More one-day matches should be linked to a prestigious tournament involving the stronger nations © Getty Images

I'll bet the administrators wish they possessed a reliable crystal ball that would provide a glimpse of cricket's future. Especially when it comes to Twenty20, the shortest but suddenly most desirable form of the game.

The fans can't get enough of Twenty20, the players are starting to embrace it, and private promoters are spending millions in the hope of cashing in on the popularity of the sport's latest entertainment craze. The question the administrators would love to have answered by that crystal ball is: "Does it have a long and viable future?" If they knew the answer to that question, they would know what approach to take in regard to the 50-over game.

The traditional limited-overs game is a very valuable commodity; the showpiece World Cup drags in hundreds of millions of dollars in television rights and sponsorship money. In most countries it has underwritten Test cricket since the Kerry Packer-led revolution. However, though large crowds still attend and view the 50-over game, there is an increasing sense of disillusionment with the format, and words like "boring" and "repetitive" are regularly used to describe certain periods of the game.

There is so much 50-over cricket played, and yet so few of these games are linked in a meaningful way, that players become stale and the games take on a repetitive air. The obvious answer is to have fewer meaningless games and more matches that are linked to a prestige tournament involving only the stronger nations.

The limited-overs game has evolved in a haphazard fashion; a problem is perceived with cricket at large, and a new, shortened version of the game is immediately devised. There appears to be little thought given to how the different versions are integrated to form a viable and workable whole.

All the different forms of limited-overs cricket serve to popularise and finance cricket, but the weakness in the system is the main commodity - the players. All forms of limited-overs cricket are at their most entertaining when the best players are performing. Therefore it is the internationals who bear the brunt of the workload. And it is the nature of the game that the shorter the duration, the more the limitations of a player are exposed.

While the Kerry Packer-led revolution was great for the game, in its aftermath there was little planning, unfortunately, for the long-term future. No one formulated a plan to ensure that all layers of the game, from club to international and from limited-overs to Test, dovetailed in such a way that the players not only had a clear path to follow but also one that was sustainable.

Consequently, in this era of full professionalism, the best players are being worked to the bone. Rather than utilise one of the shorter forms of the game for the development and promotion of potential new stars, the administrators are looking to wheel out the current headliners at every opportunity. However, the game has a habit of forging its own path and private promoters tend to lead the way in this regard.

The privately run Stanford 20-20 competition in the Caribbean is genuinely trying to develop new players to help West Indies cricket move upwards. The planned Indian Cricket League originally talked about providing a similar path for young Indian cricketers but is currently looking more like a superannuation provider for ageing first-class and international players.

To properly develop a player's technique to the point where he can perform in a skillful and entertaining manner in any form of cricket, he needs time in the middle when he is young. Therefore he needs to regularly play longer forms of the game to develop into an international cricketer.

The time has come to devise a blueprint for the future; a plan for the game right from the school ground to club cricket, and on up to international level. Perhaps it's time to insert another layer, at the inter-city level, where the stars of the future can be groomed. The problem for the administrators is which form of the game to hive off to that level. This is why the administrators would dearly love to know the future of both the 20- and 50-over game.

The first Twenty20 World Championship would be the ideal time for all the participants to sit down and plan the way forward; the players, the administrators and the private promoters. And it wouldn't do any harm if there was a crystal ball sitting right in the middle of that round-table discussion.

Sambit Bal

Dravid lbw Tremlett: unfortunate for the batsman, maybe, but bully for the bowler © Getty Images

Just after Rahul Dravid had been given out lbw in the second innings at Lord's by Simon Taufel, a colleague wondered if he should be recalled. The television replays showed that the impact had been fractionally outside the off stump, and since Dravid looked like he was playing a stroke, he shouldn't have been given out.

My colleague's argument was based on a similar situation in England's first innings. It has now been famously recorded that Kevin Pietersen was given out caught behind by Taufel and was then stopped from leaving the field by his team-mates who had seen on the video replay that the edge hadn't carried. The on-field umpires then consulted their colleagues in the box who ruled Pietersen not out.

