The bowling's the thing

With the calendar rolling over into another Ashes year, English and Australian cricket inevitably turns its gaze towards this summer's anticipated contest. The first batch of pre-Ashes headlines have focused on the batsmen, and administrators: Kevin Pietersen - who, depending on how you see it, either drowned trying to bridge the sea of English mediocrity, or collapsed under the weight of his own ego - was sprung from his throne as England's captain; Matthew Hayden, the last to see he had reached Do Not Pass Go, cashed in his chips. ECB blazers and an Australian lawyer - their Chairman of Selectors, Andrew Hilditch - have come under fire for creating a climate of mediocrity for their relative teams to function in.

Little matter that the two batting units to face-off at Cardiff in six months time could be predicted without too much head-scratching; that England's committee cock-ups are ritualistic; or that it is no surprise the Australians have forgotten good selection is an art, not a process. The unsentimental Australian system will soon have forgotten Hayden; unlike an English equivalent, Michael Vaughan for instance, he will not hang around waiting to be wheeled out again. The Australians have always been rather better at moving on, the process in which they are currently engaged, not without struggle. England, on the other hand, could roll up to the Swalec in six months time with one captain and as many as four old flames.

But as much as batsmen have grabbed the attention recently, increasingly it seems that their less oxygenated counterparts will be crucial to the outcome of this year's big event. In each of the last two Ashes series, the home team has had the bowling attack to make the difference: England's famed pace quartet of 2005 was their best in years, while the combination of experience - Warne and McGrath - and relative youth - Clark and Lee - was irresistible two years ago in Australia.

Among the specialist bowlers, possibly only Mitchell Johnson on either side can call himself a settled option. Peter Siddle has made an encouraging start to his career, but lacks subtlety and variation, if not heart and heat. Stuart Clark will share the new ball if injuries have not sapped him of his potency, which is always a possibility for a seamer heading for his mid-thirties. Their troubles on the spin-bowling front continue relatively unabated, the current toss-up between the accurate, anodyne Nathan Hauritz and Jason Krezja, as much a danger to his own side as the opposition. England can claim no frontline certainties, save Flintoff in the all-rounder's berth. Monty Panesar used to be guaranteed a place by right, but will bowl himself out of the team if he does not arrest his decline in performance. James Anderson and Stuart Broad have both made strides over the last 12 months, but have further to go before they can properly call themselves Test bowlers. Then England are delving into the crocks - Ryan Sidebottom and Simon Jones- and the unreliables - Harmison or Sajid Mahmood. Both sides have six months and a handful of Test matches to work out their best options. And despite what you might hear from the rooftops, it is the team with the more settled bowling attack which will prevail this summer, whatever they think of one another.

Smith bridges South Africa's Rubicon

Defeating Australia has been something of an obsession for South Africa in the years since their re-entry into international cricket. The challenge broke a leader as strong as Hansie Cronje, who crumbled on the unsuccessful tour a decade ago. Graeme Smith suffered similarly on his first tour there, forced to swallow his own brash predictions. The Australian outfit his team faces now is significantly reduced, cripplingly so in the bowling ranks, their former failsafe means of controlling the flow of the game. Yet to defeat them on home soil, not least chasing over 400, remains a profound achievement. South Africa, as they had many times previously, sparked early, but looked like being worn away as the Australian lower order, an as-yet unquenced force, twice rallied. Late wickets on the fourth evening also seemed to drag the game back in the hosts' favour. But for once in such circumstances, Australia were outdone: at the crucial moments they blinked; having stacked the odds in their favour they could only watch as their throne was swept from under them.

As is necessary for such a victory, South Africa produced a collective performance built on many individual pillars. AB De Villiers was a deserved man-of-the-match after he guided them home with a fifth-day century. But the undoubted champion was Smith, his two important innings the least part. He has always been a special player: those who captain their country at 22 and score consecutive double-centuries opening the batting in England tend to be. But back then, both his batting and PR were crass; as quickly as he won success he earned enemies and an unenviable international reputation. As a batsman and a captain he has grown immeasurably over the last few years: his technique is now less likely to collapse at the first sign of a swing bowler; following last summer's defeat of England, he spoke with humility and gravitas, in distinct comparison to his counterpart Kevin Pietersen. A bullying figure has become a towering one; beyond all expectation, a desperate punt has turned into a unifying force, encompassing the myriad problems of South African cricket - the tension of racial quotas, the aftershocks of Cronje's disgrace, worrying dips in performance . There is still much work to do for South Africa to make good what remains a single result; Smith should ensure they are not distracted. And if he leads his team past the ailing hosts, he will have helped to heal South African scars not only over Australia, but Cronje.

Polar opposites alter critical mass

Their paths into international cricket - Lord's via Johannesburg versus a tough apprenticeship with an infant county - could hardly have been more different; likewise their initiation into the top level, the opener who began and went on faultlessly and the spare-part derided as England's first specialist fielder. Yet Andrew Strauss and Paul Collingwood have shared a common fate over the past year: each has made a century with their career on the line; both travelled to India with a weak hold on their starting positions. But when three quick wickets threatened to dissolve England's well-earned supremacy in the 1st Test in Chennai, it was the unlikely duo who came together and steered the team back to high ground. In cricketing terms the two have more similarities: both favour shots square of the wicket, mainly off the back foot; steady accumulation is a shared purpose and sharp running a common trait. Each played his keynote role: Strauss constructing the innings apposite to the circumstances and Collingwood steeling himself in the face of a potential crisis. Within a few hours, the two most dispensible players made themselves necesary again, and England look set fair for an unlikely victory.

Come in, No.3

As Strauss and Collingwood take their leave from the last-chance saloon, the spotlight turns to Ian Bell, with enough ability for the three of them but sadly lacking the capability to capitalise on his gifts. Two innocuous dismissals will not have helped the cause of a career on which perception
weighs heavy, and Bell, albeit just two games into his latest run at the crucial No.3 position, again looks unsure in and of his place. One view is that a dead-rubber and a Test under unusually stressful circumstances are no way to judge a player's true worth. The other is that Bell has proved once again that he does not have the mettle for a primary role in international cricket, and should be relieved of his duties. His fate is one bulky issue, but just part of the even weightier problem that is England's No.3. Nasser Hussain and Mark Butcher, two doughty fighters, did valuable service there and latterly Michael Vaughan had some success moving down from the top of the order. But when compared to their rivals, who have boasted the likes of Ponting, Sangakkara, Dravid and Kallis there in recent times, England look lightweight. Bell does not currently possess the stature to be England's batting fulcrum, while Kevin Pietersen will not (fairly) promote himself, and Owais Shah, although he bats there for Middlesex, is mainly viewed as a middle-order option. Of options from the counties, Rob Key will always be pushed in some quarters, and his inclusion would allow the possibility to re-jig what remains an unbalanced top order. It would be trust in his calibre rather than recent contributions that would propel Key, however, after an underpowered summer. Which leaves Michael Vaughan, the elephant still unwilling to leave the room; it has always seemed likely that the Caribbean tour would be his one chance to prove himself in anticipation of next year's Ashes contest. And Bell's travails may well have opened an unlikely door for him.

