Defeated England out of ideas

Not many people would have expected England's habitually fragile batting line-up to reel off three totals easily in excess of 500; nor the West Indies, having dramatically snatched an early lead, to hold out for another three Test matches and secure a long-awaited series victory. But however surprising the result, a series which featured the odd moment of high drama among much turgid cricket confirmed rather than altered most well-held opinions. West Indies are still a mediocre side, although the excessively flat pitches played to their core batting strength, and capitalised on England's glaring deficiencies.

England possess not one seam bowler who can stride back to his mark all day with the captain's full confidence. The old guard - Flintoff, Harmison, even Sidebottom - all look finished in one sense or another. James Anderson and Stuart Broad both remain on the cusp of genuine utility as Test bowlers, although together they are a serviceable new ball pair, sorely lacking the support of an enforcer, which only Flintoff at full cry - an increasingly distant prospect - is capable of being amongst the present field. In desperation, England gave a debut to Amjad Khan, who brought no-balls aplenty, and more fire in words than deeds. As England cry out for a bowler who can bring express pace or steepling bounce, old Duncan Fletcher nostrums ring loud in the distance. Those who scoffed at his inflexibility in bowling selections, his insistence on ability and potential over domestic performance, may choke now. Look no further than Ryan Sidebottom, the darling of the Peter Moores regime, the anti-Fletcher. England had one good year from him, and in return have carried all winter a battered wreck of a bowler.

And as they finally look to have given up on long-lost causes, Steve Harmison prominent among them, England look around to find no-one ready to graduate to the highest level; somehow the prospects who should have taken flight in the two years since the last Ashes remain rooted to the ground. Where now Tremlett, Plunkett, Mahmood, Onions? Injured, discarded or ignored. Anything but cultivated. And now England are scrabbling on their knees, desperately trying to salvage the scraps of a generation they let slip through their fingers.

England now head into the limited overs segment of the tour with a captain who will don the blue kit by sole dint of the pips on his shoulder, and an acting coach who may or may not soon be permanently appointed to the post. Andy Flower is a demonstrably capable man of cricket, but his links with past regimes and the evidence of the current tour should be enough for the ECB to rule out his candidacy. A new voice is badly needed, a forced re-evaluation of common approach and attitude. The sort of cosy axis Strauss and Flower have apparently formed is ideal in prosperous times, but England in their current state require something more like shock treatment. No matter that there is little time before this summer's Ashes for a new man to make his mark; the resurgence of Ricky Ponting's Australia (that was quick) suggests that ship is well and truly sailing.

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.

England look back to the future

Victory may have finally eluded them, but there was more encouragement to be had for England from two well-contested Tests in India than any number of facile conquests - as they have enjoyed recently over New Zealand and West Indies - could ever provide. In the end, the tour which might never have been worked out well for England. It saw the resurgence of their contrasting Andrews - Strauss and Flintoff - who were so pivotal in 2005 and will need to be again next summer should England engineer a repeat. That Matt Prior's return to the team went almost unnoticed will be satisfaction enough for him, and there was further evidence of the value his trenchant batting adds. Stuart Broad, recalled for the second Test, looked to be hitting the pitch that much harder than this time last year, while the mix of a functioning outswinger with the new ball and discpilined lines with the old one gave indications of the bowler he should become.

While some quietly pushed themselves forward with solid work, the contrasting distress signals were more obvious. Ian Bell and Monty Panesar come most readily to mind: Bell simply does not look possessed of the stature to occupy the pivotal No.3 position yet, least of all against Australia. Exclusion, rather than demotion, would serve him better in the long-run, and also give England the chance to experiment with their top order, with the opening partnership of Cook and Strauss a case of good players in imperfect harmony. Cook could easily slip down the order to accomodate either Michael Vaughan or Rob Key at the top. Panesar, too, struggled: more worrying than his much chronicled mundanity as a bowler was his failure to maintain the basic tenets of his method, continually erring in length, a spinner's cardinal sin. With Graeme Swann looking combative, and Adil Rashid increasingly prominent, Panesar must now fight for his place.

England will now look forward, to the spring tour of the Caribbean, and, inevitably, next summer's Ashes. As much as it is important to focus on the matter at hand, the team for the West Indies should be selected with Australia in mind. This requires a the selectors to set aside some of their favoured notions of entitlement and security. Well as Paul Collingwood played in Chennai, England are well aware of what he contributes to the team; Owais Shah is a less-known quantity at this level, but one who could benefit England next summer. Accordingly, Collingwood should be stood down for the Caribbean in Shah's favour. England must gain a greater awareness of their reserve strength, and it is salutary that the batting line-up which played in India is identical to that which toured two years ago. This suggests a greater stability and consistency of performance than has been the case. The protected world of central contracts has made consolidation too easy an option for selectors, and they drift increasingly towards damaging inflexibility. As it stands, highly talented batsmen are in danger of being forever wasted through selectorial indifference.

As ever, the bowling attack remains more fluid. Anderson and Broad look the safest long-term bets and Steve Harmison is bound to tour the Caribbean with his history there and permanently alluring abilities. Without Harmison, or with him bowling badly, England lack potency once the new ball has lost its shine. Flintoff and Broad are steady; and while the big all-rounder retains his capacity to be outstanding, he has never been a consistent wicket-taker. Extreme pace and bounce or reverse swing are a seamer's three main old-ball weapons. The latter was England's trump card back in 2005 and has enjoyed an extended vogue since, best demonstrated of late by the Indian duo, Zaheer and Ishant. England have strived increasingly less successfuly for it since 2005, Flintoff included. Such shadow chasing has brought England back towards the mercurial Sajid Mahmood and rushed to prominence a Kentish Dutchman, Amjad Khan. Either could feature in the near future if England's mainstays prove too plain. One name which is synonomous with speed and swing is that of Simon Jones, who remains tantalisingly out of reach, if not mind. Only the doctors would want to write him off at this stage, and England will keep a hopeful eye out. The team may finally be moving on under Kevin Pietersen's leadership, but Vaughan and Jones, England's old alchemists, may yet hold the key to Ashes success.

