Cricinfo - Different Strokes (old)

September 12, 2005: The Ashes are England's, the crowds were celebrating in the streets, and numerous and loud were the English fans claiming their team as the world's number one Test nation. Having defeated Australia, on the back of 18 months of glory, there seemed to be some weight to their words...

December 1, 2005: Less than 3 months later, and not even England's blindly patriotic commentators seem to want to push the case of their countrymen’s world dominance. England have been worn down in Pakistan, and even with the help of some very ordinary umpiring decisions, have been made to look very average. All of this begs the question - how good ARE England?

In the hype after September, many things were spoken about regarding England's victory: the amazing all-round efforts of Andrew Flintoff, the strangling bowling of Ashley Giles, the dominant batting of Kevin Pieterson, the bounce & aggression of Stephen Harmison... and so on and so forth. English journalists, starved for so long of any victories over Australia found it all a little too much, and all players who took part in the series were placed upon pedestals and worshipped as heroes. Their Australian counterparts doing their best to not seem like bad sports, commended England on their victory, and demanded the Australian team make immediate changes to avoid anything like this happening again. The resulting articles though left out or understated a few important details of the Ashes.

1) Australia weren't at their best. Anyone who tries to tell you the contrary quite simply hasn't seen Ricky Ponting in good form, Glenn McGrath fully fit, or Adam Gilchrist smearing the best bowlers in cricket to all parts of the ground. Much was written about how the Aussies played "only as good as they were allowed to", but this is only half the truth. Coming into the series, Australia had rested their players, correctly anticipating a gruelling series. This lay off after crushing victories over New Zealand did them no favours though, and with the limited tour games they had arranged, at no point before the Tests did they really regain the momentum they'd had before leaving the Southern Hemisphere.

2) England benefited from a lot of umpiring decisions. No one would go as far as to suggest that there was anything sinister about the 50/50 calls almost always going the way of the home team, but the end result was the same as if there were shenanigans afoot. No team can win a close contest if the tight calls continually go against them. Damien Martyn was the unluckiest of Australia's batsmen, and Shane Warne's tally of 40 wickets for the series would have been even higher had there been a better showing by the adjudicators.

3) England's victory was at home, on pitches prepared for their players. Take a look at all of the victories they achieved in the 18 months preceding the Ashes, and the only away series win of note was against South Africa, a team struggling to hold onto 5th in the ICC Test championship. England were defeated in their tour of Sri Lanka, and weren't forced to tour Australia or India. Faced now with Pakistan on their home turf, England's mediocrity abroad has become apparent.

So how good are England? When things go their way, they've shown they can bring home the silverware. In the face of strong opposition, however, without the benefit of their own groundskeepers, media contingent, and army of supporters, they seem to be fairly average. Over the next 18 months though, they have the opportunity to prove this wrong. Best of luck England, you'll continue to need it.

Finally its refreshing to see the debate developing into something other than indian cricket. Discussion regarding England team's recent performance aided with poorest umpiring on display in recent times is fitting and Ken Tinker deserves a lot of credit for introducing a different aspect of the test ranking.

Its not England's fault that umpires have made those poor decisions but the way umpires keep making poor decisions against the touring test teams in Australia is something to be concerned about. The mere fact that Matthew Hayden has been give not out twice when he was genuinely caught out against WI and thus keeps piling on more runs despite being the most overrated batsmen in recent times is something that should encourage more debates about holding umpires mroe responsible for making those wrong decisions. Infact technology needs to be reinforced earlier than even as umpiring decisions are costing players like Brian Lara and Inzamam but not Hayden or Collingwood who fail to score a hundred despite being caught out twice.

The question "How good ARE England" is quite a tricky one.

1. The present English Team has proved itself over the past couple of years in different conditions in West Indies, South Africa, Sri Lanka and of course England.

2. It can be no doubt said that though England have very good players both batsman and bowlers, but they would struggle in subcontinent conditions due to lack of a genuinely good spinner. Ashley Giles keeps the batsman honest but cannot run through the line-up, as is proven here in Pakistan.

3. The real test would come in India against the likes of Harbhajan Singh and Anil Kumble as well as against the Indian top order on flat batting wickets.

4. These two tours would then justify whether one can say that England are the real contenders to Australia's crown.

B Narayanan & Chat: I certainly don't blame England for their victory, I congratulate them on it. It's the English media's reaction, and premature claims of #1 Test status that I reject.

Parameshwaran: England lost in Sri Lanka, the West Indies are third from the bottom of the ICC table, and South Africa lack that special something to seperate them from the rest of the pack (sorry Paul!).

Ghalib: I'll prepare a little something on technology and umpiring shortly, but for the momemnt we'll leave it - lately it's taken up almost as much web space as the Indian Cricket political dramas... almost, but not quite.

I agree with you Soham, England didn't pick the Australian team, or Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne would surely have been gifted some holiday time, and England would have been saved from alot of stress. No one is trying to suggest England is at fault for their victory, rather that the English media's reaction was that of a starving cyclops.

I also agree that Sachin & Brian have been on the end of some horrible decisions in Australia, but the major difference is that when this happens in Australia, both the Australian public & media are as horrified, if not more, than the players who have been robbed. Australians want to win, but victories lose their shine when they come due to umpiring shortfalls rather than player skill.

In all these discussions we should discount the umpiring decisions. The answer as to whether a decision is the right one is gained 99% of the time by TV replays. Most decions are made by the umpire with one sighting. I think that Imran deserves recognition for pushing neutral umpires. I also think it meaningless to dismiss England's victory because certain players were injured or out of form. This will always be the case and always has been. Judging from the comments made it appears that no one is fooled by the media hype which is, after all, there to sell newspaper not to give an informed judgement on the performance. It should be rememebered that Australia were not really given the status of best team in the world until they had performed at that level for over two years home and away.
Finally I think that it underates Pakistan's achievement to say that England are really not that good. We should take notice of this team who I am sure will achieve great things under Bob Woolmer.

i must agree with the comments in this article, even though i am australian and i strongly support australia, i must say this without bias but australia are 2 times as good as england at their full potential, at full strength the australian team almost has no chinks in its armour, we have a solid top order, a mediocre middle order(would be solid if martyn was back in at number 4)and the best bowling attack in the world. but i must say england beat us fair and square, wrong decisions are just part of cricket.

im not concerned though, it was the best series of cricket i have ever witnessed and all i know now is next year the ashes is gonna be 5-0 to the home side

Any test team's status cannot be judged on the basis of just 18-20 months success against some oridnary teams plus South Africa; or for that matter, after failure against just one team, Pakistan in this case.