Actually, the situations weren't similar. The Pietersen decision was about a catch taken on the bounce. Dravid's was a leg-before decision. And there is a fundamental difference there.

Umpires are granted sovereignty over leg-before decisions and that's the way it should be, not merely because one of cricket's romantic ideals rests on it but because of the predictive nature of the business. If mistakes are to be made - and there are margin of errors with HawkEye, which relies on humans to operate cameras and make projections - it is far more palatable to have these made by umpires than a supposedly infallible machine. HawkEye is a magnificent tool for television, and that's all it should be when it comes to cricket.

But has HawkEye had a positive influence on the way umpires make decisions? We'll come to this later.

Dravid was unfortunate to be given out, but only marginally so. Cricket follows the criminal-justice system, which grants the benefit of the doubt to the batsman, but personally I don't really mind the odd batsman given out this way. Dravid was beaten, and though the impact was just outside the line, the ball was going on to hit the stumps. It would have been another matter if the ball was going down leg, but in this case there was some reward for the bowler who had bowled a ball good enough to beat the batsman. Batsmen get away with a lot these days; many have mastered to subtle art of dragging the front foot outside the off stump and pretending to play a stroke.

Collingwood gets a good stride in against Kumble at Lord's, but it isn't quite enough © Getty Images

Nonetheless it was significant that so many were given, and even though the spinners didn't get that many, the one that Anil Kumble did get points to a happy story. Paul Collingwood went full stretch forward, but Kumble beat him on length and the ball speared into the pad. There was not much doubt about where the ball was headed, yet few umpires would have favoured the bowler a few years ago. But Taufel is a modern umpire who doesn't mind giving the batsman out on the front foot, and with that dismissal Kumble became the bowler with the highest number of lbws, beating the record of another spinner - who else but Shane Warne.

No other spinner in recent history has had a wider range of deliveries designed to trap batsmen leg-before than Kumble, but to Warne must go the credit of convincing umpires that it isn't a sacrilege to award front-foot lbws. His stature helped, but Warne also perfected the art of appealing; combining the force of his personality with impeccable timing he half-coaxed and half-intimidated umpires into choosing in his favour. His flipper acquired an aura of its own, and few batsmen had a chance after he had suckered them.

Of course, umpires in the subcontinent were far more liberal with the front-foot lbw to begin with. For one, they were exposed to a lot more spin bowling, and also, on low-bouncing wickets in their parts, once the path of the ball had been judged, it was easier to hand out decisions in favour of the bowlers.

This wasn't always the case with umpires who had less experience of spin bowling. It was as late as last year that Brian Jerling, a South African umpire standing only in his second Test series, drove Kumble and his team-mates batty by negating appeal after straightforward appeal. Indian won the series 1-0, but Greg Chappell, then India's coach, reckoned that the margin would have been larger had Kumble not been denied.

Monty Panesar had a happier experience against the same opponents this summer because he had umpires far more responsive to his supplication.

If mistakes are to be made - and there are margin of errors with HawkEye, which relies on humans to operate cameras and make projections - it is far more palatable to have these made by umpires than a supposedly infallible machine. HawkEye is a magnificent tool for television, and that's all it should be when it comes to cricket

In all fairness it must be said that it was a South African umpire who was one of the early radicals when it came to lbws. Dave Orchard got some stick for his howlers, but he was a bowlers' umpire who was brave enough to rule by his instincts than play it safe. He took it too far at times, perhaps, and he once ruled Sourav Ganguly lbw after he had had jumped down a few paces against Muttiah Muralitharan. Ganguly had made no attempt to play a stroke and in Orchard's eye he had deliberately used his pads to intercept the path of the ball as it headed for the stumps. Ganguly was mortified and the decision got Orchard plenty of flak, but it was a brave one, and it was a warning to batsmen prone to using their pads as the first line of defence.