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.

Monty finds the worm has turned

More than ever, international players seem to be judged by the common consensus of the media. Take Steve Harmison, who, dropped after the last in a long line of insipid performances in March, was deemed, quite reasonably, to have little prospect of an international future. Six months down the line, one Test and four wickets later, Harmison has been welcomed back into the journalistic embrace as England's matchwinner. With the Harmison story no longer interesting, attention has been turned to England's incumbent spinner, Monty Panesar. When Panesar was doing well - though never brilliantly - he was England's spin bowling messiah, the long-sought missing piece. Everyone loved Monty. But all party-lines become boring after a time: his relentlessness is now mundanity; bubbly enthusiasm is irritating over-oppealing; cult-status is arrogance. Shane Warne would no-doubt be amused and delighted to learn that barely a relevant article is written without his catchy but trite assessment of Panesar's career being faithfully trotted out.

In fairness, Panesar has not made the strides he might have over the past year. Like the team, he has been successful against a weak New Zealand side and much less so when the tougher challenges of Sri Lanka and South Africa presented themselves. Yet while Panesar was a palpable disappointment in Sri Lanka, failing to either restrict or dismiss batsmen with any regularity, his efforts against South Africa were, on the face of it, reasonable. Critics point to his failure to win games in the fourth innings at Lord's and Edgbaston, overlooking the extreme placidity of the pitch at HQ and the fact that - but for an understandable umpiring error - he would have dismissed Graeme Smith at Birmingham and opened the door for England to win the game.

Invariably, in such situations, the cry goes up for Panesar to flight the ball and experiment with variations. It is generic advice for a very specific bowler. He has had success through a well-honed method: buzzing the ball in at a quickish pace, imparting heavy revolutions on it and giving it the best chance of exploiting what bounce and turn the surface has to offer. On hard, abrasive pitches, Old Trafford being the best example, he has thrived and been a matchwinner. His failings this summer have been more of control than limitation. He has dished up too many short balls, releasing any pressure built up and compromising the accuracy which has been, and needs to be, a hallmark. Panesar is a mechanical bowler, and asking him to concentrate on flighting the ball requires him to do what does not come naturally, an unhappy situation.

Comparisons are most easily made with Test cricket's other current left-arm spinner of note, New Zealand captain Daniel Vettori. Party-line here is that Panesar has much to learn from the Kiwi. And he is an admirable bowler and cricketer, a spinner of flight and guile, rather than jarring repetition. At Lord's last summer, where Panesar struggled on a flat pitch, he swept up a five-wicket, first innings haul, the sure sign of an accomplished practitioner. Yet in the next Test, at Panesar's favourite Manchester stomping ground, he was ineffective as England easily chased down 294, a scenario which had been set up by Panesar, who knifed through New Zealand's second innings with 6-37 from just 17 overs. They are two different bowlers, who prosper in different circumstances and have different areas of strength and weakness. That Vettori fits the more classical idea of a spin bowler does not make him a better one, something borne out by the statsitics, which in terms of average and strike rate are similar, slightly favouring the Englishman.

The England management have picked up on the issue fairly quickly and sent Panesar off to Sri Lanka for a month's club cricket in anticipation of the Indian Test series in December. It is a good move, and hopefully it will help him improve his weak sub-continental record when England visit India. But those who are expecting Panesar to blossom into a crafty, protean practitioner should prepare to be disappointed. If spin bowling is a form of code-breaking, his is a brute-force method, and essentially that will never change. There are subtleties to be added to his game, but they are adjustments, not redefinitions, which will come with time, of which Panesar has had only two and a half years as an international cricketer. And for those who worry he will stagnate because of a lack of comeptition, there is the comforting thought that it may be only one more season before Adil Rashid is giving Monty even more to worry about.

Whose line is it anyway?

Test series against South Africa must hold special significance for Michael Vaughan. It was against them that he made his debut and first led his country; on tour there in 2004-5 his team established credibility as Ashes contenders. If they are to be again in a year's time, a similar outcome will be necessary, both for momentum to gather behind a hesitant unit and to allow Vaughan to impose himself on a team which, a year into his second stint as captain, still does not truly bear his imprint. Just as he did five years ago, inheriting Nasser Hussain's transient team, Vaughan finds himself in a difficult situation. The pace guns are no longer at his disposal, rather in the hands of an unbeloved opposite number; while the broad bats seem lined up on the South African side.

England find themselves in a curious position naming yet another unchanged squad. As has happened in these series on previous occasions, it seems almost certain reinforcements will need to be drafted in at some later stage; you sense England know it too. Yet propriety ensures they must pick the same bowling attack that did the job against New Zealand, despite the creeping suspicion that the trio of Sidebottom, Anderson and Broad will be overly accommodating to the tourists. Two swing bowlers is one more than is needed for a hot mid-summer; and while Stuart Broad remains more sheep's clothing than wolf, England's seam attack will not worry the best in good conditions. Delaying the return of Andrew Flintoff is sensible; still, the South Africans will surely be relieved to face an attack containing none of Flintoff, Jones, Harmison or Tremlett. They will also fancy themselves against a batting line-up which remains unchanged and brittle. Bearing in mind that the first Test is at Lord's - South Africa's favourite venue in a country where they always seem to start well - all signs point to defeat.

Unless individuals step out of their skins, both in terms of performance and progress, England look set to concede the advantage in a series which is disappointingly no longer a five match rubber. Vaughan should have increased bowling firepower from the second or third Test, which is when England can hope to come into the series. Until then, England have at least one game to prove that there is substance to the cheerful patter which is, just now, the only obvious hallmark of Peter Moores' tenure. South Africa, despite their well-earned reputations as chokers, are not the sort of team which will be cowed by sweet talk.