The status of any test team is determined after SUSTAINED success over 3-4 years against notable teams (e.g. the top 5 in the ICC ranking) in home and AWAY series.

England have beaten Australia in England. You cannot take this away from them whatever the conditions etc were but have they dominated them? this would be confirm if they repeat it down under next year.

Similarly, the last time England lost a series was in the Sub Continent against SriLanka and until some miracle happens, they have lost it to Pakistan.

Australia have become what they are by beating the subcontinent teams in their own backyards, not just at home.

I dont blame even the english media for they had nothing to cheer about in terms of team or player performance for more than a decade.

Flintoff, Harmison and their performance against Australia were world class. No doubt. But the media hype created after the Ashes was just HYPE nothing else.

When was the last time England beat Pakistan in England? Any guesses ?

That was 13 years back, in 1982. England lost in 87, 92, 96 and drew in 2001. Thats their record against just one team.

I repeat, England need to SUSTAIN their winning record for 3-4 YEARS in home and AWAY series and then claim to be the best.

England are not the best cricket team in the world. For strength in depth and overall class Australia, in my view, are still streets ahead. However, England are on the rise. The talent coming through the ranks is starting to excite, the new academy i think has a lot to do with this and, as with everything, it is a gradual process. At the minute England has a very good team when all the best players are fit and would give anyone a run for their money. Unfortunately, at the present moment, the back-up staff are not quite up to the task and, because of this, England have not played to their potential on this tour of Pakistan. Not to take any credit from the Pakistani's - they have played some very good cricket over the past few weeks.

The big acid test, in my opinion, comes in 12 months time when we will see what the team is like against Australia in their own back yard. I am not saying England will win but a strong performance and close finish will surely put a proper perspective on things.

The only thing that worries me slightly about this is that the whole tour is going to be condensed into such a short space of time and, therefore, we may not see the top quality cricket from both teams that we hope.

Well first of all, I don't think anybody is saying that England didn't deserve their victory in the Ashes. To beat the world champions who have dominated the scene for a long period of time cannot be achieved without any luck and of course the champions being below par. Thats how all reversals in the sporting history has gone. So no quabbles there. But the argument should be exactly where do you rate England. I'll compare the current team playing at their expected level(Not out of their skins and not badly out of form)
Australia - They beat them at home fair and square. In Australia its going to be a lot tougher but looking especially at the english bowling they'd be in with a fight.
India - They'd beat india at home easily but still don't think they are good enough to beat them in india.
Sri Lanka - Same story. Will easily beat them in england but not in Sri lanka
Pakistan - Forgetting whats happpened in the current series i still think pakistan is the sub continent team that england has the best chance of beating in pakistan but having said that pakistan has the best chance of challenging them in england.
West indies - England would beat them home and away.
South Africa - Will be competitive home and away but expect england to be slightly ahead.
New Zealand - England should be able to beat them home and away.
i wouldn't bring Zimbabwe and bangladesh into the question.
I'm sure thats where England stand at the moment, Which is everything to be proud of and would easily confirm them as the 2nd best team in the world. But Sorry to say still far off from being the best

We could just be witnessing the beginning of a renaissance of Pakistani cricket. Shoaib Akhtar is fit and firing, Salman Butt is developing into a world-class opener and Mohammad Yousuf and skipper Inzamam have confirmed their prowess. Let's give credit to Pakistan. As the series has progressed they have outplayed England and displayed great skill and good team spirit. That said, England at full strength - with Simon Jones and a fully fit Ashley Giles - would probably have won the first test match and wrapped up the series. There are weaknesses, of course, glaring ones - the batting is frail and frenetic and the spin bowling cupboard is bare. Could Shaun Udal be about to trump Rawl Lewis for the worst bowling average in Test history?!

England the best team - you're having a laugh. Their defeat in Pakistan showed up real deficiencies in their batting and bowling! They better pray a big lad like Freddie and can stay fit! Granted they played better cricket than the Australians but does that make them a better cricket team - I think not. Any other team touring England last summer would have been well and truly beaten. An underperforming Aussie team nearly pulled off what would have been an incredible series win against all odds - umpiring decisions, injuries and bad judgement!
It is also gauling that not unlike the English rugby team after their World Cup win, have recieved honours from the Queen.If winning one home series against the best ever is the criteria of sustainable success maybe they should give the keys to Lords to the Australians! AFter all they have dominated the sport since the Poms invented it!

Returning last summer from three years in Australia, I was as thrilled as all Englishmen with our performance and the win, particularly as I was confidently telling friends that an Australian second eleven would give England a tough time. And this is where the answer to how good England currently are lies. The paucity in England’s pool of test level talent is evident each time an injury occurs. Consider when Jones was unavailable for the last Ashes test and there was no viable option for another quickie. When Vaughn missed out in Pakistan, only a hopelessly out of form Bell, who would never have been on tour had there been any likely alternative, was available and goodness knows what they would do without Freddie. England with all its best players on top form, with conditions in there favour i.e. at home, and with more than their fair share of good fortune can beat any one, which is what happened last summer. England with one or two first choices missing or off form and with luck against them will lose to Pakistan, India, South Africa, and maybe New Zealand and be absolutely walloped by Australia.

It is interesting to note that the topic of poor umpiring has been brought up , especially , since it often goes in favour of teams like England and Australia. When decisions go against them in the sub-continent, a big hue and cry is made about the quality of the umpiring and so on. Touring Australia is a hazard for the world's best batsmen on the umpiring front. Brian Lara and Sachin Tendulkar have both been on the receiving end of some very very poor decisions Down Under. Not to mention atleast 8-10 decisions poor decisions on average that go against the other members of a touring team in Australia. The 'Aussie-war-dance appeal' needs to be reigned in to level the playing field.

All power to Pakistan who have used the chance to match themselves against the Aussie-beating English as a way to unify and inspire their team, this is exactly what we all want to see, a rejuvenating and proud Pakistan team. For England, the Pakistan series results give a taste of what it takes to be the very best: consistency, depth (so injuries are less of a crisis), not letting confidence tilt to hubris. One result may be the English coach & media acknowledge that just as Simon Jones and Michael Vaughan's injuries made England less competitive here, so did Glenn McGrath's injuries affect the result of the Ashes. England need to pick themselves up and show they can do more than play "exciting imitation-Aussie" cricket.

Now that England are more than likely to lose the test series against Pakistan, it is inevitable that they will revisit their plans and possibly redo/modify their strategy/ies. However, I believe that they must not change their style of play. England has a bunch of insticntive players in Flintoff, Pieterson and even the more mature Vaughan and Trescothick like to dominate the game. Their attitude and ability has taken England to unknown levels of success. This England cricket team has won an entire generation over by their unsubdued style of play and it must be continued with.