Believe it or not, HawkEye could be another factor. A leading umpire, whose name I cannot reveal because the conversation was private, once told me that he was emboldened to give front-foot lbws after he was exposed to HawkEye projections. "It got everybody, spectators, players and umpires used to the idea," he said. "Earlier I would have played safe, but it was far more okay to give a batsman not out on the front foot than to give him out. But now I'm confident of going with my first impression because I know the graphic will support my decision."

Numbers support the hypothesis that umpires have been more inclined towards handing out lbws in recent years, and that they have been favourably disposed towards giving lbws in favour of spinners. In the seven years since 2000, spinners have won 597 lbw dismissals out of a total of 11,113 dismissals of all types, which is 5.37 per cent. In all, lbws have accounted for 17.1 per cent of dismissals. The corresponding figure is 3.68 per cent (400 out of 10,564) in the 1990s, 2.77 per cent (215 out of 7734) in the 1980s, and 2.87 per cent (226 out of 5578) in the 1970s.

Not a lot has favoured the bowlers, spinners in particular, in the recent past. Bats have got heavier and more powerful, boundaries have got shorter, and rules have been amended to suit batsmen. It's good to know umpires have done their bit to redress the balance somewhat.

Tim de Lisle

Shane Bond: very fast, very good...very alone © Getty Images

As Bob Dylan observed in a song a few years ago, Things Have Changed. For the first time in perhaps 35 years, there is no outstanding attack in world cricket.

Since the turn of the millennium, there had been no doubt about who had the heaviest arsenal: it was Australia. They were the only country with a great fast bowler (Glenn McGrath) and a great slow bowler (Shane Warne). Both were big wicket-takers who also kept the runs down - a pair of captain's dreams. But now they have gone, leaving a thousand-wicket hole.

Brett Lee is pacey and watchable, but erratic and hittable. Stuart Clark has made a phenomenal start - on the list of all-time Test bowling averages, he is in the top ten, ahead of practically every bowler you've ever heard of - but he is a nominee for Best Supporting Actor rather than a leading man. And he has played only one Test, and taken only one wicket, outside the bouncy tracks of home and
South Africa.

Lee and Clark will presumably be joined by Stuart MacGill and AN Other. MacGill is a fine, sparky legspinner, but the only times he has looked in Warne's class have been when Warne was in the same team, which seemed to spur one of them on, while putting the other's nose out of joint.

The fourth man could be an instant hit like Clark: Mitchell Johnson, the regular understudy, has been auditioning well. Equally, it could take him 10 or 15 Tests to settle at the highest level. He will certainly be targeted. Throw in a bit of Andrew Symonds' allsorts and Michael Clarke's amiable slow left-arm, and what have you got? A testing but not daunting attack.

Not that the other countries have much to write to Australia about. South Africa have the strongest seam attack now that Shaun Pollock has found his niggardly old mojo, but they still haven't discovered the existence of spin: even when he desperately needed fourth-innings
wickets yesterday, Graeme Smith barely used Paul Harris.

England had a fine seam attack for two years, but when the feisty fourth seamer, Simon Jones, got injured, and their coach Troy Cooley left, the unit fell apart. Matthew Hoggard and Andrew Flintoff are dependable, Steve Harmison has forgotten how to take wickets overseas, and everybody else is either shunned (Jon Lewis) or growing up in public (Jimmy Anderson, Saj Mahmood, Liam Plunkett).

Mitchell Johnson is Australia's man in waiting, but will he be an instant hit? © Getty Images

India have the best spin attack in Anil Kumble and Harbhajan Singh, but Greg Chappell doesn't like playing them in the same team, which must be a relief to most of his opponents, even if Harbhajan has not been at his best lately. Zaheer Khan, Irfan Pathan and Sreesanth are on their way to being a fine seam attack, but they are merely handy at the moment.