Same old

Since losing the first of six tests against New Zealand back in March, England have enjoyed consistency both in selection and performance. As New Zealand meekly folded on the fourth morning and England sealed comprehensive test and series victory, it would be easily supposed that the glorious Nottingham sunshine reflected England's fortunes. In one sense, it did: successive series victories are territory unknown since the heady days of 2004/5. But the caveats are unavoidable: New Zealand were the opposition on both occasions, a unit whose potency has been severely reduced by the loss of important personnel; in three out of the four victories, success emerged from first innings situations which seemed perilous, and England were reliant on two batsmen - Kevin Pietersen and Tim Ambrose- to rescue them repeatedly. New Zealand will not relish the irony of their own favourite manoeuvre - the bottom half of the batting order salvaging the wreckage of the top - being repeatedly used against them.

It is perhaps a little churlish to find fault in the manner of England's success: after all, many of the now famous victories they enjoyed in 2004-5 were achieved from similarly doubtful scenarios. Yet the question remains of how far, if at all, England have progressed and what has been learned about the team. The top order, which seemed uncertain at the end of the winter, at least appears settled for now, only Alistair Cook failing to make a significant impact on the series. The next two in, Bell and Collingwood, were the batsmen most under scrutiny coming into the final Test: their departures within minutes of each other for a pair of ducks only served to underline their shared predicament. Collingwood's situation is simple - he is a good player badly out of form and he has the one-day series to convince the selectors not to dispose of him for the South Africa series. Bell, as ever, is more difficult to rationalise. As an elegant, ethereal player, it is harder to attach the tag of bad form to him than the scrappy, unreconstructed Collingwood. He is the supreme batting technician of the side, with a style which is neither awkward nor ostensibly permeable. Often the main criticism of him has been his inability to construct big innings once past 50; after a series which did not yield that many runs in total, knives are being sharpened both in the press and, potentially, selectorial conclave. England want to back Bell, whose talent and potential is so manifest; there is a good chance that their support will extend to the next series. Whether that is the best thing for the player, as well as the team, is doubtful: it seems unlikely that Bell will suddenly evolve from his current catharsis into the match defining batsman his ability suggests he should be. A period of re-evaluation in county cricket may well be the best thing for him.

As one batting enigma continued to frustrate, England's most inscrutable bowler, James Anderson, took flight. Trent Bridge, with its recently earned reputation as a swing bowler's paradise, was Anderson's chance and he could not have made his mark in more spectacular fashion. It was Hoggard-like swing, but later and at higher speed, a combination which was too much for most of the New Zealand batsmen, as it would have been for nearly all Test batsmen. Yet even in his finest hour, Anderson's weaknesses were on show: Brendon McCullum envisaged clipping Anderson to the square leg boundary, only to find the ball speared in towards his legs curve past the closed face of his bat at the last moment. Another time, the ball would have carried on its path from hand to bat to boundary. It is not Anderson's fault that he is an attacking bowler who has to gamble on incalculable factors to take wickets. It was once the same for Matthew Hoggard: he adapted, added control and cutters to his armoury and was England's lynchpin until injuries caught up. Anderson must now do the same.

England are in a slightly curious position with their seam bowlers at the moment. Ryan Sidebottom is the pack leader, most strongly pencilled in for next year's Ashes rubber. In harness with him are the understudies - Broad and Anderson- while the experienced quartet of 2005 lurk in the shadows. England's success in forging a unit from the two distinct generations will decide their competitiveness both against South Africa this summer and Australia in 2009. Flintoff is the bowler most palpably missed, and the lack of a comparable enforcer has been shown up by the better opposition since he played his last Test in January 2007. He does not really fit into a four man attack, however, which is where his decline as a batsman, and Stuart Broad's emergence, couldbe significant. Broad has, justly, received nothing but praise for his efforts since being drafted in for the misfiring Harmison. As a batsman, in particular, he has surpassed expectations. But his bowling, for all the will in the world, is not yet at the stage where it will worry the better batsmen on flat pitches. England should not allow sentiment and Broad's youth and promise to cloud their judgement if there are better options for the here and now. Simon Jones is one such possibility: Worcestershire and England will rightly tread carefully around a player who has shown himself to be extremely fragile, but if Jones continues the devastating form he has shown so far this season, he is not the sort of player who should be left mouldering in domestic cricket for too long. A mid-series entry against South Africa probably represents the most sensible and realistic prospect for Jones, injury and form permitting.

England can take satisfaction from a conclusive end-result, although they were often anything but convincing during the course of the series. If they are to challenge South Africa, however, they must not dwell on the success and focus on what went wrong and needs to be improved. They have the essentials of a good team, with the bonus of an experienced and capable leader in Michael Vaughan. As they found out both through victory in 2005 and painful defeat 18 months later, the team which prevails is the one which brings momentum. New Zealand have given England a welcome jump start, but unless that is maintained against the South Africans, England are unlikely to match up to Australia when the Ashes rolls around in just over a year's time.

Recovering England stay grounded

The three main protagonists of the final day's play at Old Trafford - Andrew Strauss, Michael Vaughan and Daniel Vettori - must have had a distinct sense of history repeating itself as England made light work, in the context of their recent and historic batting tendencies, of a target just shy of 300. Each played a part in at least one of the two similar run-chases which England executed to kick of a perfect Test summer and exalted 12 month spell back in 2004. The relative ease with which England knocked off the runs today was encouraging: rarely over the last year have they looked as convincing. But all should be wary of viewing the match as a half not a whole: possibly only West Indies and the always mercurial Pakistan could have emulated the Kiwis in trashing what appeared an unassailable position, 179 ahead on first innings with the already helpful pitch wearing.