Emperor's old clothes

Meanwhile the arrival of South Africa has been proclaimed as a further test of Australia's fallen stock. One wonders whether the home support will be more amused by the tourists' confident predictions or the news that they have turned to Duncan Flethcer to give them them new ideas about how to win down under. New seems to be what is lacking from this South African outfit: they bring a batting line-up almost unchanged from their last visit, and one which has of late been carrying as a passenger its former driving force; on the bowling front, dependence on Pollock and Ntini has become dependence on Steyn, who will be targeted by the home batsmen. Australia have problems of their own, with uncertainty over the two giant Queenslanders, Hayden and Symonds, and of course the spinning option, but this is neither the place nor opposition to expose them. As their last recourse there remains the possibility that South Africa might, in time-honoured tradition, bottle it, but it will be a surpirse if they get close enough.

Battered Australia to rise again

So high have Australia flown over the last decade in Test cricket that every singed feather has been greedily seized upon by detractors, held up and proclaimed as evidence of irreversible decline. Two series defeats in India proved to be mere blips; the gloating that followed their Ashes reverse in 2005 led to a fierce recoil, and an 18 month period of concentrated, driven excellence. But even Australia, who, hydra-like, overcame the loss of Mark Taylor's entire batting unit, were never going to be able to revert to full power after the exodus that followed the last Ashes series. It was just a question of how they, shorn of the unique controlling mechanism that was Warne and McGrath, would cope with a team that no longer inhabited a higher plane, and how well opponents would rise to the challenge, something they had tended not to do well in the past.

It is tempting, in the wake of what must rank as their lowest point for two decades, to sink the boot into Australia with some confidence. There have been defeats before; they have been outplayed. But tenacity and talent nearly always dragged them back into contention, often to improbable victory. The most worrying thing for them here was the manner of defeat: once Tendulkar and Ganguly had batted India away from danger at 163-4, India never lost control of the game; worse, Australia never looked like wresting it from them. Perhaps the signs were there in Bangalore, where they were frustrated by India's tailenders and flaccid in their efforts to dismiss India on the fifth day.

Australia struggling in India is hardly news, and should not rank as a surprise, bearing in mind their record there even during their best years and India's tendency to run them hard even in their fortresses down under. The magnitude of defeat just serves to underline the point that Australia cannot now dominate as they have done. More than anything they were outbowled, most acutely by the Indian seam duo of Zaheer and Ishant Sharma, who found movement which eluded the Australians. Their mastery over the Australian top-order, continuing from the series last winter, offers hope for this Indian side to base itself on foundations other than the habitual pillars of middle-order batting and spin bowling.

But if the result at Mohali was a rude awakening, the new reality is one which bears a distinct likeness to its forerunner. Australia are still the best team around: even an unlikely 3-0 series result for India would only prove so much, and they are overripe for a changing of the guard which will weaken them as much as recent losses have Australia. South Africa, who have already begun to rattle sabres, do not have the resources to make good their talk. Past a core of Smith, Kallis and Steyn they are short on matchwinners; their commendable series win in England, which they did not have to play brilliantly to earn, reflected more on the state of the home side than anything else.

Two areas of weakness Australia need to sort are their opening pair and spin option. Matthew Hayden has struggled, but those who seek to write him off should remember that he has barely played since the beginning of the year, when Australia's top-order looked ragged in his absence. With Phil Jaques' back injury ruling him out for months rather than weeks, Australia are not yet ready to move out of Hayden's considerable shadow, and he should come again back on the familiar home pitches where he has always scored so heavily. Australia have been made to regret their reluctance to back their most credible frontline spinner, Beau Casson. The punt, Jason Krezja, was blown out of the water in a single practice match and will not be risked. Cameron White has been miscast as a replacement for Stuart MacGill, rather than Andrew Symonds, into whose shoes he would have fitted more easily. Australia went into the series with the notion that their seamers would cover the slow-bowling shortfall. That will be their working hypothesis until a genuine spinner emerges, but only Mitchell Johnson of the pace trio has proved fit and ready enough for the task.

That Australia are some way below full strength is part of their problem. With Andrew Symonds absent and Hayden and Lee below-par, they have been functioning without their three main attacking players, their batting and bowling leaders. Yet they remain formidable: Ponting demonstrated in Bangalore how far willpower can take him when he is truly focused, even if his subsequent troubles - unexpectedly against seam rather than spin bowling - have indicated his opening century was something of an anomaly on his Indian record. He leads a middle-order which still ranks alongside that any other side can offer, even if Michael Clarke has been strangely subdued on the pitches where he made an instant reputation for himself four years ago. When Stuart Clark regains his fitness, and Brett Lee his focus, they will again boast the best seam attack in the world. This tour may prove to be a write-off for Australia, and it will stand as a further black-mark against Ricky Ponting's captaincy should they not resurrect it, but it is on their results over the next year that Australia must be judged. It would be a surprise if, come November 2009, they have not emphatically proved the doomsayers wrong once again.

Defining series provides uncertain end

It was a strange kind of a whimper to end what was the sort of absorbing and hard-fought series we have come to expect between Australia and India over the last decade. There was a needless run-out, a key batsman was forced to retired hurt and the middle-order was dismissed cheaply. Ingredients, one might think, for a dramatic collapse, echoing events at The Adelaide Oval in 2003 and 2006. But with just one wicket down in the first session, the Indians never looked threatened. Sehwag brought up his century before lunch, the team's total not far advanced beyond his own and the next highest score 11. If that suggests he blazed while others blocked, it is also illusory; by his standards, Sehwag appeared relatively sedate, tending to shun the off-side flail which both his supporters and opponents relish. The four titans of the Indian middle-order, whom Australians may be relieved never to see grace their country in Tests again, all departed subdued: Dravid to a badly-bruised finger; Tendulkar impaling himself on the horns of a sharp single; Ganguly squeezing a catch to cover; and Laxman with a diffident glove through to Gilchrist. That man, one of the most exciting cricketers ever, spent his last day in the Test arena quietly marking time behind the stumps. The Adelaide pitch, which had not failed to produce a result this decade, slept while the people demanded a thrilling end, a fitting farewell to greats and a fulfilling dovetail to the month-long contest. In the end, a series which was at once a joy, a frustration and a powerful fuel for debate unraveled to its natural conclusion, with neither side striving hard or well enough to dispute the inevitability.

This was a game for the individual: Tendulkar, in surely his last Test in Australia, striking his second century of the series, his 39th in all, ascending again to the heights at the one time home of the greatest of them all. Ponting, cussedly pushing all doubt and criticism from his mind and unburdening himself in the way he knows best. His first hundred of the Australian summer was marked as others might a half-century. The helmet stayed on, the emotion bottled up; rarely, though, can runs have meant so much. And Gilchrist, part of so many Australian victories and a crucial factor in a good portion of them, departed with a draw. One of the ironies the Sporting Gods delight in; another perhaps was Michael Clarke's shelling of a chance offered by Sehwag on the fourth evening which would have reduced India to 2-2. The man who sparked victory at Sydney spurning the chance here.

In Gilchrist another link has gone to Australia's almost unadulterated period of success over the last decade or more, while performances which did not match those of their post 2005 vintage have caused the question to be posed of how long their dominance can continue. Matthew Hayden's importance to them was reaffirmed both by his absence in Perth, where the top order lurched, and his return in Adelaide with an unerring century. Yet Hayden is now the team's elder statesman at 36, and cannot be looking far beyond the penance a good Ashes in England in 18 months time would bring him. Brad Hogg is unlikely to play much more Test cricket after his treatment by the Indians. They are, admittedly, the masters against slow bowling, but his deficiencies at this level were exposed not only by the opposition batsmen but one of his own team-mates in Andrew Symonds, whose supplementary off-breaks outdid Hogg's wrist-spin. Stuart MacGill will be hoping for one last twirl, especially if Australia tour Pakistan as planned in the spring, but there is a reasonable chance his knee will decide to retire on him before he himself is ready to call it a day. There ends the feasible list of Australian Test spinners, unless you are willing to entertain the notion of another thirtysomething leggie being drafted in, this time Bryce McGain, who spent much of his career at Victoria in the shadow of not only Shane Warne but the now disregarded bowling talent of Cameron White, who still has the best domestic bowling record of all the young(ish) Australian spinners, although it has long been acknowledged that he operates as a slow, not spin bowler.