The West Indies ruled the cricket world during the 1980's. Then came Australia and captured every possible frontier. While the Aussie team was often able to outthink its opponent by clever planning and its systematic dismantling of the opposing team, the West Indians generally battered the opponent into submission. Their tactics might sound different but one underlying common feature between both these sides was the ability to take the game to the opposition.

I truly believe that most Aussie wins were born in the dressing room where the game plans were meticulously laid out. But the players never curbed their natural aggression while execuuting them. Instead, what we saw was a careful blending of scheme and instincton the field of play. England is looking to emulate Australia since the Aussie formula is known to work. I just hope that England will continue to be aggressive and positive despite the loss in Pakistan (we don't know for sure yet). I hope they continue to follow the example set by the Aussies and keep coming at the opposition with aggression and attitude and only make minor changes to their game and not overhaul the whole approach.

Woe it would be to be an umpire! I'm not jealous of their job in the slightest. I know I wouldn't have a chance in calling some of the decisions they make and I'd be really surprised if they didn't make errors. Punishing them for being human in a job that seems often to be more of a trial than a pleasure is a bit harsh. That sort of attitude spins off to the local club scene where you really need to value the volunteers who stick their hand up (pardon the pun) for the job. On the international scene, I suspect the attention of the media will naturally highlight the best (or I should say the worst) in the business. All that needs to be done is have processes in place that ensures the best are promoted and kept at the international scene. As for using two neutral umpires, if cricket can afford it, it shouldn't even need to be discussed.

And the English! I'm not pontificating too much on whether they are the best or not. I just think its great to see the English team playing with a spirit and enthusiasm that's been missing for a long time. It was even good to see most of the aussies fight all the way to the finish (even though it was in a losing cause). This makes it an enirely new ball game to watch! In fact, apart from Flintoff and Warne, the Ashes really was a tough scrap where most players found it difficult to dominate. Was it so much a test of skill between the two teams or a battle of wits? If it was a battle of wits, a change of scenery may not change the result. It's funny how much leverage a mental advantage can deliver.

And just how much did Bangladesh's brilliant victory play a part in the outcome of the ashes?

One can only wonder....

Interesting also how so many people now consider a quality spinner essential to a dominant side these days. The former West Indies greats wouldn't have stood a chance if they were playing today! Unless of course, a battle of wits were to win the day...

I think we should give full credit to the English team regardless of them not in the driver seat for the series. They have fought well, keeping in mind it was talked about alot that they will have problems with the conditions in Pakistan. Pakistani team knew exactly that and they took full advantage of it. Vaughan's injury played a vital part in getting where England is now.

Umpiring in Aussie Land, their land, their rules. ICC would just sit, relax with a cup of coffee and see how they can be easily be replaced by Cricket Australia. Rules are made to be broken, I would say should be there moto. Excessive appealling, bowling action issues, and all the rest of issues start from there. Good luck to the next team who will be visiting after WI and don't be sorry for losing it because we know, you have actually won.

Pak & Eng, hope to see a good fight in the ODIs.

Umpires often make mistakes, sometimes huge game changing decisions and sometimes trivial ones. We only pay attention when our teams get hurt by one of the big ones or many small ones with a huge impact. I don't think there is a way to eliminate human errors unless you start adopting technology. There are argument for it and against it, the point here is, as it stands today, these errors are a part of the game. People should accept it and move on. AND if a team is so good these decisions should have none or minimal impact on the outcome of the game. I am sure Steve Waugh’s Australians faced some bad decisions; they came out on the top regardless.

Going back to the original subject “so how good are England?”……

I think they have a long way to go before they start dominating the world cricket. especially in the sub-continent. Not to take anything away from the efforts of the English team during the summer, but if you analyze the whole series from a neutral perspective, it was SO close with Australia performing at may be their 60-70%, with some of the key players missing the key games. I think it would have been a completely different story had Glenn McGrath not been injured and had played in all games. India beat Australia a few times on the home soil before they conquered the “final frontier” last year. By no means were India a dominating side in world cricket……..

Interesting comment on the performance of English side.
1. Poor umpiring cannot be a reason for failure of a series. This cannot be a yard stick to comment on Aussie performance in Ashes 2005.
2. England played a superior quality of cricket than the Aussies in Ashes. they deserve the credit for winning a pulsating series.
3. The hype surrounding the Ashes series is not something English cricketers demanded. the media and the fans gave this. Unfair to put the blame on the cricketers.
4. It was too premature to declare as the "world champions" for winning one series against Aus. Pundits of the game saved their comments with a caution of evaluating the English performance in Pakistan.

All in all, the current team is yet to pass the acid test of being one of the world's top teams, if not the "world champions". the true test begins with the next ashes series.

Good luck.

England lack the batting depth, especially when they play on not-so friendly surfaces they are totally exposed. Barring Vaughan and to some extent Flintoff no other batsmen(Trescothick injured so omitted) have the calibre to play on these surfaces.

The victory against Australia should be viewed on a multi-dimensional standpoint:

1. D Martyn was unlucky in his
dismissals

2. McGrath was not fit

3. Some real sloppy fielding
by the Aus team

England should stabilize their middle order. KP is good but should be given more matches to become someone like Vaughan OR Marcus.

What happened in this test - With 5 batsmen(Geraint Jones is a waste!)do you actually play a test match? I mean does the batting boast of Ponting/Richards/Inzy/Tendulakr/Dravid or even a Gower.

c"mon pure common sense said play another specialist batsmen instead of playing a Hollioake kind"a batsbowler.

England has no doubt a fantsatic seam attack undoubtedly the best in the world now need to churn good solid steady midlle order batsmen. No harm if KP needs to be sacrificed for a better techniqued batsmen. The keeper is ok. The nucleus of dominant side is present but needs to be nurished with some key elements.

With tour of India in the offing you dont pack the side with so called "no specialities men" else mediamen would be howling @ 10D again.

To answer the initial criticism of Ken Tinker: It is obvious that the media hype following The Ashes did exaggerate England’s potential to a certain extent, but now there seems to be a hasty backlash from Australian sources. A 3-0 home win over the West Indies is not justification for the Ashes to be dismissed as a temporary blip.