Parallels with four years ago extend beyond just the manner and result of the games. Again Andrew Strauss was at the fore, holding together a tottering effort first up before taking hold of the run chase with a century which displayed an evolved and self-assured style. Just as was the case when he made his debut, Strauss appears to have found his level. This was a return of the player England have missed badly since he last played with comfort before the tour of Australia: the man for the made-to-measure innings. Alistair Cook played his part too on the third evening, when an early breakthrough might have sparked New Zealand and opened the way for Vettori. As it was, when he departed the target had already been whittled down from daunting to achievable: by the time Vaughan was dismissed with lunch in sight, it was England's to lose.

The form of the two senior batsmen, who as on this occasion will be integral to England's fortunes over the next year, has been heartening and together with Cook and Pietersen, the anticipated bedrocks of the batting when they have gone, they have melded into what looks a workable top order with the right mixture of experience and scope. Still, England's timorous efforts in the first innings were more indicative of recent fortunes than the assured second dig. Launching pads previously supplied by Marcus Trescothick and occasionally exploited by Andrew Flintoff are no longer attainable; England seem capable of taking control with the bat only via the scenic route, building an edifice brick-by-brick. Against the better sides they will need more than six good batsmen playing within themselves. For that to happen with the current personnel will require something of a chrysalis in Alistair Cook, who has the range of shot to become the sort of dominant partner to Strauss that Trescothick once was, even if the Essex man cannot hope to manage the belligerent dominance of his predecessor. Hopefully that will also allow Kevin Pietersen to emerge from his shell: to beat South Africa, and compete with Australia, they will need the bucaneering Pietersen, not the pontifical and burdened figure of the last six months. Ian Bell must also show progress, frustratingly lacking in the two years since he cemented his place, while Paul Collingwood, suffering from a sore shoulder and wounded pride, is most at threat, not a state of affairs he is unaccstomed to. For good or ill, the top six have again earned themselves another chance: Trent Bridge could yet be decisive, though.

Just as with the batting, the bowling is worthy but overly accomodating to the opposition. Ryan Sidebottom has continued to lead the line, even if his bowling radar has shifted rather too far to the off-side, while his opening partner James Anderson seem still caught in the vicious spin-cycle that has epitomised his Test career to date. A virtuoso performance at Nottingham, condusive to swing bowling in recent years, is a reasonable expectation: with Anderson however, that means very little in the context of the rest of the summer. Stuart Broad could do with some success on his adopted home patch as well: the strong winds and abrasive pitch made this game something of a non-starter for him and while no-one doubts his talent, he need to back it up with hard currency, something he has conclusively managed with the bat, a small piece of the jigsaw which the selectors will be loath to dislodge for now. Reliant again on Monty Panesar, who came good dramatically after a misfiring first innings effort, chalking up his 100th Test wicket with impressive haste, England lack a certitude in their seam bowling which is set to be exposed by an experienced and muscular South African batting unit later in the summer. The intimidation factor currently does not stretch much beyond Ryan Sidebottom's animalistic hair and growl, something England are reliant on unreliable bodies to remedy. Andrew Flintoff is one obvious solution; an apparently revitalised Simon Jones another. But for even one of them to appear in England's iridescent new Test kit would require an act of almost divine benevolence in which few can have much faith.

England would have hoped to arrive at Trent Bridge with two convincing wins in the bank. Instead an even series has both highlighted their deficiencies and displayed their resolve. Such a crushing blow ought to be terminal for New Zealand, although time to lick the wounds and the helpful conditions at Nottingham, second home to two of their finest ever all-rounders, mean they are in with a chance. But whichever way you spin it - and Michael Vaughan and Peter Moores will do so in a credulously positive way - England's victory at Old Trafford was a salvage job from the jaws of defeat which locked open in agonising fashion for the visitors. Potentially it is an important turning point for a team still struggling for identity a year into Peter Moores' reign. The best they can hope for now is a convincing victory to seal the deal and the hopeful return of bowling giants whose absence casts a shadow from which the team as a whole has yet to emerge.

An unwanted repeat

Once, a series promising a duel between arguably the two most astute captains in international cricket; the world's newest, flashiest six-hitter; and two potentially top-class young bowling all-rounders, would have aroused a good deal of interest. In India, at least, the only acknowledgement of the forthcoming Test series between England and New Zealand is likely to come through people questioning what trifle has made Brendon McCullum unable to continue donning his plastic gold helmet and blast sixes like they're going out of fashion, which they soon will, if the old maxim concerning too much of a good thing holds true.

In fairness, encounters between New Zealand and England are rarely thrilling in expectation or reality. For England, there is little to be gained save avoidance of the leg rather obviously stretched out before them; while New Zealand's enjoyment of an upset would be rather more if the opposition were their near neighbours rather than one-time rulers. For fans there is the slightly pulse-deadening prospect of a re-run of a series they have just seen, with the classiest opposition batsman no longer around to entertain.

A year into the Peter Moores era, there is a slight feeling of deja-vu all-round. England's first engagement of the summer is one they are expected to win with room to spare, while the more significant test awaits them in high summer. The position of Andrew Flintoff is again dominating debate; while Michael Vaughan, having emerged from under the clouds of career-threatening injury, has stumbled headlong into the brick wall of bad form, a poor second leg of the winter compounded by his failure to register a significant score for Yorkshire in the first month of the county season. England are not quite in the disarray of a year ago, punch-drunk from a winter of ruthless beatings, but do not seem significantly better for the 12 months of recuperation, which have included their first loss in a home Test series for six years and the continuance of a dismal away record since 2005, only slightly alleviated by the spring surge which saw them come from behind to eclipse New Zealand in March.