Still, there is much to marvel about this Australian side. Brett Lee was a deserved man of the series; he has made the transition from spare part to leading man so quickly and seamlessly that it is hard to recall him as anything else than the top-drawer bowler he now is, bearing the torch not only for fast bowling in Australia but worldwide. Mitchell Johnson was unconvincing at times, but swept up a tidy haul of 16 wickets; while Stuart Clark was wicketless in Adelaide but a threat always. As a trio they complement each other perfectly, with a mixture of pace, bounce, swing and cut all bound together by a collective parsimony, Johnson the most expensive of the three this series at just 3.15 rpo. While the batting generally held up well when led by Hayden, Symonds proved the revelation, chalking up 410 runs to match Hayden as Australia's leading run scorer. Allied to his nine wickets and customary sharpness in the field, he had a series which marked his evolution from sore thumb to key cog, as he has been in the ODI team for some time.

For India, the next few years could also be a tricky period of change. Ganguly and Dravid, both axed from the one-day squad, have begun to look tired, and, at 35, may well be eyeing the Australians' return visit in October as a swansong. There was a heartening resurgence of those who have already been through the cycle of rise and fall so common with Indian cricketers in Sehwag and Pathan, who opened together in Adelaide. That is not a partnership which should last, but hopefully both players will - Sehwag as India's one proven opener, and quite possibly Anil Kumble's successor as captain, and Pathan in the all-rounder's role vacant since Kapil Dev's time.

Also impressive were the visiting seamers, who shone after pack leader Zaheer Khan was injured in Melbourne. RP Singh filled his shoes as senior bowler, his displays of swing and aggressiveness earning plaudits and a good haul of wickets. Way back in the averages, but foremost in most minds is Ishant Sharma, who managed just 6 wickets in 3 Tests but in the process humbled two of the world's best batsmen, Ponting and Hayden, with extended spells of incisive, inquisitory seam bowling, gaining the prized scalp on each occasion. One must exercise a note of caution before singing Sharma's praises to the skies. It has been said of many over the last four years that they are the answer to India's perennial prayer for a good fast bowler: Zaheer, Nehra, Agarkar, Balaji, Pathan, Sreesanth, Munaf and RP Singh to name but eight. Some have fallen by the wayside, others have been and gone and come again, while few have escaped the ravages of injury. Ultimately, there is room for only three, at a push four. On this evidence, Sharma will be a difficult man to displace. With a height few Indian seamers have enjoyed, decent pace and the ability to make the ball bounce and move off the pitch, he has all the right attributes, while his survival in the bearpit of Australia suggests he has the right temperament for Test cricket too.

When all is said and done, Australia still hold the trophy and the whip hand over other Test sides. A series of away fixtures will be telling, as they have not played a Test abroad since mid 2006. With no Test-class spinner available, they are likely to suffer in some circumstances, and four seam bowlers looked an undesirable balance. The loss of so many matchwinning players was always going to affect the Australians, and they can no longer take dominance for granted. That does not mean they will not continue to churn out series wins, just that they have inevitably slipped within reach of the chasing pack. But it is up to the other teams to bridge the still considerable gap, something India made a good fist of; they cannot expect Australia to fall to their level, and it is likely that the slackness which crept into the home side's game, especially regarding catching, will be tightened up on. So less a decline, more unavaoidable recalibration as an era chock-full of brilliant players bleeds into another whose potential is as yet unknown. All that can be said for sure is that Australia's progress over the next year will be tracked with interest, rather than the resignation which their prolonged period of supremacy had forced most to become accustomed to.

Changing of the guard

There is a difference between leaving an indelible mark on sport and changing it. One does not necessarily mean the other; but for Adam Gilchrist, who announced his retirement from international cricket the day after taking the record for most dismissals by a wicket-keeper in Tests, they were feats very much united. Pre-Gilchrist, the definition of the ideal wicket-keeper was a top-notch gloveman who could be niggly, aggressive and unconventional with the bat. Take five of the most celebrated post-war examples: Godfrey Evans, Alan Knott, Rodney Marsh, Jeffrey Dujon and Ian Healy. Their averages range from 20.49 (Evans) to 32.75 (Knott); together, they managed 19 Test centuries in 482 Tests. Gilchrist, yet to bat in his farewell game and with a flat Adelaide pitch to look forward to, boasts an average of 47.89, with 17 centuries and a record 414 dismissals from 96 Tests. And those are figures which very much reflect a latter-day slump. As late as his 47th Test match, his average touched 60; 15 of his centuries had been recorded nearly 30 games ago, before he had played 100 Test innings. And that is not to mention one-day cricket.

When the chance arrived, success came quickly for Gilchrist; but the path to international cricket was far from the cakewalk his talent and record might suggest. He could not get a game for his home state NSW, so travelled to the other side of Australia and found a home at Perth, a journey further than London to Cairo. He then suffered the ire of his own fans for replacing the incumbent, something that he was to experience again when he graduated to the Australian Test team. Tim Zoehrer was the darling at the WACA, while he was far from flavour of the month making his Test debut on Ian Healy's patch at Brisbane. He was soon to earn their adulation. His first Test innings almost brought a maiden century, with 81 off not many more deliveries; the next game, he both chalked up his first ton and won a game for Australia, joining with Justin Langer to chase a total of 369 which had seemed impossible from 126-5. That typified Gilchrist; he was not the first wicket-keeper to act as frequent fireman, but it was the manner of his play which set him apart. He dealt not in fighting fifties, rather lacerating centuries; he could turn difficult situations into winning ones within two sessions and often did. Australia might look the deadest of dead dogs, but were never out of it while Gilchrist was yet to have his say.

All the Australian teams Gilchrist played in over a nine-year Test career struck fear into their opposition. With the bat, you could be battered from the off by Slater or Hayden; ground down by Ponting, Steve Waugh or Hussey; regally dismissed by Mark Waugh or Martyn. But not even those stellar names and reputations carried the same aura as Gilchrist. Often he seemed impossible to bowl to, driving and cutting powerfully on the off side; scooping and flicking on the leg. Spinners he swept or charged to bully straight down the ground. It was uninhibited, thrilling and utterly demoralising for bowlers and captains. Well-laid plans and carefully-set fields were frequently rendered meaningless; no better than watching and hoping, the last resort which Gilchrist delighted in bringing about quickly. For an example of his inventiveness, look no further than the first Test of the 2001 Ashes at Edgbaston. Gilchrist, a boundary away from 150, was helping his team reduce England's latest Ashes challenge to rubble just days into the series. Andy Caddick, one ball remaining of his nth over, was determined he would not be the bowler to concede the landmark. He delivered a head high bouncer; Gilchirst stepped inside, and, with a vertical bat, dobbed the ball over Alec Stewart's head for the boundary. One shot that showed all the best attributes of the man: the eye of a hawk, intuitiveness, and a sense of fun which never left him and is one reason he will leave the international stage amongst the most popular players.