Pakistan have probably the best attack in the world on paper, but in practice ... well, if they were all fit, not banned, and speaking to the captain and the coach, they'd be terrific: Shoaib Akhtar and Mohammad Asif to open, with Mohammad Sami or Umar Gul in support, a bit of Abdul Razzaq or Shahid Afridi ... but then a weakish link in Danish Kaneria. New Zealand have Shane Bond, who is very fast and very good, but nothing else to frighten the horses. Sri Lanka have one genius, one yeoman, and one interesting slinger. West Indies? Well, their one-day
bowling is promising.

They all seem much of a muchness. One way of distinguishing between them is to use the LG ratings. Australia's top four bowlers are Clark at 7, Lee at 12, MacGill at 21 and Jason Gillespie (my dear old thing!) at 22. Total 62. I wondered if any other country could do better. Here
are the results for the main teams, taking their top four bowlers and using the ratings as they stood yesterday.

England 65

Hoggard 6, Flintoff 8, Harmison 18, Panesar 33

Pakistan 58

Shoaib 9, Gul 15=, Kaneria 15=, Asif 19

India 67

Kumble 3, Pathan 14, Harbhajan 24, Sreesanth 26

Sri Lanka 74

Murali 1, Vaas 11, Malinga 30, Fernando 32

South Africa 48

Ntini 2, Pollock 4, Nel 17, Kallis 25

New Zealand 62

Bond 6, Franklin 13, Vettori 20, Martin 23

West Indies 118

Collymore 10, Collins 29, Edwards 39, Taylor 40

And the winner is ... South Africa. (Although they still don't have a spinner.) The ratings are not, of course, gospel. They are too swayed by recent form, as if reacting against career averages, which are not swayed enough by it. But they are not crazy either. And by their reckoning, Australia now have only the third best attack in the world, equal with New Zealand. By the time of their next Test, in November, they will be even lower, because Johnson, or whoever, will start with a much lower rating than the one Gillespie is clinging onto. Test cricket is about to become more interesting.

Peter English

Glenn McGrath's absence will leave a huge gap for Australia © Getty Images

Late next year Australia will face India without half of their bowling attack. More than 1250 wickets will be missing and the replacements will be fortunate to have five Tests between them. So much for all the talk of carefully planned generational change.

With the retirement of Shane Warne and the departure of Glenn McGrath after the World Cup, Australia will lose their most reliable house stumps. Throw in Damien Martyn's exit and the potential of both opening batsmen to join in and the foundations suddenly look shaky.

In 1983-84 Australia lost Greg Chappell, Rod Marsh and Dennis Lillee to coaching and commentating in the one Sydney Test. It was a gutting experience and the cry of "never again" came quickly. The mid-1980s were one of the worst periods in the country's cricket and after Allan Border manned the life support the next generations were planned and the departures were organised to prevent a rush for the door. David Boon, Ian Healy and Mark Waugh were tapped while Mark Taylor chose his moment perfectly and Steve Waugh waved before the nudge.

Rebel tours to South Africa also emptied Australia of talent in the 1980s, although dwindling stocks are not an issue this time. The next level is apparently strong - selectors, coaches and administrators have to say that - but the long-term stability of the senior team has prevented the key performers from being examined properly. Australia A trips and tournaments are useful as a bridge but, like the domestic first-class games, they are not a stringent guide for international success.

Both Warne and McGrath played only a handful of games before they were promoted into the Test arena and quickly adjusted to the water. Young players such as Tait, Johnson, Cullen and Watson have swum on the domestic scene for at least three seasons without extended promotions in whites. The quartet is an option along with Brett Lee, who grows in significance despite a poor summer, for the first post-champions Test. Add in Stuart Clark, the bowler of the Ashes series, and the six viable options will have played a total of 76 Tests, with Lee accounting for 59. Is anyone else frightened?

Stuart Clark has been outstanding, but by the first Test of 2007-08 will have played only nine games © Getty Images

Australia will miss the experience of Warne and McGrath more than their world-beating statistics, which might give players such as Stuart MacGill, Jason Gillespie and Michael Kasprowicz hope of a recall. It might help at the beginning but a longer outlook would be sensible after the periods of Ashes-induced short-sightedness. The clutch of mid-30s players, who have served incredibly well, has blocked the passage of the younger brigade and the ride could be bumpy. It is good news for India.