The first-choice top-order from last year's West Indies series remains, with an ongoing game of musical chairs set to return affairs to the status quo of 2007, the captain reverting to his preferred position at one down. Dire predictions based on Vaughan's county form should be viewed with the habitual dichotomy between his performances for England and Yorkshire in mind. If no-one else does, he will back himself to score heavily against the New Zealand attack, while the desire to retain his position until next summer and have a tilt at becoming a double Ashes-winning captain, cementing his legacy as successor to Brearley in the record-books as well as the mind's eye, will be fierce. Nevertheless, the humours of England's top three do not quite balance, and unless things come good in unexpected fashion, something more drastic than the ordering of the same three players will have to change. Andrew Strauss, whose long run of poor returns still balances the scale against him, despite the ever-increasing recent credit column, is most in danger, while it would not be a bad time for Alistair Cook to show clarity of judgement outside off-stump and put together the scores with have, unusually, failed to materialise for Essex. Flintoff or no, the middle-order batting will remain as was, with no immediate threat to Pietersen, Bell or Collingwood, save the fact that the queue for batting places is longer and louder than for a while

When the fifth wicket in England's first innings of the summer falls and a white-clad batsman emerges from the Lord's pavilion, a lot will become clear on England's selection policy for the foreseeable future. Whether it is the trot of the diminutive Tim Ambrose or the giant stride of Andrew Flintoff will not be difficult to discern from the stands. Which decision the selectors will make, indeed which they should, is far less clear-cut. What is for certain is that there is no immediate prospect of Flintoff returning as a genuine all-rounder batting at 6, as he did in his golden period of 2003-5. The debate then shifts to his viability in a four-man attack, now apparently the balance favoured by coach and captain. As one of England's top fast bowlers, he would qualify for the seam-bowling triumvirate. Yet the question of his fitness to act as third seamer without significant back-up - as he never has for England before - both in terms of his troublesome ankle and wicket-taking ability will be questioned in light of the onerous workload he will face. Questions England need not seek the answers for at this stage of the summer, with Flintoff's bowling unlikely to be needed to overcome New Zealand and his return to first-class cricket still in its nascent stages. Better they wait until the one-day series, which should be more competitive, giving Flintoff the chance to put together the long series of games he has not since ankle problems subjugated his career in 2006, which have allowed him to take part in just two home Tests since he stood tall in the summer of 2005. That way his fitness can be realistically assessed, and his batting given a chance to regenerate, a prospect which his inclusion in the lower-order of the Test team would damage.

The return of Flintoff would strengthen England's lower order, although it would mean the selectors do not get to assess the batting of Stuart Broad in the key position of number 8 he will surely one day have to fill. Broad, along with new Nottinghamshire team-mate Ryan Sidebottom, is the only seamer guaranteed his place after he made the step up from one day cricket and played an important role in England's resurgence in the second half of the last series. His progress alongside that of similar New Zealand prospect Tim Southee will be one of the main points of interest and the series should give him the bit of extra experience at the top level he will need before facing the strong South African batting unit in July. Sidebottom, after his heroics in Sri Lanka and better rewarded exploits in New Zealand, is now England's first-choice seamer, a year after his return to Test level was greeted in many quarters as a temporary measure. And as Sidebottom has benefited from the transience of England's bowling attack, its lynchpin of recent years, Matthew Hoggard, has fallen foul of it. A victim of repeated injury since the Ashes two winters ago and the circumstances of England's predicament in New Zealand, Hoggard found himself on the sidelines when available to play for the first time in over four years. His replacement, James Anderson, has always been a polar opposite: flashy, expensive, unreliable. Hoggard made his point to the selectors with a nine-wicket haul for Yorkshire in their first championship game of the season, while Anderson has emulated him with Lancashire and may just have done enough to hold onto his place. Certainly Hoggard's inclusion for the England Lions seemed to suggest that the selectors were still asking for more from him, which he did not provide in the first innings.

New Zealand, their top-order batting the dictionary definition of inexperience, could very easily struggle to make significant runs in early season conditions, with all the English bowlers either on form or with a point to prove. Nevertheless, there is talent in the form of Ross Taylor and Brendon McCullum, while all of the putative top three - How, Redmond, Marshall - have made runs either against England previously or on the tour so far. The middle and lower order will be a significant obstacle as ever, the triumvirate of McCullum, Oram and Vettori all ready to blunt and blast tired bowlers. The seam attack is a contrast, all senior men, led impressively by the underrated pair of Martin and Mills, both of whom troubled England back on home soil. England, although they saved face in the last series, are still a long way short of where they want to be and can little afford to slip up against an opposition who have all the excuses and none of the expectation. Anything less than a series victory and the coach and captain axis of Moores and Vaughan will face the prospect of packing their bags and not to jet off in celebration of their first anniversary.

Pale England make their mark

England's just concluded series in New Zealand was about as close to a thankless task as there comes in terms of away Test rubbers. They could have won all three games at a canter and still earned only judged acclaim. That they were forced to come from one down after a baleful effort in the opening match made the overall victory a notable achievement, but the same caveats remain: New Zealand shorn of some of their best players by retirements of one sort and another; the differing amounts of Test cricket played by the two nations; the comfortable conditions, as much a home from home as exists for England abroad. But England have learned the hard way that they are no longer in a position to turn their noses up at any Test series win, let alone one away from home, a trick which had until now gone unrepeated since before the 2005 Ashes.

It is the inevitable nature of the three Test series, fast becoming the standard, that slow starters set themselves up to be losers. And after England's capitulation at Hamilton there were plenty of hawks circling, ready to issue the Do Not Resuscitate notice. Michael Vaughan responded, with a display of the good sense of timing which has long served him well. He staked his reputation on a decision to drop not only the malfunctioning Steve Harmison, but his old partner in crime, Matthew Hoggard. Half-right, boomed the majority, a pronouncement which indirectly proved correct. And against a a home side which failed to recapture the focused excellence of their first Test performance, half-right was enough for England. The expected replacement, Stuart Broad, was magnificent: well-expressed concerns that he might not be physically ready for Test cricket were proved to be foundless as he battled through mammoth spells, maintaining control of the ball and himself, while not compromising the aggression which typifies both his bowling and attitude towards batsmen. Two contrasting contributions with the bat in the 3rd Test confirmed his reputaion as a capable lower-order player, and he has earned himself a full time role with England this summer and the chance to book his place for the Ashes in the next. James Anderson, on the other hand, did nothing to advance opinion of him, producing one devastating and three middling to seriously indifferent performances. England might persist with Anderson, to see if the cycle can be broken by an extended run; should Matthew Hoggard take a stack of wickets for Yorkshire in early season however, pragmatism might well supersede the long-term vision.