If Gilchrist had never gone near the wicket-keeping gloves, he would still be regarded as an amazing cricketer. That he managed such incredible batting feats with the added burden is what places him in the pantheon of the all-timers. Indeed it is probably the recent downturn in his keeping which has brought about what seemed an unlikely decision to retire. He was never a natural, impish gloveman, but at his best he was an extremely capable and reliable one. His athletic diving catches, such as that which dispatched Michael Vaughan at The Oval in 2005, and assured handling of Warne's warheads place him above the class of the artisan, while misses, before the last throes of his career, were infrequent. It is his underplayed wicket-keeping ability which has caused others to flounder while trying to find their own model, England especially. The benefit of a century-scoring batsman at No.7 caused others to ignore the basic Gilchrist brought to the table; wicket-keeping was always the first and last for Gilchrist, as it must be for any gloveman, however crucial the runs.

Adaptability was another feature of the Gilchrist legend. He first fulfilled the opener's role in ODI cricket almost by mistake, but will be remembered as one of the finest ever to play the one-day game. It is unthinkable that any other could hold the gloves in an all-time one-day World XI. With Australia in strife against Sri Lanka in 2004 and Ricky Ponting unable to bat at 3 in the second innings, Gilchrist stepped up and made 144. Australia won by 27 runs. It was Gilchrist, not Ponting, who captained Australia to victory in the 2004-5 series in India, doing what illustrious predecessors Taylor and Waugh had failed to.

It was 2005 when Gilchrist's golden period, along with Australia's, shuddered to a halt. Cramped by the round-the-wicket line of Flintoff and discomfited by the length which made the ball bounce above the flailing blade rather than into its arc, Gilchrist's best in the 5-match series was just 49. Had he been anything like himself with the bat, Australia would have won. Unlike his team, Gilchrist never really recovered, with only two more centuries and an increasing number of chances missed behind the stumps. Occasionally his batting flared, and spectacularly, with stupefying centuries against England, at Perth, and Sri Lanka, in the World Cup final. But they were sparks from a dying light, and it is probably prudent of Gilchrist to end his career now, before the murmurings over his position had a chance to become something more concrete. Perhaps with Brad Haddin's presence in the ODI team alongside him, he has sensed the shadow lengthening, in the same way his own hastened the end for Ian Healy back in 1999. Yet again, Australia can replace the great experience of a Test player with a seasoned pro at domestic level, and Haddin will likely do a very good job. But they have lost another of their golden era, someone whose career spanned both runs of 16 wins. Moreover, cricket has lost a star, a gent, and a player who can be ranked amongst the greatest ever at the very moment he hangs up his gloves for the last time.

Sparky India short the circuit

It will remain an imponderable whether Ricky Ponting's Australia would have extended their winning streak in Tests to 17 but for the furore rising from events in the Sydney Test. That ensured the rare break in the middle of a series was no opportunity for R+R, and Australia looked uncommonly enervated and underpowered. But perhaps the scars from Sydney were more specifically cricketing: there too, the Australian top-half crumbled to swing and seam, but produced a customary recovery from 134-6, as they have been required to do more than once in their 16 consecutive victories. It proved once too often to the well at Perth, with no way back from 163-6, in reply to a score of 330 considered under-par. Previously the Indians had found two seamers was a cupboard understocked, just as Australia realised too late this time that four was one too many. But with Irfan Pathan recalled and visibly rehabilitated, India had the bowling resources to maintain the assault; Australia, affected by the absence of Matthew Hayden more than they would have hoped or expected, could not stave them off.

This was a match when reality reared its head and crapped all over expectation. Australia, it was felt, could not lose - not at the WACA, its square restored to former glories and where India's last visit had shown them to be as sturdy as a paper wall gusted by the local Fremantle Doctor. Australia chucked the spinner and rolled out their quickest and meanest gun; blood was to be spilt on the altar of Lillee and Thomson. India's response was to salvage from the scrapheap a swing bowler who hadn't been doing much of that for a while. For anyone but to Australia to win at Perth is rare indeed these days; for one of the Asian countries, it is practically unheard of.

If man-of-the-match Pathan was an unlikely hero, one can add to that list several of his colleagues. Whence came RP Singh and Ishant Sharma; the sudden form of Rahul Dravid; the youthful abandon of Sachin Tendulkar, after years of playing like a tortured mortal? It is the preserve of touring teams in Australia to crumble in India's circumstances; the canvas down-under is not a bouncy one. But India, who have generally underachieved in this generation, have far greater gumption and guts away from home than their teams of old. They have had success in West Indies and South Africa, while series wins in England, as they managed last summer, do not come cheap, even taking into account England's recent form. It says a lot for their new captain Anil Kumble; three of his predecessors, all titans, bestride the batting order, yet the team seems vibrant and fresh. In the course of the match, Kumble took his 600th Test wicket, and now trails only the two spinners of his generation who have denied him deserved elegies. Captaincy, which he has come to late and circuitously, suits him no less than spin bowling - he is a special and underrated cricketer.

Before the series, it was the Indian bowling which was considered to be the main difference between the teams. India might score some runs, but it seemed unlikely they would run through Australia with their popgun-looking seam attack. How wrong we were. Seam and swing are the two oldest arts of bowling, but when done well they can discomfit even the best batsmen. It was those features of the English bowling which unseated Australia back in 2005, when they last lost a game. Faced with it again here, they showed that not much has changed, which is an indictment on the standard of quick-bowling worldwide as much as anything else. Again notable was Ishant Sharma, who took on Harbhajan Singh's mantle as tormentor in chief of Ricky Ponting. Moving the ball both ways off the pitch, he picked holes in the world's best batsman, giving credence to the thought that Ponting, had he played out his entire career against the much better pacemen of the Nineties, would have averaged closer to 45, as he did then, that the figure near 60 he has latterly achieved.

While India were in reasonable control for much of the game, nothing quite seemed to fit Australia's script: having done a good job cleaning up the Indian first innings, they did not capitalise on their well-earned ascendancy with the bat; they could not force the issue with India 160-6 in their second dig; and Ponting and Hussey, who might just have crafted a miracle, both fell when set in the chase for 413, and the big push never materialised. Seduced by the prospects of a lightning track, they went for Shaun Tait, who got through barely half the bowling of back-up spin-pairing Symonds and Clarke. The pitch had none of the fire promised; it emerged that it was in fact not one of the relaid surfaces. What umpiring errors there were went against them; they dropped catches. It was all a bit un-Australian, which will probably lead to questions being raised on how they have reacted to their behaviour being questioned in wake of the Sydney game. They would probably have to lose the next Test too for it to become an issue, but were that to happen it would be interesting to see whether the line that winning is worthless when you behave like yobs - easy to trot out when the team is winning - will hold when the opposite is true.

Adelaide will tell us a lot, although India's failure to see out the Sydney game means it will sadly not be a decider. Any defeat of Australia seems momentous, so rare are they, but the match at Perth was no classic; no-one made it to three figures with the bat, no bowler took five wickets in an innings. The man-of-the match gong went to a bloke who took that many in two goes and made a pair of handy contributions with the bat without reaching 50 on either occasion. It was run of the mill in every way, except Australia lost. But twinned with the game at Sydney, which India should never have allowed Australia to win, it does show that the rivalry between these two teams is genuine, which can only be good for the game. What is not good is that India had barely a day of competitive cricket before the series began and that the premier contest in world cricket has not been given a fifth Test. That would probably be too much to ask, as it was for Ponting's team to eclipse Stephen Waugh's record. They may have reached the end of that line, but it should not be forgotten that the 16 consecutive victories came off the back of the 2005 Ashes and proclamations that the Australian era of dominance was over. The response to that was emphatic; and Ponting, who takes defeat along with all other insult seriously and personally, will be looking to start again.

