Time to acknowledge reality's bite

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

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

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

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

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

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

England still showing vital signs

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

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

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

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

England searching for their special one

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

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

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

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

Time for heroes

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

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

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

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

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

Into the fire

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

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

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

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

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

Progressive England find their edge

It might not have caused a great shock to the system of a casual fan to learn that England succumbed rather feebly in today's final one-day game in Sri Lanka. But while the eye of the sporting world hovers over England's unbelievable run to the Rugby World Cup final, the cricket team have been almost imperceptibly staging their own act of defiance. Sri Lanka do not lose too often at home, nor England win away in one-day cricket. And, despite a rather disappointing codicil to a hard fought but low key series, there is a definite sense, for the first time in over a decade, that England are well on the road to becoming a successful one-day team.

There tends to come a point in all sport when a poor team finds out that even the seemingly bottomless pit has a limit. For England, surely that time was six months ago in the Caribbean when four years of chaotic preparation and moderate results produced a team which drowned in a mulch of turgid and ill-executed cricket. The Test team found itself in a similar position in 1999, when Nasser Hussain's first series in charge ended in defeat to unprepossessing New Zealand in a summer which had also included the now habitual World Cup failure. It was Hussain who, with sheer bloodymindedness and truculent man-management, dragged England from the pit of mediocrity which had been its resting place for a decade or more and pointed the way to future success. Michael Vaughan inherited Hussain's legacy, refining the rough edges which had been necessary in the first stage of recovery and guiding the team through a year of unmitigated success, culminating in a sweet Ashes victory in the summer of 2005. England are now seemingly entering that first phase of rebirth, and in Collingwood they have a man who is well equipped to exert the Hussain-like influence on the one-day team.

Since 1992, when England last produced the goods in one-day cricket, there have been four full time England captains who have doubled up in both forms of the game. Atherton, Stewart, Hussain and Vaughan were all fine Test players who all had some influence as leaders in the longer form. But none were especially comfortable in one-day cricket, as players and consequentially, captains. And prior to the CB series steal in February, England's last one-day triumph away from the green and pleasant land had been ten years previously, in Sharjah under the captaincy of one-day specialist Adam Hollioake. And you will still find many people who would contend that Hollioake should never have been stripped of the captaincy when he was, and that he should have played and captained over 100 ODIs. Some neat symmetry then, that it is under the stewardship of Collingwood, so long a resident in the one-day specialist pigeon-hole, that England have begun to look a competitive one-day team. And while team lacked direction under the likes of Hussain and Vaughan, this side glows with the Collingwood influence; busy, effective and bristling with controlled aggression.

It is the bowlers who have been the leading figures, and, slow and tricky pitches notwithstanding, they have done exceptionally well to restrict a Sri Lankan batting order of such pedigree. Ryan Sidebottom has shown why the management were so keen to get him into the team despite him missing most of the summer fixtures. One-day cricket brings out the dog in him, and his variation and accuracy are lethal when accompanied by the quicker pace he has shown himself capable of bowling this series. James Anderson was quieter, but he remains England's one-day spearhead, and he hung in well and was an excellent new-ball foil for Sidebottom. Stuart Broad, relegated to first change, nevertheless prospered and enjoyed a considerable amount of good fortune on the way to 11 wickets. Still, it was an impressive return after he was mauled by Yuvraj in the Twenty20, and every international for Broad is an investment by England in a bowler who fits in exactly with their template with his batting ability to boot.

However, despite the excellence of the seam trio, it was the performance of the resurgent Graeme Swann which captured headlines and bathed in what little limelight the media spared for the series. Eight years ago on his first, and what seemed for a long time sure to be his last, tour with England, Swann infamously scrawled his name in graffiti on the pages of Duncan Fletcher's bad book with his brash manner and disdain at the team bus as a method of transport. It is easy to look back now, but at the time Swann was exactly the sort of character Fletcher did not need in a new-look team for which discipline became an important theme. Times have changed, though, for both England and Swann, who was included in the squad seemingly as second spinner to Monty Panesar. Panesar had struggled in the one-day game, but it was still a surprise when he won selection for the first game. England lost that, but Swann gained his first international wicket, 8 years on from being outbowled by Graeme Hick, and the notice of the attending from his very first ball on return, which spun sharply out of the rough. He continued to prosper, notably in the third game at Dambulla, with 4 wickets, rare for an English spinner in ODIs, backed up by a matchwinning knock in the tense run-chase. A deep seated irony that his success should come in the manner so beloved of Fletcher, the primary function backed up by second-string talent.

The batting unit was less at ease, and had it been surer, England would have won by greater margin and with fewer nerves frayed. The opening partnership, a continual bugbear, was once again makeshift and temporary in form and substance; Alistair Cook proved his worth in the limited situation of the anchor in the chase which sealed the series at Colombo. Elsewhere he showed that he still lacks the adaptability and nous to be the complete opener in one-day cricket. Phil Mustard, who would not have wished for the jungly surrounds and pedestrian pitches of Dambulla for his international bow, showed his ability to score at a good rate but, like his predecessor in the role, Matt Prior, never looked like making a significant contribution. With his wicket-keeping also imperfect, it will be a delicate call as to whether he is retained for the next one-day series in New Zealand. Ian Bell is now settled as England's No.3, but an absence of luck and better judgement meant that the success he enjoyed against India in late summer eluded him. Kevin Pietersen, despite guiding England home in the fourth game, still seems in the mid-life crisis of his ODI career, while Paul Collingwood was patchy, likewise Owais Shah aside from one important contribution in the second game; his 82 was the highest total achieved by a batsman on either side, reflective of the bowler-friendly nature of the pitches. Ravi Bopara never really got going, which is not too surprising considering he was played almost as a specialist batsman at 7. There seems to be an essential imbalance in the team, not helped by the unavailability of Flintoff, who would fit in nicely in Bopara' s batting position. Bopara showed his bowling prowess with a tight spell today with Collingwood nursing a sore shoulder, but even with Flintoff's absence reducing bowling options, he was hardly given a chance to bowl, and his current role seems to benefit neither him nor the team.