I find it irritating the number of comments that have said that the Australian batsmen were ‘out of form’. Matthew Hayden’s scores in the first class matches were 75, 79, 136 and 150. This seems like ‘form’ to me… Maybe the fact he averages 54 in Test Matches but 35 in that series is because he is not usually batting against Harmison, Flintoff, Jones and Hoggard? Ditto Gilchrist, how many times has he faced bowling attacks of that intensity that have targeted his weaknesses so effectively? Were the 2002/3 Ashes decided because Marcus Trescothick and Andy Caddick were ‘out of form’? No, they performed below their career averages because they were faced by a superior opponent they couldn’t handle.

Secondly, the umpiring debate is a bit deceptive. Australia, it has been shown, receive a lot of favourable decisions at home. I remember the controversy from the previous West Indies tour and this one, as well as recent series against India, New Zealand and England. But is this because the team on top creates more opportunities for dismissals? I’m sure umpires subconsciously respond to the pressure of appeals accumulating. If you keep beating the batsman outside off-stump or getting marginal LBW appeals then eventually you get a decision. It’s not fair but it is to an extent unavoidable. So, if Damien Martyn keeps getting thin-inside edges onto his pads eventually he’ll get an unfair LBW, in a way it’s inevitable the umpires are never going to be correct all of the time. Hiding behind bad umpiring decisions is the common excuse for most losing teams but often hides the truth.

Finally, his comments present an overly distorted view of England’s away record. If England are ‘mediocre’ abroad then why don’t every team win series in South Africa – I can only remember Australia (by the same margin 2-1) winning there, Or how come no other team has beaten the West Indies 3-0 away? South Africa and Australia won by lesser margins over 4 Test series, whilst Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka failed to win there at all. The reason England didn’t play Australia or India in that time is because they weren’t scheduled to – this is hardly their fault!

Could it be that England are where Australia were ten years ago when they dethroned the West Indians in 1995? Pound-for-pound probably marginally better than all their opponents in world cricket, but not yet a great team capable of triumphing in the most adverse conditions, e.g. the Sub-Continent?

In my opinion the current series against Pakistan has largely been pretty even. Sure Pakistan are 1 up and look like winning the series, however the first day of this test and today have been the only days in the series where Pakistan have completely dominated, England dominated the opening two days of the first test (and lost it!). So to suddenly say that England are not that good is unfair and hasty, if we lose the series 2-0 it will, in my view, be slightly flattering to the Pakistanis, though they undoubtedly deserve to win the series. England can take a few positives though; Ian Bell has shown he is good enough, Pietersen has looked dangerous and Plunkett appears to be a decent young prospect. We are not necessarily number 1 in the world at present but we have a chance of achieving that over the next 2 years, what is for sure is that we are a truly exciting team to watch, which has to be good for not just English cricket but world cricket.

I think the problem with England on this tour of Pakistan is that a wee bit of the hype from the Ashes victory, and more than a wee bit of the post-win champagne has gone to their heads. The biggest problem for the side has been their batting. In the Ashes, they were confronted throughout the series with decent batting pitches, and with a wholehearted but largely ineffectual Lee, the tyro Tait, or the geriatric quicks Gillespie and Kasprowicz. There was simply no sustained pressure on their batsmen except at Lords' when McGrath bowled beautifully on a helpful surface. In Pakistan, with the ball not really coming on to the bat, a reinvigorated Shoaib and the probing Kaneria backed up by the excellent supporting cast of Rana Naved-ul-Hasan and Shabbir Ahmed, England have struggled.

Their other problem is that they lack a spinner of any quality. The selection 36 year old Shaun Udal is a measure of their problems, and frankly injured or not, Ashley Giles is not a wicket-taking or match-winning spinner. In the absence of a probing, pressurizing, teasing spin option, the quicks have been relied on to pound in, and the lack of guile in the attack has been found out-----------the sterling efforts of Harmison, Flintoff and Hoggard notwithstanding.

I think a series loss in Pakistan will actually help England, because they will come back to India having re-examined their gameplan. The batsmen will be told to knuckle down and cut out the million dollar shots and the quicks will plug away, but until they unearth a spinner of class they will struggle to win anything on slow pitches.

First of all, amazing article and well written, also thanks for writing it as i have had enough of articles about Indian cricket(sorry but there are one too many). England team has certainly been overrated by the English writers, however it wont be appropriate to say that they won against Australia without trying hard. They did try hard, but the win has stuck on their minds and does not seem to go away. On the other hand, full credit goes to Pakistan team for making England work for the runs.

Also, there was some person who said that Shaun Udal will be the key person. I dont see him good enough for the national team. There must be many other better spinners here in UK, who should be given a chance instead of Ahsley Giles. In my opinion, Ashley Giles is not a very good bowler, his spin only seems good on turning pitches, whereas on other sort of pitches he struggles.

Nevertheless, the 3rd test match is underway, lets look at things after the results.

The current England team is no different from the Indian team that we have been following for the past 3 years. A lot of promise, sustained excellence at home and patches of brilliance abroad. They are however, nowhere close to where the Aussies are. Take Flintoff and Harmison out of the test team, they look quite ordinary. You can say that these two have the level of impact that Dravid and Kumble have had on the Indian test team.

In the one-day segment, they can compete with anyone, anytime. They have more flexibility in their batting order. The impact of Giles cannot be under estimated as well. One can bet that the India-Eng tour that is coming up next year wil be a well fought contest.

In the present series against Pakistan, England have one first choice bowler out injured, their first choice spinner carrying an injury and the skipper injured for the first match (and in no form in the second). Unsurprisingly they're losing.

In the summer Australia had their number one seam bowler out injured for two tests. But was Warne carrying an injury? Was Ponting missing from one or more matches? Australia were shown up as lacking strength in depth, just like England are now.

Here's few ideas:

Maybe Pakistan are quite good. I certainly think that they are probably the most naturally talented team in Test cricket.

Any team playing away from home, without one or more first choice players will struggle.

Australias dominance has been built on not having players out injured.

I think that the various Test teams are much closer in ability than we think and that once you lose a first choice player you will struggle in Test Matches (unless you are playing Bangladesh or Zimbabwae).

Are England the best team in the world? Possibly, if they are at full strength. But, as previously mentioned they will only prove this over a period of time.

Just a note about umpiring. While it's very easy to say that losing teams "hide behind bad umpiring decisions" I don't think it's true. It's very rare to hear players or people associated with a team blame umpiring for a loss.

However, if there was ever a series in which a team had a right to complain it was New Zealand's tour to Australia in 2000-01. The series was drawn nil-all. New Zealand nearly snatched the first test and should have taken the third but for some poor "not out" decisions. Steve Waugh, that arch-stonewaller, was a recipient of this good-fortune, and stonewalled on much longer than he ought to have done.

Poor decisions going against teams that are playing out of their skins for a win are a little different from poor decisions going against teams that are par-for-the-course losing.