The thin red line

Schism is a word which has been bandied about far too often in cricketing circles over the course of this decade for anyone's comfort. Make no mistake, the uproar which has grown out of events at the recent Sydney Test match will not bring down an iron curtain between the Asian countries, who are in possession of the piggy bank, and the rest, principally Australia and England, who would purport to be the guardians of the game. In reality, none of the Test playing countries are guardians of anything but their own bank balances; the much touted "spirit of cricket" is just that - a phantom. We have been here before in recent times - the names Hair and Denness should be sufficient to rekindle the memory of similar shemozzles which left no greater legacy than excess chip paper. But cricket has not existed as the sepia-tinted, much eulogised "gentleman's game" for a very, very long time, it that was ever the case. This year, we mark 75 years since the Bodyline series of 1932-3; other examples fall readily from the tree - Tony Greig in 1976, World Series Cricket, Gatting and Rana. The game is still here and in one piece of sorts; whether the shape of it is satisfactory to cricket lovers and fans is the point in question.

Specific issues arise from the current situation. Have the Australians overstepped the mark with their aggressiveness on the field of play; and was it an isolated example or indicative of a greater trend? What does one make of the Indian reaction, both on micro and macro levels; is that part of a pattern too? Further debate has also been sparked on two old chestnuts: the place of sledging in the game and the extent to which technology should be introduced to help cut down on the most grievous umpiring errors.

It is the behaviour of both teams, especially the Australians, which has been most closely scrutinised. Like it or not, the Australians will always play the game their way; it has ever been so, with examples as far back as the 1920s and the giant in all aspects figure of Warwick Armstrong. Ricky Ponting has not changed the goalposts, but is merely continuing a legacy begat to him by his predecessor Stephen Waugh and Allan Border at one remove. We have heard the, "all's fair in love and war, mate" party-line before and we did again this time. In almost all circumstances, it is a line in the sand which holds for them; no-one wants to be labelled a bad loser or Whingeing Pom. And, lest one forget, aggression is something which has been a characteristic of most winning teams in the modern era; from Clive Lloyd's West Indies side through to the English team whose successful Ashes campaign began with a lethal bombardment by Steve Harmison, the fielders unconcerned as the batsmen wore several hits. People chuntered at the time, but all had been forgotten as the team paraded through Trafalgar square.

But at Sydney, an under-pressure Australia showed an ugly face which Ricky Ponting has been trying to subdue during his tenure and a feature less in evidence since the Australian board made a big show of bringing the team to book in 2003 after a particularly poisonous series in the Caribbean. They happened to pick on the one Indian prepared to give as good, and who said the wrong thing to the wrong man. Whether Ponting was right to report it or not is a moot point; but there is a clear message. That is the need for the abusive side of sledging to be stamped down on; for Cricket Australia to repeat their gesture of four years ago would be mere tokenism, so it must fall to the ICC, nominally cricket's governing body, to set the tone. But anyone with even a lax grasp of cricket politics will realise that the words "ICC" and "action" are two negatively charged poles with a keen interest in avoiding each other, so what are the chances? It should not mean an end to dialogue on the field - after all, cricket history is littered with gems from some of the keener minds and sharper tongues. But those were, mostly, in good spirit, even the profane ones. What we have now reflects little of that great tradition; it is Steve Waugh's so called "mental disintegration" but a simple trade of insults, devoid of wit, exhibits nothing but mental retardation. Ultimately it must be the umpires who control the situation on the field, both by stepping in to avoid heated exchanges and reporting those who cross the line, rather than closing their ears and hoping it is all forgotten. What we see far too often is a posse of fielders surrounding one batsman, which is more than likely to end in some sort of conflict. That is when the officials should intervene and tell them to bugger off back to their fielding positions and get on with the game. Some similar admonishment for those who overtly question decisions, right or wrong, would not go amiss either.

Yet as much as the Australians trampled all over what was acceptable during the game, the reaction of the Indian board, the BCCI, has been similarly overblown. Make no mistake, India were given not only the short end of the stick but several harsh jabs in the solar plexus with it. But the subsequent actions of their board, effectively removing the umpire they disliked from the next game and engineering a situation whereby their banned player Harbhajan can play anyway, have diluted sympathy. It has revealed yet again, as if we needed reminding, that the ICC do not run the game, rather runs errands for the national boards, especially the one containing all three of its initials. Just a glance at the men in the power-broking positions reveals the problem. BCCI chief Sharad Pawar, a politician; James Sutherland, CE of Cricket Australia, a first-class cricketer but a better accountant; Giles Clarke, the ECB's new managing director, a successful entrepreneur and the man who brokered the current television deal in England; and to top it all, ICC chief executive Malcolm Speed, a lawyer specialising in litigation. That is the direction the game is headed in, if it is not there already - witness the formation of the two new leagues, ICL and IPL, two great stinking cash cows, a further development from our old friend the Champions Trophy, coming to some stadia near Pakistan this October. That is not to say the game does not need a commercial or business side and people who know those onions. But that should not be exclusive; where are the former Test cricketers, those who have a genuine love and knowledge of the game? There is so much untapped potential wisdom and know-how; you can read all about it in the press, but we need a higher proportion of minds tuned to cricket, not business, who can directly influence affairs, not just pass comment. Take a long, hard look at the current state football finds itself in - rich and popular as ever, but at what cost? Football, as someone once sagely said, will always be the most popular game because it is the most simple. And that mass of people involved and interested in the game brings money. Cricket can never hope for half the riches or support the national game possesses. And it should not lose some of the precious things it has in aspiring to achieve what it can never attain.

Next week India and Australia should be back playing cricket again. Say a small prayer to the god of back-to-back Test matches that this was the one Test anywhere in the world this winter not to be scheduled three days after the last one. Hope that the specific grievances between the teams can be forgotten, albeit with the important issues arising from them taken in hand by the authorities. The series as a contest is all but over, with Australia having retained the trophy by ensuring they cannot lose it, but that does not mean there is not the potential for some fine cricket to be played. There was plenty of that at Sydney, and hopefully the players will again prove that the game of cricket can ultimately transcend and rise above the problems it sometimes creates. It is in their hands to lift the mood; and that they can, and must.

Australia's bittersweet 16

The just-concluded Syndey Test match, the first of 2008, was one of undercurrent and sub-plot. It was the game which the Australians had to win to equal the record for most consecutive Test victories; realistically, it was a Test India needed to win too, bearing in mind the spin-friendly surface and their precarious position in the series. But as five days of absorbing cricket, replete with displays of class and talent on both sides, were played out, other more invidious themes developed, picking away at the festering scabs of well-worn issues and debates which dog the modern game.

