance offered by Hayden was a bit to good to pass up on, with the three figures finally brought up in the last five overs. By then however, he had totally lost his way, and quickly holed out to long on. Perhaps it is unjust to carp about the fashion in which his innings petered out (after all, an England fan should be celebrating the rare occurence of a century rather than criticising it) but it was hard not to see a Ponting or Smith in the same situation carting the bowling to all parts at will. In the final reckoning, England might have taken 247 at the toss, but in reality, it was well short of what was hoped for at 164-2, and 20-30 shy of a good score on what was a flat pitch.

Although England could feel aggrieved with the negative verdicts on a few early lbw shouts, generally the new ball bowling lacked bite; Mahmood still bowled enough dross to be taken for a minimum of one boundary an over (although there was that rare and highly prized commodity of a maiden) and Anderson never really found the right line to consistently trouble the openers. Despite the eventual dismissals of both Hayden and Gilchrist before the hundred mark, and some tight bowling mid-innings, the result was never in doubt once Ponting had made it his will to grind out his innings and lead his side home.

The issue of England's bowling attack will now be one for the senior management to chew over before the next game. Anderson, despite not having one of his better days, is still England's best opening bowler, although one would hope that the position of his partner Mahmood comes under heavy scrutiny. It is evident that Team England have a high opinion of him and it is easy to see why they are encouraged to persevere. He has a nice loose-limbed run up, with a fast arm, and a good armoury. He is also a natural athlete, capable in the field, and not wholly clueless with a bat in his hand. However, all the natural attributes in the World do not bring success on their own. Before that can be achieved, he must achieve consistency, an anathema, without which he should not be considered. Maybe with a more settled, experienced attack around him, Mahmood could be considered as a luxury, but not in this team. Liam Plunkett, his likely replacement, also has problems with maintaining line and length, yet is a slightly more solid prospect, who maximises the new ball and provides a threat to even the best openers. Duncan Fletcher has hinted that Mahmood was preferred as they do not think that Plunkett offers anything in the middle or death overs. While a very cynical commentator might venture to doubt that Mahmood offers anything at all, there is certainly little substantiation for the idea that he is useful as a gamebreaker in mid-innings. His return, especially in a delayed powerplay situation, where a captain usually tosses the ball to his strike bowlers in expectation of a breakthrough, is twice as likely to bring a flurry of runs as a wicket, while the prospect of him bowling at the death is enough to send even the most steadfast of followers into hiding behind the sofa.

Yet as much as the opening pair have been a problem for England, the way they approach the middle overs is equally concerning. In Flintoff and Panesar, they have two bowlers who constrict, but rarely achieve breakthroughs. Monty, as much as we love him, has yet to prove himself in the shorter format, and appears to be firing the ball in too quickly, not giving the ball enough chance to grip and turn. As was pointed out on radio commentary, he would do well to cast an eye over Daniel Vettori's masterclass of left arm spin on the same ground last week. Flintoff, easily England's best bowler, can choke the runs, but tends to pick up the majority of his wickets at the death, by which time, when defending a total, the game may be up. All the other big teams have a man they can turn to around the 30 over mark, with nothing happening, who will more than not produce a wicket. Stephen Fleming has Shane Bond, Smith has Pollock or Ntini, Jayawardene has Malinga and Ponting has Tait, who did that exact job today, dismissing England's rock Collignwood.

England must now accept that they have let another chance, albeit a more nascent one than against Sri Lanka, slip, and are now at the point which was always bound to arrive, needing to win every game in order to progress. Bangladesh proved against South Africa that it would be foolish to start thinking beyond Wednesday's encounter. Nevertheless, England would hope to prevail, leaving what could be a knockout match with South Africa 6 days later. When England line up for that game of games, they must have a comprehensive win behind them, with hopefully a few issues resolved to boot. They would be well advised to start at the top.