After the feast comes the should-have-thought-about-this-before famine. Remarkably, Merv Hughes, the Australia selector, said the day before Warne announced his farewell that it would be irresponsible to let a group of players go at once and they hadn't "nutted out" a succession plan. Three have already left and after the elongated and emotional celebration at the WACA more could be on the way. Andrew Hilditch, the chairman of selectors, might plead for them to stay.

Warne and McGrath deserved to pick their times and have done it when supporters are wishing for more instead of less. Of Australia's greybeards they are the ones who have the right to stay longest. The nation will miss and thank them over the next two Tests while wondering how they can be replaced.

Possible Test squad for 2007-08 Phil Jaques, Matthew Hayden, Ricky Ponting (capt), Michael Hussey, Michael Clarke, Shane Watson, Adam Gilchrist (wk), Brett Lee, Stuart Clark, Mitchell Johnson, Dan Cullen, Shaun Tait.

John Stern

Duncan Fletcher and Michael Vaughan: consultant and managing director of England © Getty Images

Peter Moores, England's academy director and one of the favourites to succeed Duncan Fletcher, believes a coach has two choices: change the team or change himself.

Football managers like Sir Alex Ferguson, who has been running Manchester United for 20 years, can and do change the team on a regular basis with transfers. Cricket coaches, at club or international level, do not have that luxury. It is a more organic process. Cricketers' careers last longer than footballers' and winning teams tend not to change much.

Everyone knows what a football manager does. They pick the team, decide the tactics and live or die by the results. The nature of cricket is different. It is impossible and undesirable for the coach to have complete control. The captain is the man who calls the shots on the field and in most cases is the primary interface between management and players.

Fletcher, who has been a successful businessman in a previous life, likened Michael Vaughan's role to that of the company managing director while the coach is a consultant. For the traditionalists and the sceptics (eg: Geoff Boycott), this analogy is a screen behind which an unsuccessful coach can hide. In reality, it is a legitimate articulation of a complex and unique
sporting relationship.

Unless the coach has total control over every aspect of team affairs (as a Ferguson-type manage would) then it seems logical to think that they have a shelf-life, that players switch off because they've heard it all before. But most cricket teams do not work this way. Cricket does not work this way. A rousing, tub-thumping speech might get everyone going for a 90-minute
football or rugby match but it's a pretty pointless exercise if the captain has just won the toss, decided to bat and nine of the players are about to put their feet up.

Fletcher's England makes the captain centre stage. Fletcher is the
strategist, the back-seat driver. He heads up a coaching team; it is not
just about one man.

Fletcher has been England coach for seven years so he may well be coming to
the end of his natural span. It was generally assumed that he would go after
the World Cup but the timing of Boycott's comments this week is bizarre, not
to say destabilising just as the Ashes hovers into view.

Although the target of Boycott's criticism is the appalling run of one-day
form, the underlying tone of his newspaper column was that Fletcher was
presiding over a group of players who had become cosy and complacent, also
that Fletcher himself is now beyond reproach.

Unusually for a man in his position, Fletcher is not on a fixed-term
contract. He is a permanent member of staff at the ECB. When he ceases to be
England coach, it seems likely a position would be found for him should he
wish it.

I don't believe Fletcher has exhibited complacency. He has though shown
exceptional loyalty to the players who won the Ashes, even the ones who have
barely played since. He has appeared reluctant to embrace the inevitable
changes. He clung to Geraint Jones until his position became untenable and
he was initially suspicious of Monty Panesar. It is believed that Andrew
Flintoff was not his preferred choice as captain.

Football managers always get the team they want. Maybe Fletcher needs more
power not less.