New Zealand, due to inconsistency over long periods only had one chance in a decade to take a series from Australia. To have that chance ruined by dubious decisions is incredibly galling.

And, by the way, nobody ever remembers that Australia escaped with a draw by a finger's length. New Zealand lose to Australia but never hide behind "bad umpiring". Australia never lose to New Zealand because on the odd occasion that it ever gets close, the umpiring saves them!

Anyway...

England are a fine team who are lacking a match-winning spinner (obviously enough). Pakistan are also playing with a lot of heart and deterination. I think it's been a good series, and England should not be downcast by losing. One step at a time.

I totally agree with this article. They had just beaten Australia in their own backyard and their overall dominance and potential can never be gauged by their previous overseas triumphs which were very long ago. They need to perform consistently like australia to come anywhere near to being tagged "world beaters". For a start, let them try and win a test series in India or any part of the sub-continent sans Bangladesh.
The hype and hoopla over their victory in the recent ashes was only due to the fact that they had won it after such a long gap. A one off test series victory in their home and a series victory against a depleted west indian side doesnt guarantee them the world beater status. I think they should try and be consistent rather than shouting down the streets of London about their recent victory. The British media would do well to keep their tongues in cheek before the team does anything commendable outside of England.
They have a good team but there is no room for complacency and Pakistan have shown them their right spot. Even once in the recent series they havent come anywhere near winning a test match and instances of them being in the drivers seat during these tests have been scarce and shortlived.
They have a very good captain leading them. All the best to the team.
The team is up against a very spirited Pakistani team led by an astute captain who is leading from the front.

A similar phenomena happenend to India after they won their home series against Australia in 2001. They drew with Zimbabwe, lost to Sri Lanka when much was expected out of them.

I'd say both the series that Australia lost were pretty special. Let us not dilute the Ashes win by viewing it in context with England's current reversals in Pakistan.

Pakistan have outplayed England in this series. You've got to give them credit for that. Losing tosses has not helped the English cause either. Though, I don't quite subscribe to the view that Giles is as bad a bowler as he is made out to be, I do feel that the absence of quality spinners are hurting England in this series.

Didn't Australia lose to Somerset, Bangladesh & England in 20/20 and the 1st ODI of the Natwest Series all within 10 days of their tour ? Australia led to their own downfall by playing under-par and lead with poor captaincy. Its all very well beating the weakest WI team thanks to some awful umpiring decisions. And Australia are the worst offenders of not respecting the officials..any other team behaving the way they do would be heavily fined if not banned.
England played well for 2 years but have come without a plan in the sub-continent. If by winning 1 series against Australia you become the best team than India should have claimed that in 2001. Thing is you have to maintain consistency and win in all conditions...remember Australia also didn't win in India & SL till 2004. So England is still number 2 in the world despite losing to Pakistan just as Australia was and is number 1 despite losing to India in 2001 and The Ashes this summer.

I have to take issue with the comments concerning England getting all the decisions in the summer. I distinctly recall Ricky Ponting being given incorrectly not out early in his innings at Old Trafford. Had he failed there I suspect England would have won the series even more convincingly. Rough decisions are part and parcel - just ask Nasser Hussain. As for the topic of how good are England, I think they are just starting out and are reminiscent of Australia just after they won the World Cup in '87. They need an attacking spinner to take wickets on the sub-continent where the lack of Simon Jones has meant little penetration once Flintoff and Harmison have been seen off. I am also concerned that we haven't got a scrapper a la Thorpe or Hussain. The current lineup give the bowler a chance every ball and all they have had to do is stick the ball there or thereabouts and wait. They are basically boring England out. The last tour surely showed how to win against a temperamental side like Pakistan. If England had stuck it out early on Woolmers boredom tactics would have been jettisoned and England would have been allowed to counter-attack more as opposed to force the pace. I don't know why I didn't get down the bookies and back Pakistan because this debacle was so predictable. Having said that I believe we will stuff them in the summer!

England is a very strong team.They have got some good players.They have improved much.But they failed to adjust themselves with the condition of sub-continent.They are playing better than before.They have played some good cricket in the last 18 months,won Ashes trophy.But at the same time they were defeated in the tour of Srilanka.Ofcourse their Ashes win was great.They have played the best cricket at that time.I think there was no problem with umpire's decision.Because it's apart of cricket.But it is remarkable that Australia is not passing a good time. If English suffers greately for Jones, then they have no chance to become the no.1 team in world cricket.One player can not do every thing for a team.They need two or three reserved players who can also lead their team from front.Giles is a world class spinner,no doubt about it.But English fears spin bowling till now. True fact is that they cann't do their best with the sub-continental condition.again, they never played very well in this sub-continent before.But they have got some good players.With the help of them they can do everything. Good luck England.

England did perform very well as a team against Australia. English team is definitely on the ascendancy. The new resolve and team spirit backed up by performance has a lot to do with this. The way the 1st test was lost in the last day confirmed that it was against the run of play England has lost. Verve with which Flintoff bowled was an amazing sight. The spinner Danish Kaneria was confronted and negated well. As Rob observed, England continued to show their grit 80% of the time. Inzi’s superior batting made the difference. With Simon Jones in the team, England will once again be ready to haunt the top teams. Winning the ashes is no fluke.

Currently barring West Indies, strength of top teams is almost equal. Strategies for the situation and performing on the day or each session play a lot more to reflect the bottom line. Be it Pakistan or England, India or Sri Lanka, New Zealand or South Africa, each team is at par. Focus of each team is improving day by day thanks to high quality back up available. It would not be far off all teams to catch up with Australia’s current leadership. Umpiring and technology are to be taken in stride and all teams are equally affected.
Cricket lovers are sure to get their due share perennially.
Cheers!!

the debate is indeed very interesting. i would like to remind everyone that england, in their last tour to sub-continent almost conqured it. they won in srilanka, they won in pakistan-courtesy of the famous "victory in the dark" test match and they put up a hell of a fight and drew the series with india. their not so good performance this time in pakistan could be due to the energy sapping ashes series into which they put all their effort.
how good ARE england can only be answered by time.they should tour all the countries and if they can continue to win in the way they have been winning in the last two years, we can surely say they are VERY GOOD. consistency is the key and it's the only key.