Victory in the third Test, from 4-3 on the first morning, salvaged not only England's tour and to an extent their winter, but several reputations. Andrew Strauss was teetering most dangerously over the precipice: England went over a lot of heads to bring Strauss back after he missed out on the tour of Sri Lanka. They backed a trusted man heavily and were kept waiting for recompense for the best part of three Test matches, as he alternately got himself out dabbling outside off-stump and retreated entirely into his shell. The descent of his batting average into the 30s after the second Test seemed to signfiy the end as much as his self-inflicted demise with England lurching on the first morning at Napier, where two years before England would have looked first to Strauss to play the made-to-measure innings. In view of that, his innings of 177 was exceptional: the pitch may have been placid, the bowlers tired, but nothing can have been remotely simple for Strauss with his career on the line. Hopefully, having earned a stay of execution, Strauss can now move back towards the composed excellence of his early career, and, with a modified technique which relies less on the square of the wicket options and includes greater proficiency on the drive, he will be better served to succeed in the long term should he consolidate his position with the runs he still needs.

Joining him in the second innings runletting was Ian Bell, who was under no such absoulte pressure, but against whom a whispering campagin had started to develop. . Part of the gripe against Bell was the fact that he appeared to be in excellent touch but was not making the most of it. Arguably the most stylish English batsman since David Gower, he suffers the same problems of perception, his laid-back demeanour interpreted as the sign of an unconcerned mind. Important as it was in an immediate sense, his second innings hundred tells us nothing; we know Bell can score Test centuries, but until he constructs a few more innings when the runs are needed most, he will be accused of making hay only when the sun is shining. Those rays have not dazzled on Kevin Pietersen this winter as much as he and supporters are accustomed to; his century, however, did come when the going was toughest, proving he is still England's stand out performer with the bat and hopefully something which will give him the confidence to revert to the natural attacking game he increasingly shied away from as the runs dried up.

The last throes of England's winter also suited Monty Panesar, another to suffer a difficult winter. Without having done a lot wrong, he still looked increasingly like drifting into ineffectiveness, but, as is his wont, produced the goods just as the doubts were gathering in the foothills. Bowling the team to victory in the fourth innings and collecting best Test figures is all that can be asked of a spinner, even if gnarled old finger spinners would have him vary his pace more. A change in pace is exactly what Ryan Sidebottom's career has experienced over the last ten months. It is well remembered that his place was by no means copper-bottomed certainty at the beginning of the tour: successful against the flaccid West Indian batsmen, he was worthy against India and Sri Lanka, not to mention unlucky, but finished with unflattering figures. Here he at last received due reward for his efforts, having added a yard of pace and greater nous on the angle of attack to the well honed attributes of accuracy and swing long developed in county cricket. When he returned from exile to rout West Indies, concerns were expressed that he would not be able to sustain a long career at Test level and that there would not be room for him and Hoggard in the same team. The last point has been, to an extent, proved; not many would have opined Sidebottom would be the last Yorkshireman standing, however. It goes to show how quickly and decidedly perceptions and circumstances can change, something which could work for or against England as they seek to lay the platform from which they can challenge Australia in just over a year's time.

The inertia of loss

Various series and epochal moments could be identified as turning points in England's transition from perennial failures to victors over the world's best team in 2005. You could look back to the success early in Duncan Fletcher's tenure on the subcontinent in 2000-1; the spring series in 2004 where England's bowling attack merged into a cohesive, incisive unit at the spiritual home of fast bowling; the subsequent summer where they swept the board in all seven Tests. All crucial moments: building blocks of a confident, winning team. Nevertheless, it was arguably the series which followed the all-conquering summer of 2004 that crystallised England's ambition and worldbeating potential. For all the success in the year 2004, they had not been challenged by the best, even the better teams: South Africa, on the home soil where only Australia had beaten them since their readmision in 1991, was an acid test if ever there was.

Having easily won the first Test, England looked to have ceded their advantage on the first day at Durban. Blasted out by Pollock and Ntini for 139, they began their second innings almost 200 behind. What followed showed all that was good about England then, and what they lack now. To put it simply, when Pollock picked up the opening wicket, a customary caught behind, the score was 273. Marcus Trescothick was the victim, his demise brining about a similar fate for his opening partner Andrew Strauss soon after, as so often happens after a big partnership is broken. From a surefire winning position, South Africa were left hanging from the precipice, two wickets from going down as the clouds closed over to save them on the last evening. Despite losing the next Test, England produced another amazing recovery at Johannesburg to snatch the series 2-1. Again Trescothick was to the fore, blasting a second innings 180 to set up Matthew Hoggard's procession. Good as the Somerset man was that series, he was eclipsed by his partner, who amassed 656 runs @ 72 to neutralise Jaques Kallis' colossal contribution and bat South Africa, country of his birth, into the ground.

Trescothick and Strauss were the ultimate manifestation of England's success, which correlated almost exactly with the lifespan of their own partnership. It came together by accident in 2004, when Michael Vaughan's knee collapsed on him not for the first or last time. When Vaughan returned for the second Test against New Zealand, he had lost a batsman of 96 Tests experience, Nasser Hussain, and his own place in the batting order. All for a diminuitive left-hander, not much known outside the county circuit he had quietly been dominating with Middlesex. Just as Trescothick had four years previously, Strauss slipped in unobtrusively; success came fast and with it a sense of belonging. While Trescothick blasted opening bowlers down the ground, Strauss hung on the back foot to punish them through backward square. It was a simple, but seemingly fireproof technique. In time its simplicity, and consequent lack of adaptability, has been his downfall. After returning from South Africa England's leading series run scorers, both enjoyed fine Ashes series: Trescothick's total of 431 runs was eclipsed only by Kevin Pietersen, Strauss compensating for his failure to reach three figures with two centuries. They seemed set to dominate the world stage for years to come, as did England.