	Scoring 47 runs more than Graeme Smith, his South African counterpart, Stephen Fleming won the match for New Zealand and came off as the better captain in this encounter between the two © AFP

by Anand Vasu

The strangest thing happened at the Brabourne Stadium. A batsman slashed hard at a short ball outside the off stump, the fielder at point flung himself attempting to catch the ball - a small but voluble crowd roared - the ball went past, the crowd sighed and was silenced as the ball sped to the boundary. Aren't crowds supposed to applaud the fours and sixes and boo the wickets? New Zealand and South Africa played some tough cricket on a tricky pitch - supposedly good pitches are only those that are good for batsmen - and it was much appreciated.

The story of the day was a tale of two captains. First was the man who stands so tall that you have forgive headline writers when they said: Stephen Fleming stood tall among the ruins. Put in to bat, he read the pitch exceptionally well, and that was a good portion of the job done. He ensured two things - first that he was going forward, or aiming to go forward, at all times, and second that he stretched his front foot out fully, for good measure getting it outside the line of the stumps when possible, as he met the ball.

Fleming is an unusual batsman in that his cover-drives - every bit as handsome to the populace at large as he is to a growing female fan following in India - can startle you with their purity of execution, but are often sandwiched between the ugliest inside edges to fine leg. In this innings there was only one cover drive, and it was not a classic, but rather a walk down the pitch to Andrew Hall that was slashed over cover. Off his pads, though, Fleming was completely in control, driving, flicking, and whipping the ball away in the arc from mid-on to fine-leg.

When you see that Brendan McCullum's 21 was the second highest score of the innings, Fleming's 89 assumes importance far in excess of the 46% of the total that it constituted. It put a score on the board, on a pitch where New Zealand had the bowlers to prey on the minds of South African batsmen who are bred on hard tracks with plenty of bounce in them.

This South African team chased 434 against the mighty Australians only seven months ago. Surely 195 against the lesser cousins from across the Tasman Sea should have been achievable. Lesser cousins, maybe, but certainly not a lesser captain. Fleming knows a thing or two about leadership, and Smith has learned that the hard way in the past.

It was in 2004, when South Africa toured New Zealand, having never lost either a Test or ODI series to the Kiwis, that Smith encountered Fleming. Going into the game at Eden Park, in Auckland 1-3 down, South Africa needed to win the last two games to keep their record intact, and looked set to do so as New Zealand managed only 193 batting first. Just as South Africa began their response, with Smith opening, Fleming launched into a full-frontal verbal assault, cleverly before the cameras had really turned their attention to the middle. Smith, a high-strung chap at the best of times, responded with a tongue-lashing of his own. Visibly upset, he was out for only 15, South Africa lost that match by 2 runs via Duckworth-Lewis, and the series 5-1. When asked about the incident Fleming showed little remorse, saying he knew what it was like to be in Smith's shoes - a young captain - and exploited it to the max. All through the series, Fleming and Smith exchanged barbs in press conferences, and only when it was finished, did Smith accept Fleming's invitation to dinner.

When New Zealand next toured South Africa, in 2005, Smith was ready to give it back, as you'd only expect. There was the odd mention of real tough cricket on hard, bouncy pitches, not the soft stuff on New Zealand's tracks, and the sarcasm flowed unabated in press conferences as the two captains went after each other. This time though the contest - on the pitch at least - went emphatically South Africa's way as they blanked New Zealand out 4-0, with one game rained out.

And so it was with the Fleming-Smith scoreline tied on one apiece that they took the field in this Champions Trophy match. Smith and Fleming, both intelligent and thoughtful men, one the belligerent boxer the other a nimble fencer, would have been aware of this. And after Fleming had shown the way with 89, Smith had his chance. He began slowly, but with determination, and a typical punchy drive past mid-on, uppish but firmly hit and safe, brought him his first boundary. Wickets fell, but Smith stuck stoically around, and consecutive boundaries off Jacob Oram - the first carved over cover, and the second times off the toes - kept South Africa in business.