One of these was the standard of umpiring, which was dismal. Errors made by the officials are under ever-more constant scrutiny, especially with advancing levels of technology which allow the casual viewer or fan to act as judge and jury from the comfort of an armchair. Often their importance is overstated; mistakes they may be, but often they are no more than poor excuses for a losing team. However, so numerous were the errors of umpires Bucknor and Benson that India, against whom the majority of the decisions fell, have some reasonable grievance, which they have formalised with an official complaint. It was yet more evidence that Steve Bucknor, once the nonpareil of white-coats, has overstayed his welcome umpiring at this level. That he has been allowed to continue into his 60s baffles; more so the inability of the ICC to give him the polite but firm push necessary. If there have been hints, perhaps his hearing has been as faulty as when it failed to pick up the deflection off the edge of Andrew Symonds' bat on the first day, a noise discernible to almost all at the ground. Symonds went on to add 132 more to his total, not without several more reprieves, including a refusal by Bucknor to refer a decision on a stumping which was tight but probably out. That was the error on which the game hinged; Bucknor's incorrect execution of Rahul Dravid as India scrapped in vain on the last day just added insult.

The saga over the umpiring decisions will continue to perpetuate, but the news that Harbhajan Singh has been banned for three Test matches will promote the issue of how the players conducted themselves during the game. Harbhajan was indicted for a racist slur on Andrew Symonds, a situation no-doubt owing something to the bad-feeling created during the recent one-day series between these teams in India. Symonds was racially abused by the home crowds, and words were shared both on the field and through the press. As ever when such an issue arises with the Australians involved, the question must be posed of to what extent the exchange was conducted on a dual-carriageway, as opposed to the one-way street the ruling would suggest. The combination of Australian intensity, inclined to boil over into overt aggression when they are put under pressure, as they were by the partnership between Singh and Tendulkar; and Harbhajan, a fierce competitor totally lacking in self-restraint, was always likely to cause ructions. The fact that Harbhajan descended into the realm of the racially abusive makes it hard to defend his case, but that should not be allowed to cover-up the part of the Australians in the affair.

Indeed the game as a whole reflected badly on Ricky Ponting and his team in that aspect. They coerced the umpires into giving Sourav Ganguly out when Michael Clarke took a catch close to the ground, one of those which falls into the grey-area of uncertainty technology is unable to illuminate. Ricky Ponting might have fancied himself as a better umpire than the two poor examples on show, but that is no excuse for the finger he brandished at Mark Benson, who meekly followed suit to dispatch Ganguly. Bad umpiring may be "part of the game" as Ponting suggested after the game, but he himself could have shown a far greater appreciation of this maxim, making his displeasure at being incorrectly adjudged leg-before in the first innings clear, disregarding that he had earlier been wrongly saved by the same umpire. If Ponting is willing to indulge the human-aspect of decision making in the game's great tapestry, he would do well not to give the impression he is only happy with it being part of a game favouring his own team.

There was, lest one forget, a fine game of cricket going on amongst all the controversy. Momentum, the ebb and flow of which has ever defined Test cricket, tends to be something of a one-way thing when playing Australia: allow them to take it, and you will likely never see it again. The pleasant aspect of this game, setting it apart from the formulaic victories which formed much of the 16-game run, was the way in which control of the game changed hands on various occasions, and the match was kept interesting throughout the five days, mercifully only touched by the rain which had been expected to be a more significant blight. India took the first trick, a significant achievement considering their seam attack was down to the bare-bones with Zaheer injured and out of the series. But his understudy RP Singh rose to the occasion, knocking over the Australian openers and allowing the spinners to work away at the middle-order, rather than having to toil against an undamaged batting line-up, which was the Indians' problem in the second innings. Symonds, even taking into account his various helpings of luck, played a strong hand, with his finest Test innings, with all the other recognised batsmen back in the quaint SCG pavilion. Brad Hogg and Brett Lee were more than valuable allies, both recording half-centuries and helping Australia to a total in excess of 450 when 200 less would have been an acceptable face-saving score. The inexperience of the Indian seam duo, Singh and Sharma, was shown up as they failed to do to the lower-order what they had the better batsmen and were knocked off their stride by the poor decision making. Nevertheless, the promise of Sharma, in particular, shone through; with all fit he would be some way off first choice, but he was lively and unlucky with some nippy in-duckers to the right-handers and disconcerting bounce from a wiry frame.

Although the Australians largely wasted the new ball, Brett Lee did manage to set-up Wasim Jaffer perfectly, slipping a yorker under his bat having pushed him onto the back foot with some rib-ticklers. With Dravid still mired in the catacombs of his bad form, it looked as if a familiar story would unfold. Fortunately for India, their next man in was strolling out to his batting equivalent of the Elysian fields: VVS Laxman, against Australia, batting at 3, in Sydney. Rarely has a batsman been more primed for success and Laxman fulfilled both the expectation and the need of his team. Dainty yet lethal, his strokes lit up the SCG and enraptured the crowd, no strangers to batting of the highest class. In the age of turbo-bats and Twenty20 cricket, it was a prescient reminder of how the best batsmanship is based around timing, a golden-age throwback which could have had no more fitting stage than Sydney, still boasting it's 19th century Pavilion and Ladies' stand. The departure of Laxman and Dravid in quick succession, however, brought the match back towards Australia, and one more big effort was needed. With Ganguly and Tendulkar together, only one man looked likely: while the Little Master toiled, Ganguly flowed, showing the benefits of his recent run-scoring exploits as he floated to a half-century. But he gave it away, chipping Hogg lamely to mid-on, which Tendulkar did not. His unbeaten 154 was not quite the effort of four years ago, when he abstained from the cover drive, but it had echoes, with the maestro battling indifferent form and the loss of his old dominance. With Harbhajan, he repaid the compliment to Australia of their first-innings resurgence, raising India over 500 when Australia looked ready to finish them at 345-7.

Their chances of victory dissipated with their failure to break into the Australians early, Jaques and Hayden posting a creditable 85 on a pitch which was beginning to bounce erraticaly and offer significant turn. Hayden was the main bulwark, and his alliance with the unperturbed Hussey meant Australia could absorb the early loss of both Clarke and Ponting, for a third single-figure score in four innings. Delaying the declaration on the fifth day until the stroke of lunch appeared overkill, although Ponting can rightfully point to the eventual victory, achieved dramatically as the innocuous left-arm slows of Michael Clarke, enhanced by the now capricious surface, claimed a trio of wickets in the penultimate over to scotch India's hopes of survival. Australia will celebrate long and hard, the record equalled with power to add, especially on Perth's reviving pitch. It is an undesirable outcome for the neutral, killing a series which a fighting-draw would have brought to the boil, while the resentment will run deep for India. Cricket needed this sort of a contest, two high-quality teams slugging it out; it did not need the various indiscipline of both players and officials and steps should be taken to try and ensure that a Test match with as much potential as this one is not so significantly marred again.

Australia again

When comparing all-conquering teams across generations, the contention most often made is that such equations are fatuous: times, attitudes and the game itself change, evolve, making it impossible to find a completely fair or comprehensive system for judging players of different eras. How, for example. would Don Bradman have done against the West Indies quicks of the 1980s? How would the aforementioned and other plunderers of his day have fared on pitches slightly less favourable than those of the 1930s - depression years for economies; peak times for scoring runs. We shall never know, although it is fun to pontificate.

Even the best players of the same generation are hard to compare: Lara or Tendulkar? Warne or Murali? There will always be a few truly great players in the game, but it is rare that you will get two worldbeating teams in close proximity. But if Ricky Ponting's team win the forthcoming Test at Sydney, they will equal the record for most consecutive Test wins, currently held by a team led by Ponting's predecessor, Stephen Waugh. And with the similarities between the two, perhaps it is possible to judge which of Australia's Sweet 16s is the better.