Eighteen months on from the last time they opened in a Test match, with Trescothick having officially drawn a line under his England career and Strauss seemingly slipping from the team for a second time, the thought of such a fine, recent opening partnership only serves to highlight England's current shortcomings. An England batting unit led by Trescothick and Strauss was a genuine force to be reckoned with; they invariably gave good starts, giving a sense of condifence and ease which permeated the whole team. England's current opening pair, Cook and Vaughan, are both fine players, but their parterships this series have been either non-existent or ponderous. In a sense, England have never recovered from losing Trescothick: not only have they missed his runs and safe hands at slip, but his departure has had a domino effect on the rest of the team, not least Strauss, who has scored just one century when not partnered by him, and none since they last batted together in summer 2006. England's batsmen now seem caught between preservation and the need to attack, even Kevin Pietersen severely affected, without a century all winter until he rescued England in the ongoing Test. Without the example of a natural dominator like Trescothick, to set the tone from the off, they look rudderless. Only Michael Vaughan, who continues to get out inexplicably, and Pietersen are batting leaders; the case of Strauss has shown what happens when a follower attempts to take charge.

A shake-up in England's batting is necessary and should come in the return series with New Zealand in May. Strauss, second innings exploits at Napier notwithstanding, surely cannot continue to justify a place, especially out of position at 3. Ian Bell is also treading a fine line, and a ruthless selector would send him back to Wawrickshire to focus his mind. The hopeful return of Andrew Flintoff nominally weakens the batting, although the safety net of a sixth specialist batsman can be dehabilitating , and has certainly not done England too many favours recently. From the corrosive situation of every innings being an act of self-preservation, which was sometimes the case in the 1990s, England have swung too far to the opposite end of the spectrum. Bar the odd incursion on the part of Shah or Bopara, it has been the same six names for over two years now almost exclusively filling the specialist batting positions. England line up looks too much like a closed shop and for none of the right reasons. The batting is stolid, the outlook stale; sadly there will be no return of Trescothick to blow the cobwebs away.

Frightened England forget themselves

The pitch at Hamilton's Seddon Park may have been a lifeless beast, but to England's taildiving batsmen on the last day it must have appeared a mirror. Dead, blind to seam and spin, producing a performance not favouring England. Stephen Fleming referred to the "porridge" on the pitch; stuff England must feel like they are currently wading through, with a fair sprinkling of cement powder to boot. The final innings scenario, a target of 300 in just over 80 overs which emerged miraculously from a stodgy first three days, presented England with the chance to make a statement of positive intention. After all, no-one remembers that England's 3-0 victory against the same opposition back in 2004 came by means of two tricky 280+ run-chases; they just remember that England won every Test that summer. But if England had imagined a tense afternoon duel with New Zealand's pair of finger spinners their aspirations proved to be delusions of grandeur. By the twelfth over, when Keven Pietersen raised the drawbridge to Kyle Mills, the game was up, the facade wiped clean away.

England never had as good a batsman as Pietersen in the period before the 2005 Ashes; all of England's current top 6 can boast averages in excess of 40, which only half of the old brigade could. But that team had something infinitely more precious: the knowledge of how and when a Test match is won, the self-belief to turn the game their way at those key junctures and ultimately the luck and good fortune which invariably falls the way of a team which is winning and knows they will again. That sort of ethic and confidence allowed them to stay competitive, and win games from behind such as Johannesburg in early 2005, where Marcus Trescothick battered South Africa and Matthew Hoggard rolled them all within one day to win a game and seal a series from nowhere.

There were strange echoes in England's performance of past epochs - Matthew's Hoggard's stupendous boundary catch to put the skids under New Zealand's second innings brought back memories of a similar effort by Darren Gough at Lord's in 2000 which began West Indies' slide to 54 all out. England's slow crawl with the bat, roundly criticised, started to look a bit like the Atherton-led effort at Karachi in the winter of 2000-1, increasingly as England knocked over New Zealand to give themselves what looked a fighting chance. West Indies and Pakistan in 2000: two early series victories now regarded as important stages in the road which culminated in the Ashes being regained in 2005. There was a sense of this England team striving for their own definitive moment, the moment they stop being a shadow of 2005 England and start being their own team. Yet when an opportunity stared them in the face they wilted; clearly this is a team not ready to emerge from the shadows. And when the opposition are New Zealand, who play so little Test cricket and are a nascent outfit themselves, that is a dolorous state of affairs indeed.

New Zealand, to give them their due, fully deserved what should be a series defining victory. As ever with the bat, their bottom half proved more resilient than the top: England shaded the opening day, but from 6 wickets down 200 more runs were added, which says plenty about both teams. And while England's go-slow was in part of their own volition, the run rate would not have scraped along at 2-per-over had New Zealand not tied them down with tight lines and sharp ground-fielding. Stephen Fleming was the only batsman to achieve anything on note in the second innings of either team, his 66 filled with the beautifully timed pushes, racing to the boundary with little apparent effort, that his team and Test cricket will miss when he retires at the end of the series. To bowl a team out for 110 in 55 overs was some achievement as well, and Kyle Mills earned each of his opening four wickets, a burst which consigned England to defeat.