Regarding the whole issue being discussed here, I feel it is being blown out of proportion.England in no way are the number 1 team in the world, their Ashes win has been highly over-rated. Whether the England team or the media is to blame, no one knows. The huge reception they receieved got to their heads i assume.Andrew Flintoff and his wife claiming they felt that their privacy was invaded and comparing themseleves to David and Victoria Beckham were highly un-necessary since Andrew Flintoff is not even close to being a legend, a super star,a hero or anything of the sort. True, he did aid England's Ashes victory immensely, but he has not proven himself all over the world. He is found wanting when playing against nations such as Sri Lanka,India and Pakistan, and also many times against Australia prior to the Ashes.
The Ashes victory has paved the way for young English players(Kevin Pieterson,Freddie Flintoff and co) to flaunt their flashy hairdos,larger than life personas, publish books, and to be treated like heros(atleast in England), but when it comes down to cricket they are truly lacking the talent necessary as witnessed during the 3rd test against Pakistan (a team and a nation abundant in raw talent that can be moulded for the future). My conlusion- England are in no way the number 1 or number 2 team in world cricket,I believe they will have to fight hard to remain in the top 5, but with a busy schedule upahead they will be provided with many chances to prove themselves, whether they will grab it by both hands and play cricket, or whether they will try imrpove their celebrity status is left to be seen.

The Ashes loss by Australia cannot be wiped by beating WI 3-0.

It is obvious and Aussies must admit that their world beaters are past their prime. I dont know how long will McGrath or Warne will play but they are doubtful to come back after any next injury.

The key to Aussies success in the last decade was that they had 5-6 match winners in S Waugh, Langer, Hayden, Ponting, Gilchrist, Warne, McGrath.

During the Ashes and even against WI few things are very clear; Australia doesnt have the bench strength any more, specially in test cricket.

Their batting is heavily dependent on Langer & Ponting. Only a fool will consider Hayden back to his past prime after scoring centuries against WI or ICC World XI. The middle order is as unreliable as Engalnd's.

The bowling similarly doesnt look very potent with just Brett Lee and no one else to support him in the future.

Gilchrist, I believe he would have been dropped had Australia had any alternative. This is proven yet again as Gilchrist has not been rested against the Kiwis.

England are the next champions or not, but Australia would not be able to hold their top slot for long....

I am a bit surprised at most of the comments. People are more concerned about the how and why english team has performed so awfully witout giving much credit to Pakistan and more importantly to Inzi. He, in my opinion, is currently the best test batsman in the world ahead of Sachin and Lara simply because he has performed when it mattered most. He is an astute captain who has led from front.
I would also like to refer to an article by S.Rajesh of cricinfo in which he had mentioned the highest batting averages in winning test matches. Inzi came right after mighty Bradman with a staggering 83. English team has developed into a superb fighting unit with some competent batsman and bowlers but it takes a lot more then beating aussies to get to number one slot. I still believe they lack worldclass batting line-up. Their batsman cannot adjust to away conditions most of the time. As for bowlers, all who made the hue and cry of english reverse swinging during ashes must go through old tapes to see the likes of wasim and waqar sending those banana shaped yorkers and learn.

Hi everyone,

It is really becoming distressing to see the huge amounts of umpiring mistakes that are taking place in cricket.

I was appalled to note the mistakes made during the recently concluded ashes series, and of course being a die-hard west indies fan, i was shocked with the errors going against the WI.

I am urging all fans and supporters to put their hands up and lets ensure that something is done to curb the level of mistakes being made.

It is unfair to a team such as WI to have to suffer especially when they are trying so hard to climb back the ladder to supremacy.

Yours truly
Bhash

I hope people dont ridicule England so easily, for what happened today was something that can happen to best of the teams. You have your highs and you have your lows. England have done wonderfully well over the past 18 months or so and should be louded for their effort. They were the only team after South Africa in the late 90s to have won consistently. Comparing them to Australia would be grossly unfair to them cos Australia for the past six years have played the brand of cricket which was never seen before. How else would you define their approach where they made top international sides look like club level teams for so long. It is always very difficult to reach the top and it is twice as difficult to maintain that form for any sustained period of time. They had defied every law of cricket their ever was, making test cricket an exciting format. So, if we can take Australia out of equation, then probably you are left with England and South Africa fighting for the second spot. Then you have Pakistan, New Zealand, India, and Sri Lanka fighting for the next level depending on the form of each team.

I dont know why is every one talking about vaughan's absence from first match. I beleive he was not in a good form anyway, Bell his replacement did an excellent job in the first innings, not to mention the splendid effort from Marcus in the first innings, alongwith his excellent leadership. With 190 odd to get in the last innings a side like England should have pulled it off anyway, but Inzy and his team gave it all and won that match.
The other point that I would like to make is about the decisions in this series
- Marcus's decision on 48 in the first match
- Inzy's run out in second match
- Yusi's catch in the second match
- Younis's lbw in the second match
- Collingwood's 2 decisionS in the last match
- and I am sure there was at least one more that I missed out

Even then England find themselves in this position, this just goes to show how forceful this PK team has been in this series and I beleive these decisions balance out Jones factor.

So credit must be given to Pakistan, as far as England is concerned it was only one bad series let us see how they bounce back after this becuase bouncing back from defeats is a trait of a great team. They also need to mentor KP because sometimes you have to suppress your natural flair and play according to the situation like Butt did in the first match.

Firstly as someone who has been closely following English cricket, I think its not fair to compare the current English debacle against Pakistan with that of ashes.

1. The Ashes victory was achieved in home soil in conditions that cannot be compared to those of Pakistan.

2. Rather than the form of Gilchrist and Ponting, I seriously think Flintoff and Harmison outplayed them with a pretty thought about line and length. You should give credit to the Englishmen for the Ashes victory.

3. Pakistan is not a team that can be rolled over, they have quite good players like Inzi and Yousuf who have proved time and again that they can play against the best.

4. You can bowl spin against Australia and probably succeed - Same cannot be said against Pakistan (esp when Inzi playes well) and India. Giles cannot win matches against India.

5. Flintoff has not been in a great batting form of late, which is not helping the English cause.

6. The last ashes test should demonstratet how badly the English team missed Simon Jones. Replacing Simon Jones with Shaun Udal did not do any good for them. They should have chosen Plunket in the first match itself. Traditionally Indians and Pakistanis can be bundled out only with swing and seam bowlers - Majority of the spinners have failed against these teams (except for Warne on couple of occasions against Pak).

Overall, in home conditions, its difficult to beat any home team (How many teams have succeeded against India in India and agaist Aus in Aus?). Considering this, we cannot take the credit away from the Englishmen for their Ashes victory. In my opinion, they are the number 2 team. They should look at developing a group of 17 or 18 people instead of grooming the 11 people who played the first 4 ashes tests. Still, those 11 members will play in India and you need to watch out.