Waugh's induction into the Australian captaincy was not as easy as his final record and longevity might suggest. He was denied series victory in the Caribbean by the bat of one man, Brian Lara, at the peak of his monumental powers; while rain and the Sri Lankan spinners ensured a 0-1 reverse on the subsequent tour. And it proved to be defeat, rather than stalemate, which bookended the run of victories, as India came form behind to triumph in the titanic encounter of 2001. In contrast, Ricky Ponting has suffered defeat in live games only in the Ashes series of 2005. Since, his team has won 18 of 19 Test matches, with only the South Africans holding out for a draw. So which is the better team?

In terms of appearances, these are the teams which best represent the two winning sides (Colin Miller is replaced by Gillespie, who played two fewer games in that time, in the interest of balance).

1999-2001: Slater, Blewett, Langer, M.Waugh, S.Waugh, Ponting, Gilchrist, Warne, Gillespie, Fleming, McGrath

2005/6-2007/8: Langer, Hayden, Ponting, Hussey, Clarke, Symonds, Gilchrist, Warne, Lee, Clark, McGrath

Five players appear in both line-ups, although with only the unimpeachable greats - Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist - in the same role. One significant player, Damien Martyn, falls between the cracks, having appeared sporadically during both runs but with the bulk of his appearances during the period in between. Symbolic, perhaps.

In terms of batting, there seems a clear divide between the relative quality in the top and middle order. The top 3 of the recent side appears far superior, with Hayden and Langer one of the best statistical opening partnerships ever and Ponitng one of the modern greats at No.3. In contrast, only Slater stands out from Waugh's side; Blewett never really made the Test berth his own, while Langer prospered most when moved up to partner Hayden. In the middle-order however, the trend reverses. Stephen Waugh vs. Hussey would make an interesting battle royale, and one dares not declare the winner on paper. Ponting and Clarke, the young buccaneers of both teams, are also well matched at the same stage of their careers. The elegant insouciance of Martyn would be a better complement to Mark Waugh's exquisite talents than Symonds' rougher edges and although the Queenslander increasingly looks like he belongs in the Test side, he does not match up to any of the middle-order trio in Waugh's team. Gilchrist is the trump card for both sides, but the latter stage of his career has seen only glimpses of his swashbuckling best, and he was a more significant presence in the first team.

In the bowling, McGrath and Warne are constants, although their relative contributions differed during the two runs. For McGrath, the years around the turn of the century were peak ones, with his pace still high and bounce and movement maximised. By the post-2005 period, he was still highly effective, but a pile-up of injuries had dulled his menace. For Warne, the same equation of age vs. effectiveness does not apply: during the years 1999-2001, he averaged in excess of 30, with a strike-rate of over 60. Despite never recapturing the high-noon of 2005, he was still near his best during his last year of Test cricket and if anything he was better for Ponting's side, although he was of course instrumental for both teams. Gillespie was in his prime during the first run; pacy and a real exponent of swing and seam, constantly threatening both edges of the bat. In the post-McGrath era, Lee has shown signs of ascending to that level, but his inconsistency for much of the run means he ranks below Gillespie. Stuart Clark continues to operate at a stunningly high-level, and shades Damien Fleming, no spare-part himself. Overall, Waugh's attack is probably superior: Gillespie's pace and Fleming's outswing were perfect foils for McGrath and Warne, and as a unit it surpasses the quartet of the later team.

What remains is to assess the quality of opposition and the relative merits of the leaders themselves. In fairness, the teams Waugh's side came up against were mostly unexceptional: 5 Tests were against a West Indies side reeling from defeat in England and the retirement of Curtley Ambrose; New Zealand and India were easy meat at home and there was a game against Zimbabwe. 11 Tests were on home soil. If Ponting's team defeat India in the forthcoming Test at Sydney, they will equal the record with the same number of home games. On paper, the more recent team's opponents have been stronger. However, the expected challenge of South Africa and England never materialised - home and away in the case of the former - while tours to Australia these days seem to bring about both injury and managerial delusion for visiting sides. Ironically, the closest Australia were pushed was by Bangladesh at Fatullah, where they conceded a first innings lead and sneaked home by three wickets.

Much derided after losing the Ashes in 2005, Ponting has since developed into an assured and successful captain. The tactical shortcomings which produced gems in 2005 such as all fielders on the boundary to Flintoff with the score at about 170-9 at Edgbaston are long gone, while situations such as his handling of Brad Hogg, nursing him through a mauling by Tendulkar at Melbourne, show how he has grown into the role. Perhaps we will never see him pressurised as he was back in 2005 and how he might cope; it is unlikely he would crack as he did then. In a tight corner you would still want Waugh, all intensity, aggressiveness and with an unbranded tattoo on his forehead that screamed WIN. People lament the inability of any other team to give the current Australian side a contest; a match between these two teams would certainly be that, and this bookie is making Waugh odds-on.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Farcical end for tournament of sad farewells

Many things have been said about this World Cup, with the complimentary ones in the minority. Perhaps a fairer judgement is that it was a tournament of unsatisfactory goodbyes: before it all began (what seems a very long time ago) one of the selling points was that it presented the last chance to see the greats of the modern game bestride the world stage. That it did, but not as we would have wished; Sachin Tendulkar, so often king of World Cup cricket, departed before it all got going; Brian Lara, the greatest batsman of his day and a genuine great, got the reception he deserved but not the final act, run out at the non-striker's end. Inzamam left the field in tears, and, tragically, one of the greatest coaches was lost to the world forever.

In the same fashion, a truncated final, concluded with the sort of farcical situation only cricket can contrive, was not a proper end to a World Cup, although those more cynical might reflect that it was one fitting for the tournament we had. Once again, the ingredients were there, in the form of one special innings, setting up a run-chase which was simmering nicely until the rain clouds rolled in.

Sanath Jayasuriya and Kumar Sangakkara had played their hands beautifully after the early loss of Tharanga and at 123-1, the game looked set for a close finish. Not so. For the rain, which had earlier resulted in the first final to be of less than 50 overs, threatened again. Sri Lanka, although going well, were slightly behind the D/L rate, and were forced to charge early to avoid losing the game thanks to the impending rain. Ponting, a far improved captain since Michael Vaughan embarrassed him in 2005, cleverly tossed the ball to one of his part-timers, Michael Clarke, giving the batsmen license to have a dip. His hands tied, Jayasuriya attempted a shot he rarely plays, dancing down the wicket, and he duly played the price, his wicket sending the D/L par score spiralling away from Sri Lanka, and effectively ending the game.

It is a minor quibble, and one for once not caused by tournament organisers, but it was disappointing that Jayasuriya was not allowed to play the chase his way. It is still likely that Australia would have won, but a close finish may well have been in order. As it was, the only thing that the climax was close to was total darkness, as the umpires and match referee ignored the rule that the game was over after 20 overs of the Sri Lankan innings, and that there was no point or need to have the tournament concluded with three meaningless overs bowled by the Australian spinners to the Sri Lankan tail-enders (a spectacle endured to avoid having to return the next day).

While the final itself was an indeterminate affair, what is indisputable is that Australia were worthy winners. At no point did any team come close to matching them and it would have been a travesty if another team had walked off with the prize. When you consider that the winning XI was the guts of a side that had endured a long winter, with an Ashes series followed by an interminable run of ODI cricket, their freshness was extraordinary. England, who had suffered the same winter, looked tired and beaten as soon as they reached the Caribbean; not Australia, who belied their worst run of form in many a year, the loss of their No.1 ranking and No.1 strike bowler and the suspicions that it was a tournament too far for some and a tournament too soon for others, to dominate in a way even they have never achieved. Loath as I am to accept Glenn McGrath's analysis, his comment that they have improved in every World Cup since 1996 cannot be argued with. A final in '96 was followed by victory in '99, an undefeated tournament in '03 and a run in '07 where no-one came close to defeating them.