As for Sri Lanka, who dazzled at the World Cup, there was a surprising lack of stomach and gumption in conditions familiar to them. Without Muralitharan, the bowling suffered, and the shackles imposed on the usually free-spirited openers Jayasuriya and Tharanga seemed to encompass the whole team, with the middle and lower order often having to bail out the wreck left by the top half. The fact that fringe players Maharoof and Silva were the stand-outs reflects the general underperformance of the team. Whether this is merely a blip or a precursor to leaner times in the aftermath of Tom Moody's successful tenure remains to be seen, but it was unexpected to see Sri Lanka get outlasted on their own pitches by a still vulnerable England team.

Maybe we should not be so surprised by England's success. There is youth and talent in this team, as well as the odd old-head with a few more in reserve. The victory against India was the establishment of a new regime after short-circuiting against West Indies, while this current triumph represents progress and a real feather in the cap of Collingwood and coach Peter Moores. It is still far too early to be getting complacent about the performance of the one-day side, but for once the attention can be turned to Tests with the issue of the one-dayers lain aside happily, rather than furtively swept under the carpet.

Nascent England must distance themselves from old failures

It may be perceived common knowledge that Graham Thorpe never captained England, and that Andrew Strauss made his international debut at Lord's in 2004, marking it with a century. Both statements are incorrect. but there is a link. Thorpe did captain his country, in the ODIs in Sri Lanka in 2000 after Nasser Hussain was invalided home; Strauss' first innings in England colours was not his century against New Zealand, but a slightly less auspicious 3 against Sri Lanka in Dambulla in late 2003. Thorpe's England lost all three matches; Strauss' international bow was as part of an England team which crashed to 88 all out, a total Thorpe's team failed to double in three games. Both events have been buried fairly deep in the consciousness, but nevertheless rank amongst some of the most ignominious of England's myriad one-day disasters away from home. The relevance is that England haven't had much success playing one-day cricket in Sri Lanka; in fact they have just one win, and that back in Sri Lanka's minnow days in 1982. And with hardly a moment's rest following 7 50 over matches against India, and a dismal campaign at the World Twenty20, Sri Lanka is where England find themselves facing their biggest challenge as a team under the command of Moores and Collingwood.

As last summer's "bluewash" showed, England have enough problems with the Sri Lankan ODI team at home, let alone in the country itself, one of the hardest places to tour. However, this is a very different side, and after two unexpected results over the summer - a series loss against West Indies countered by an unlikely victory in the marathon against India - it is in the heat and humidity of Sri Lanka that their true stock as a team will emerge.

It will be largely the same side which defeated India to take on arguably the second-best one-day team in the world, although Andrew Flintoff is a notable absentee. Alistair Cook will have another chance to stake his claim for the opener's berth long-term, after starting well against India and tailing off dramatically. England will need his adhesion if they are to avoid such meagre totals as on their last two visits. He will have a new partner after Matt Prior fractured his thumb in South Africa and the call has gone out to Durham man Phil "colonel" Mustard, who impressed with his rapid scoring in late summer, although replicating Chester-le-Street form in Kandy may prove troublesome. The middle order sorts itself, with Ian Bell now established at first drop, preceding Pietersen, who will want a big series to dispel some recent doubts about his one-day form., and captain Paul Collingwood, whose contribution across the board will be critical. The Asian wristiness of Owais Shah and Ravi Bopara in the lower-middle order completes a batting unit which appears more spin-savvy than previous outfits.

With the absence of Flintoff resulting in a slight imbalance, they then have to decide whether to play both spinners, which would also give the comfort of Graeme Swann's useful batting at 8, or to ask Stuart Broad to take the responsibility of coming in at 6 wickets down. The need for at least three front-line seamers and the desire to get the left-arm seam of Ryan Sidebottom into the team will probably mean that Swann misses out to begin with, as should Dimitri Mascarenhas, whose bowling will be no more useful than Collingwood's, although that would mean the England captain having to take the responsibility of a full bowling shift, something he has not always been comfortable with when it is a necessity rather than a bonus.

Their opposition will be the usual mixture of thunder, subtlety, intrigue and spin. The English bowlers can comfort themselves with the thought that this is surely the last time they will have to contend with the unique talents of Sanath Jayasuriya, although his protege Upul Tharanga is turning into a fairly fearful proposition himself. The two princes of Sri Lankan batting populate the middle order, Kumar Sangakkara and Mahela Jayawardene, who are both hard to dislodge as well as rein in. The lower order ballast is provided by the assured Dilshan and the more excitable and dangerous Chamara Silva, while Chaminda Vaas lurks with intent at 8. Even with Muralitharan absent for at least the first three games, the bowling will provide a stiff challenge, a seam trio of Vaas, Malinga and Fernando supplemented by leg-spin all-rounder Kaushal Lokuarachchi and Jaysuriya's omnipresent slow left-arm.

5 games and a scheduled 500 overs may seem a lot squeezed into less than a fortnight, but if England struggle as have their predecessors, then the time will pass very slowly, and their unity and collective skill as a team will be plunged into the furnace- they will have to more than double their number of ODI wins in the country if they are to emerge with credit.

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?