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.