Many thought before the World Cup that this would be the point at which Australia's hegemony in one-day cricket would end. They pointed to their poor form, the strength of others and the structure of a tournament which should have required them to play each of the other top sides. McGrath takes his leave from international cricket a fulfilled man, his one of the few happy endings. There will be no more McGrath, no more Warne; on the evidence of the World Cup just gone, there will be more Australian dominance.

Anticipation lacking for long awaited end

It's been a strange old tournament; while there have been upsets, notably the progression of Ireland and Bangladesh at the expense of the subcontinental powers, the tournament has lacked excitement, with the desperately one-sided semi-finals doing little to justify the overlong preamble. The faults are many and well documented, but at least it has brought home the point that any ICC managed event is about as dull as a century partnerhsip between Chris Tavare and Matthew Hoggard would be. It is faintly extraordinary that they have managed to so comprehensively remove all the soul and joy assosciated with Caribbean cricket, but while they wave statistics around and proclaim a great success, those of sound mind can only reflect on a tournament with all the dramatic tension of a communist election.

Still, the protracted format has still produced the final that most people wanted; on the one hand, you have Australia, unbeaten since 1999, a veritable machine in one-day cricket which has had its problems in the last few years but has crucially produced the goods when needed, even lacking their strike bowler. There are two ways of looking at Australia's seamless progression to a fourth consecutive final. You could argue that they have been at no point made to work hard for victory and the opposition has been insufficient; they would like you to believe that their own brilliance has precluded anyone from coming close to them.

But machines can be derailed. Not by a lesser model, such as workmanlike South Africa, or insufficient England and West Indies. No, to knock the Australian peacock off its lofty perch requires a team which is capable of transcending the ordinary and producing the unbelievable. And, from the sun-cream smeared Vaas, the hair trailing Malinga, the idiosyncratic master Jayasuriya and the eternal beguiler Muralitharan Sri Lanka have the ability to be just that team. If Jayasuriya blazes away, backed up by the more articulate strokeplay of his captain Jayawardene and the classy Sangakkara, the Sri Lankan batting is capable of dealing with an Australian attack which has not yet been forced to lay it on the line. Nathan Bracken may have been deadly efficient so far, but he could have a very different experience if Jaysuriya starts pinging him back over his head or upper-cutting him over the ropes. Hayden has been proflific so far, but Vaas could be the man to get the lbw decision many have deserved. And for almost every cricket fan except those who wear thongs on their feet, this will be the desired outcome. Even if Australia do win, it would be good to see them tested; far better Glenn McGrath hits the winning runs in the last over than Ricky Ponting before the rum punches have started to take effect.

But while most are hoping for Australia to stumble, even if not terminally, a third consecutive title is what we should expect. If Jaysuriya falls early, as he so often does, a Sri Lankan batting order which is slightly shallow in quality could be exposed as it was in the Super 8 game between the two. Equally, Malinga has yet to be taken on, and it will be interesting to see if Hayden gives him the charge early. In what could be one of his last ODIs, Gilchrist is due a big one after a tournament where he has ridden in his partner's slipstream and his relative failures have been masked.

Ever since February, when Australia followed their loss of the CB series with some demoralising losses against New Zealand, people have been trying to find reasons why they will not win the World Cup. Even now, after a tournament which they have dominated for its tiresome entirety, there is some doubt. The smart money says that by tomorrow, there will be none.

Shadow Boxers must beware sucker punch

Achievement in sport is, of course, relative; when Australia cantered past Bangladesh they celebrated with no more than a casual shrug of the shoulder, a job well done, but nothing more than was expected. Yet for Ireland, today's victory, if not the pinnacle of their World Cup (for what could topple beating Pakistan on their own saint's day) at least justified their presence in the second round of the tournament and will be greeted with delirium back in the Emerald Isle. That was their cup final; tomorrow could be another.

Australia are almost certain to finish top of the Super 8, meaning that their semi-final will be against the winner of Tuesday's encounter between South Africa and England. Sri Lanka and New Zealand are already through, and are likely to meet in the first semi, which, considering the magnitude of Sri Lanka's victory in their initial match, would make the Asian side favourites. As it is hard to see past Australia in the other knockout tie, it is no surprise that tomorrow's clash is being touted as the dress rehearsal for the final.

Regardless of this, the match-up between the two front-runners has long been the most anticipated fixture. Bar Australia, almost the entire cricketing world will be behind Mahela Jayawardene's men. Steve Waugh wrote of Michael Bevan in his autobiography that, "his genius became mundane when people were spoiled by his continued brilliance" and perhaps we are suffering something of the same in judging Australia's performances. Why is it that Hayden is seen as a butcher, while Sanath Jayasuriya is revered as a flawed genius? Despite their five match hiccup before this World Cup, and the fact that the rankings would have Australia only the second best ODI team in the world, they have long been the leaders in the field. They are a machine which churns out victories time and again. Maybe it is this which leads the average cricket follower to regard a breathtaking Gilchrist innings or a choking and incisive spell by McGrath as just a bit ordinary. Conversely, this Sri Lankan side wins as a by product of entertaining; they have so many maverick elements that it would be nigh on impossible for them to be boring. They even overshadowed their only loss of the tournament, Lasith Malinga's 4 wickets in as many balls capturing headlines and imaginations alike.

Yet as much as tomorrow's match presents itself as a clash of cultures, there is some similarity between the make-up of the two sides. Both have opening partnerships which look to decimate bowling attacks. The first over for both innings will be bowled by a left-arm seamer, while the second (dependant on Malinga's fitness) will be hurled down from a decidedly unusual round-arm action. If Malinga makes it, Sri Lanka have the definite edge on the bowling front; Nathan Bracken may imitate Chaminda Vaas in form, but he possesses none of the latter's experience, nous and gumption. Shaun Tait is also a somewhat pale shadow of Malinga, both in bowling and personality. Sri Lanka, of course, have the superior spin options, with Brad Hogg closer to Sri Lanka's second slow bowler, Jayasuriya, than their premier twirler, Muralitharan. Should Australia continue to replace Shane Watson with an extra batsman, they may well be made to pay for spreading their bowling resources too thin, with Sri Lanka more capable on carrying out the sort of punishment England threatened.

On the flip side of the coin, no-one would dispute the superiority of Australia's batting unit over not only Sri Lanka's. but indeed that of any in the competition. The top 4 are all in supreme form, and, although the lower order has been deprived of crease time, a reserve of Symonds, Hussey and Hodge does not read too badly at all. On the other hand, while Sri Lanka can just about live with Australia up front, their batting is much more top heavy, with the trio of Silva, Dilshan and Arnold fairly unthreatening.

With the absolute importance of this game relatively slim, Sri Lanka may choose to rest Malinga, which would tip the balance in Australia's favour. This would both mean that he could be given an easier return from injury, while it would also benefit Sri Lanka to prevent Australia getting a look at Malinga, so that they would be coming at him cold, should these two teams contest the final. And that outcome is very much on the cards; even so, this is a tournament which has thus far shown a distinct aversion to running smoothly. England vs. New Zealand for the final anyone?