In reference to the decline in the Australian team. They have been blessed with two of the greatest bowlers of all-time. But such has been there presence in the team over the last decade, it has blocked the development of others.

Look no further than the prospective Australian attack in Ashes 06/07. It is quite plausible that it will consist of Lee, Tait, Bracken and McGill (who will be 36).

Ultimately, they have been a victim of there own success. I've no doubt Tait and the likes of Watson will be decent test match performers, but not for 3/4 years at least.

It may sound ridiculous, but the best thing that could happen to Australian cricket is for Warne and McGrath to be slowly ushered away. They may still be winning test matches but they have had their time. They've done it all and it seems its just a question of personal milestones now. Ultimately, the longer they keep playing, the longer it will take to recover.

Look Here's the deal

England is still not a great team. For beating Oz at home is something India have done 3 times in the last decade AND India have drawn a series down under as well (which they came pretty close to winning). Add to this drawing the last series with england in england, and beating them at home.
Even Sri-Lanka has beaten the aussies at home.

I think talk of England's world dominance is really far-fetched and the current series in Pakistan is showing just that.

And we have seen rankings can take a real beating (Ind-SL:6-1).

England are very good. In fact, fantastic! During the Ashes, they played a team game very well and managed to get all of their players firing on all cylinders at the same time. Pakistan have done a great job in winning this series given this.

The Ashes was a great spectacle for all cricket lovers and a fantastic victory for cricket. But it was a damn close series, if it had been 5-0 to England, they maybe the argument holding them as best in the world would hold a lot more strength.

Home conditions helped England, now they are helping Pakistan.

Umpiring decisions do make a difference, but one cannot predict who they will favour, it is part of the game. I think its unfair to try include them in a summary of a series to say it may have gone the other way.

Likewise, injuries play their part, but on both sides. McGrath, Simon Jones, Abdur Razzaq - all key players, all could have made a difference, but can you measure this? Saqlain is another forgotten name, I understand he made a brief comeback for an English county late summer, but still not fully match fit - his strike rate is better than Giles and was a key player in the last few series between England and Pakistan. Razzaq is no Flintoff, but alot in English circles have forgotten to mention him when talking of S Jones and Giles's injuries. He's been a great performer over the years.

If I recall correctly, Australia were beating teams well from 1989 onwards - but it was not till 1995 that they've been regarded by most as the no. 1 team.

The Aussies generally win 3-0 or pretty comprehensively, someone will need to do this regularly to take over their mantle.

Endland can do this, they've beaten a lot of the other countries, and will need to show a stronger performance summer 2006 vs Pakistan.

Personally, I feel Pakistan could become the no. 2 contenders now. They've got the best (proven) coach in the world and have always had an abundance of talented players.

England are a well deserved no. 2, and should get better.

England to beat Australia next year? Yes!

Terrific post Dude83.

I think its naive to assume and premature to suggest that England is a contender for being the next world-beater. As yet that is! England has the resources, it has the technical skills, the personnel and the players look comfortably set in their roles. However, they need to persist with an agonizingly high level of intensity in their game, and this intensity level has been achieved by only a handful of teams in the history of the game. When you wish to make a legal claim at the cricketing throne, you need to CONSISTENTLY perform like the late 60's South Africans, 80's West Indians and the modern day Aussies. So where does England really fit in list of great teams of the past? Well, they could POSSIBLY go down as great but not just yet. They drew against SA in 2003 AT HOME, lost to SL later that year and now this (almost about to lose to Pak).

But for what it's worth if there is one team that looks like a natural successor to the Australian conquest-party, it has be England. Others seem to be rebuilding all the time.

Vishal: If by winning 1 series against Australia you become the best team than India should have claimed that in 2001.
Ummm.. a lot of Indians did claim that, and still claim so, quite unconvincingly, I should add!
Ken: Just how good are England? They are GOOD for their times and better than they were in the previous decade or more. I mean, its highly unfair to take away credit from England. Injuries, loss of form and dodgy umpiring decisions are all part and parcel of the game, as is the argument that the game(s) could have gone the other way if some factor had worked otherwise. But in the end, all that matters is that scoreline in the series scorecard. England won the series and that proves they were better than Australia for those two months. Remember, Australia were beaten by Bangladesh, so the whole argument might be moot. And let's not just use these Pakistan tour results to argue that England haven't changed. AFAIK, England started on this journey when under fading light (and diabolique appealing and field setting after every ball, masterminded by Moin Khan), Thorpe and Co. masterminded a hard fought 1-0 win. Lets not take away credit just because the quality of the opposition thrown at them. Heck, they haven't played Zimbabwe and Bangladesh with the same frequency India does. So they are definitely better than India. And since India seems to have been only team that has stood up to Australia lately, by proxy, England is GOOD!

The best news is to hear people complaing about umpires after the home advantages of inside edges given as LBW's in the ashes.
What makes team of champions a champion team is being able to win in all conditions. And it is when you are on top being able to bury the opposition. What we are seeing in Pakistan is the similar effort of England in the ahses and what Australia failed to do was make England suffer the comsequenses of loosing quick wickets. This series in Pakistan no one has stepped up and taken the responsibility of trying to play test cricket. Everyone wants to hit the ball out of the ground or bowl bouncers all day. No reverse swing so lets throw in the towel.

England are no doubt an excellent team , but reading ur comments , it feels like everybody (almost) believes that England lost this series rather than Pakistan winning it (if it happens). I mean , lets give credit where it is due , England might not be on top of their game here but Pakistan came back superbly to win the first test and thoroughly deserve to win this series. As far as the best team in the world debate goes , England have a long way to go before being par to Australia at the test level. Steve Waugh described the sub-continent as the "final frontier". Beating Pakistan and India at home will go a long way towards achieving England's goal.
As far as umpiring is concerned , Simon Taufel has been excellent in this series and the others might have made a few mistakes , but its all part of cricket. I am totally against using technology to help umpires. These days , the use of hawk-eye etc. is ridiculous. If umpires are not allowed to use it , then it shudnt be used at all as it only serves to undermine the umpires. Also , if the use of technology does happen , then umpires become obsolete. Umpires give a human element to cricket which should remain. A few decisions go the wrong way but are normally cancelled. There is nothing wrong with the decision-making process. It should stay that way or we might find that cricket has lost its charm and ceases to be worth watching.

I don't think that England still has the ability to claim to be the best besides Australia.Let's start from the beginning.Mark Taylor was a very good captain and he had won 26 of his 50 test as captain and some of the series too.And then Steve Waugh started and after you cut off the WI and Srilanka tour he and the Australian team dominated the world.Not just series win,but most of them are whitewashes.Pakistan,Newzeland,Srilanka,WI,SA,BD,IND,ZIM,England everybody had felt the shrewed power of australian batting and bowling .Aus team won the world cup for the 2nd time comprehensively.