If any positives are to be gleaned from England's performance they are the catching, excellent after woeful efforts in Sri Lanka, and the 10-wicket haul of Ryan Sidebottom, benefiting from the improved fielding where before he had been denied. Rightly, even England have been too shame-faced to allude to them. But as Sidebottom scythed through New Zealand second time around, the shadow cast by the conspicuously and consistently absent Steve Harmison loomed large. The days where he was trusted to waste the new ball are long gone, while Michael Vaughan's decision to call on Paul Collingwood before Harmison was probably the signal that he has finally exhausted the supply of goodwill which has alone sustained his position for over a year now. Even if his bowling in Sri Lanka showed signs of a resurgence it was a wasted effort; as ever with Harmison the residual benefit was nil. His speed was down, his threat negligible, even taking into account the pitch. If there is any chance of salvaging his international career it will come by England stepping away from Harmison and forcing him to present his case like any other bowler. The current state of affairs is helping neither the bowler nor the team and although Stuart Broad is possibly a season away from being truly ready for Test cricket, England will get more from him than Harmison is currently able to provide.

With the series another of the ludicrous affairs consisting of three Tests back-to-back, England do not have time to consolidate or ponder their position at length. For the third successive series they go behind with only limited opportunity to recover and this is by far the most humiliating situation, in a series they were expected to walk. From here it goes one of two ways, either jolting them into action and a new level of performance or merely facilitating a continual demise. New Zealand, needless to say, will be up for the latter, and are bound to come hard at England with the confidence that such an emphatic win gives them. England need to find a way of brooking the tide; at the moment they seem to be hanging back, waiting for one to commit himself and set the tone. One batsman needs to be bold and take the fight to New Zealand, who are efficient and committed with the ball, but not special. That indicates Vaughan and Pietersen, England's most dominating batsmen. If one of them goes big, it should inspire confidence throughout the team. Currently, England seem to be so afraid of losing games that they have forgotten it requires confidence to win them. And until they realise that a team with defeat foremost in its mind can never succeed, the current trend will continue unabated.

Discomfited England must tread carefully

Records that defined the Duncan Fletcher era have continued to tumble in the ten months since he concluded his eight year tenure as England coach. For the first time in six years, a Test series was lost at home, which, as it did then but never again under Fletcher, brought about consecutive series defeats. New Zealand was Fletcher's next port of call after an honourable 1-0 reverse in India with a weakened squad had followed the habitual Ashes thrashing in the summer of 2001. And with Peter Moores' side having failed to win a single Test over two three-match series with India and Sri Lanka, cricket's cyclical calendar has provided him with the self-same means of stopping the rot. England shared the spoils back in 2002, a scoreline which will not be much help to captain and coach in repeated in the forthcoming series.

The task Moores has been struggling with over the best part of a year in charge is a different one from that which Fletcher successfully negotiated in the first half of his spell. The problem is less a deep legacy of mismanagement and poor results, more the shadow of tangible recent success: people find it hard to comprehend how the current team, with many of the constituent parts of what was not so long ago a brilliantly successful Test team, has none of the collective power which defined that unit. Perhaps Moores' inheritance was a more significantly tainted one than acknowledged at the time: he took over a team on the slide, engaged in an 18 month decline from its highest peak. Such a trend has been long in the acceptance, with the recent results that crytallised the reality ensuring much of the fall-out has affected Moores.

In fairness, England were unfortunate in the extreme to be denied a victory in the Lord's Test against India last July. Since then, however, they have not looked like winning a match, particularly worrying the manner in which they have often slipped so quickly from contention. Many factors have contributed, but there is a bottom line and it points to the twenty opposition wickets England have been failing to take. Bowling and the beefy five-man attack formed the main plank on which Michael Vaughan and Fletcher built the successful team of 2004-5. Not one of those five remain the same force as before, even if the old opening pair will line up for the first Test at Hamilton on Wednesday. Hoggard has been unlucky with injuries over the last 12 months and could yet return to his peak; the much greater worry is Harmison. Before every Test series the story with England's fastest bowler is the same. Whether he has been playing cricket for his county, adopted South African franchsie or none at all, he turns up for practice games and bowls with neither the control or penetration required for top-level cricket. The England management rally and insist that, with some overs "in his legs", he will recover his increasingly elusive cutting edge. But Harmison is increasingly proving himself the bowling equivalent of the National Health Service, a bottomless pit into which resources, care and attention are poured lovingly but to no end. England are going so far to accomodate and carry him that it appears he has lost the ability to make a step of his own and it is possible that only a complete severance from the current amniotic catharsis will have the desired effect. Another insipid series here might well persuade the selectors that they have no option.

Andrew Strauss has been the other contentious member of the squad; for many, nothing had changed since he was justifiably dumped at the end of last year. But Strauss is clearly someone whom England are desperate to have back in the side and his is a selection made with the next three years or so in mind. England have seen the way that the loss of cornerstone presences - Trescothick, Giles, Vaughan, Flintoff - has affected the team post-2005 and evidently they feel that Strauss was one they could not simply let slip away. It is harsh on Owais Shah, perpetually supplanted as first reserve, but if Strauss makes a successful return and is scoring runs against South Africa next summer, England's selectors will be heralded for a piece of pragmatic, long term thinking. Now headed by David Graveney's ex-lieutenant Geoff Miller, who favoured Strauss for the captaincy in Australia, the selectors probably at heart see him as Michael Vaughan's natural successor too.

Every new series for England seems to bring with it the need to consolidate, find a position from where they can begin to track progress. Eventually that becomes rock bottom, which arguably was Duncan Fletcher's starting point. New Zealand, although shown by results to be a poor Test side, will nevertheless present a threat to England, with the one-day series ample evidence that success is not to be taken for granted, even if New Zealand tend only to be a real danger when in the all-black kit of their fabled rugby team. Nevertheless, they are more than capable of wielding the knife if England continue to show the disorientation and lack of killer insticnt which has typified their recent Test performances. England need the desire and determination which can only come with realisation of their current standing; no longer can they maintain the pretence that they are suffering from a particularly nasty migraine. New Zealand stand ready to exploit weaknesses if displayed: the ambush is an easy one for England to fall prey to and the trapdoor gapes wide open.

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.

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.