One boundary later, Smith's attempt at a forcing shot at Oram failed to clear Vettori at mid-off, and he was gone for 42. The rest of the South Africa's batting card was virtually identical to New Zealand's. Fleming made 47 runs more than Smith, and that was enough to seal victory by 87 runs. The old fox, you'd have to say, outplayed the young pretender once more.

by Ian Chappell

Mike Hussey, if partnered with Adam Gilchrist, would effectively 'finish' many contests before they really got started © Getty Images

It is rare for teams to compete in two such demanding tournaments as the Champions Trophy and World Cup within six months, therefore it's not surprising that the buzz word among players and coaches in the build up is "flexibility".

There is no doubt that to do well a team needs to have more than just eleven good players to choose from but it also pays to understand that it's a nucleus of about six who either win or lose the big tournaments.

It is this core of players that influence the result of matches; if they perform well then victory is within reach but if the bulk of them struggle then it won't matter if the other five play out of their skins, for the tournament will be lost. For instance, if Ricky Ponting, Mike Hussey, Andrew Symonds, Adam Gilchrist, Brett Lee and Glenn McGrath all had mediocre tournaments Australia would have as much chance of winning the Champions Trophy as a Kiwi in a race with a pigeon.

The maxim about the "core six influence" is even more relevant in the shortened version of the game because so much depends on the top three batsmen when it comes to setting or chasing a big target. That is why it makes Australia's infatuation with Simon Katich as an opener so hard to fathom.

There are better options, players more likely to score a century from the top of the order that it makes no sense. Hussey [a natural opener in longer games] is a classic example. Australia insists that he remain Michael Bevan's successor in the terminator role and there's no doubt he does the job very efficiently but between them, Hussey and Gilchrist would effectively "finish" many contests before they really got started by batting together at the top of the order.

In general the make-up of the core six is two top-class bowlers, two top order batsmen, an all-rounder and a good wicket-keeper. That is why India desperately needs Irfan Pathan bowling well to form part of their core; when he's taking wickets he fits easily into either the bowling or the all-rounder category.

As surely as a team performs well when it has the three batsmen most likely to score a century at the top of the order it operates in a similar mode when the best bowlers are on song for the initial Powerplay and the closing overs of an innings. If you throw in strong fielding [the standard being set by the 'keeper] to back the bowlers then that is an irresistible mix, which won't often encounter an immovable object.

In general the make-up of the core six is two top-class bowlers, two top order batsmen, an all-rounder and a good wicket-keeper. That is why India desperately needs Irfan Pathan bowling well to form part of their core; when he's taking wickets he fits easily into either the bowling or the all-rounder category.

Hence it is easy to see why Australia have won two consecutive World Cups and equally difficult to understand why they haven't yet claimed a Champions Trophy. They have a strong core of six and in addition Gilchrist and Ponting regularly score fast hundreds at the top of the order, McGrath and Lee are a wonderful mixture as the miser and the mauler at the start and end of an innings and the fielding is outstanding with Michael Clarke and Symonds, along with the captain acting as "dead-eye-Dick's" when it comes to throwing down the stumps.

In judging the other contenders, Pakistan, New Zealand, England and South Africa [especially if Herschelle Gibbs is distracted] all struggle to find a confirmed trio of century makers at the top of the order. Sri Lanka will rival Australia for top order strength if Upul Tharanga continues in his current vein, the West Indies with Brian Lara at three would do likewise and India with Virender Sehwag in form and opening would be formidable.

Pakistan and Sri Lanka have both the depth and variety in bowling and New Zealand will reach that status if Shane Bond and Daniel Vettori are fit and in form. However, the West Indies, South Africa, England and India all fall a bit short in bowling class but the hosts can raise themselves into the first group if Pathan is firing on all cylinders. England would also quickly join that group if Andrew Flintoff were to magically regain his all-rounder status.

In looking for winners in cricket tournaments the key is to find the teams with a core six that is fit and in form. If those teams also have extreme flexibility then it is a bonus but like the Kiwi against the pigeon, it runs a distant second to a strong core six.