From Mark Taylor to Ricky ponting (94 to 05 )(tests)currently...Aus played 134 tests...Won 85...lost 25 ....drawn 24.....success rate 63.43% ....and England Played 140 tests...won 51 ...lost 44...drawn 55..success rate 36.42%

and compare to last 30 tests 56.66% win rate for England where Australia has 63.33% win rate....So how can it be that people start comparing eng to aus just cause eng won 2 games against them and have the series...look at eng..struggling against a pak side and look at aus...dominated the whole wi series....with the icc test championship.....if england win the next ashes in australia in 06 and win the world cup...doesn't mattter...leave the world cup ..if they can beat aus next year and depending on their performances in ind and sri they can be the best then....otherwise i don't think so.....

Regarding the umpiring going against visitors in Australia - Ricky Ponting was very embarrassed by Brian Lara's experience in the series just finished and has proposed (following Imran Khan's leadership in proposing neutral umpires after embarrassments in Pakistan series years ago), that the international umpires panel may be too small and they dont get enough rest/recovery time. I would like to see Punter go the extra step - by responding to Lara's eloquent, graceful chiding of the Aussie team in his speech at Adelaide - and keep his bowlers from the intimidating appealing. For some reason it doesnt help on foreign soil but seems to play a role at home even with neutral umps.

Also on Ponting - an earlier post said Ponting was wrongly given not out during his 150 to force the draw at Old Trafford. I'd like to see the over info on that as it was actually a chanceless innings until very late in the day.

My earlier posting was put under someone else's name but I reiterate what I said: the Pakistan series shows that Pakistan are much better than they've been credited for and England are nowhere near as strong or consistent outside England as they were last summer at home. When England learn to play a few different types of game, and when Pakistan learn to play faster pitches with confidence - then we will see the contenders for the champion's crown - & what a contest it will be.

its astonishing as to how a section of the cricket following public is bent upon finding excuses whenever australia loses instead of looking to commend their conquerer.people start scrutinizing those close calls which otherwise would haven,t raised an eyebrow.fitness of players,their form,nature of pitches etc are cited as reasons for their loss.bad decisions aganist batsmen of teams touring australia is almost as certain as snow during winter but nobody seems to be bothered then.in the second innings of the second test between pakistan and australia in dec 1999 gilchrist was given not out when it was clear that he had nicked the ball.he went on to win the match for the aussies.nobody saw in it an unfair advantage for the home team.even the recent series between australia and west indies saw a lot of bad decisions against brian lara,the only player who could change the expected result of the series.all pitches in australia are tailor made to suit their bowlers.we dont see a square turner in australia,do we? then why do they crib about pitches turing a lot when australia tours india.but for the word limit in this column i would be able to provide many more of such instances and insights which can portray australia just as ordinary as england is being portrayed.in a nutshell its high time for the pro-australian cricket fans to realise that australia cannot keep winning as long as they exist and that victory over australia is neither a flash in the pan nor a cricketing miracle.there will be times when other teams will play at standards higher than those set by the australians.it is for the good of cricket that this happen often.

Multi-piece post:

Has everyone decided to play ostrich by burying the head in the earth in the face of a potential disaster? Is it just me or are there any sane people left in this planet who realize that one day a seemingly benign umpiring decision will tarnish the reputation of the entire game?

Thank God cricket hasn't had to experience the kind of acrimonious finger-pointing, violence-instigating and image-annihilating controversy that hit baseball during the 1985 World Series. A hitter was apparently called safe when replays showed him to be clearly out. Happens, right? Wrong! St. Louis lost the World Series in the games to come and the fans blamed that one poor umpiring decision for deflating their team's morale and fighting spirit which consequently led to their capitulation. The situation escalated to a point where the umpire's life and family were threatened for he had allegedly cost the Cardinals the World Series by a single gesture of his arms.

Contd..

When faced with a complex argument like the role of technology in cricket umpiring, the beginning is always a good place to start. Every sport started as a form of entertainment that encouraged competition and showcased the players’ graciousness and fair play. There are three defining features of all sports; entertainment, competition and fair play. Cricket is no different.

So why go deep into the roots of cricket and analyze why it exists in the first place? Because the authorities have been more than willing to experiment with the game in order to make it more entertaining and competitive. The whole commercialization of cricket over the decades has added to the entertainment value by adding color to the game (quite literally) and economically viable to broadcast on TV. The World Cup was born in order to bring together all chapters of the cricket fraternity and to induce fierce competitive drive in them. The grander the scale, the bigger the prize, the sweeter the victory. The idea of the World Cup proved to be highly successful and has churned up some of the most awe-inspiring, jaw-dropping performances of all time. So commercialization enhanced the game’s entertainment value while the World Cup possibly raised its competitiveness.

Contd..

So if we can experiment and change the game in order to increase the entertainment value of the game and to raise the level of competition within it, why can't we experiment with the degree of fairness in it? One anti-technology argument that I have heard is that stripping umpires of their previously-bestowed authority would be a departure from a long-standing tradition, a cultic practice within cricket which marks the umpire as the most powerful man in the middle. Fallacious I say! If we were so concerned with keeping the “original” form of cricket (which was not even cricket but “crocket” in centuries past) then why did we introduce one-day-cricket, colored jerseys, white balls, the list goes on.

Hanging on to tradition is self-destructive in some cases. Can you imagine what cricket would have been like if England had hung on to the tradition which barred any professional to captain the national side? Can you picture a West Indies side being led by a mediocre white athlete instead of Lloyd or Richards because a perverted tradition said so?

My point is simple. Yes the introduction of image technology to the point where the 3rd umpire will be able to intrude and reverse the decision on the field will be a departure from tradition. But sometimes we have to let go off traditions that stand in the way of progress. We have made cricket more entertaining to the masses, maybe a little more competitive. Now it's time to make it to shed our fear of breaking a traditional practice and make it fairer. After all, sportsmanship calls for preferring virtue over tradition.

Lets give credit to England for their victory against the Aussies. Hats off to Freddie, a superb performance from an allrounder since the days of Kapil, Botham, Hadlee and Imran. Without Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath, Aussies arent a formidable team. And when the aussies are in the subcontinent Warne is just a grade bowler for the Indians. So all in all England were good in the Ashes. However their claim to the champions is a little funny. You dont become a champion by winning once. The Aussies win so often that teams like England didnt remember what a win was. And they did that to almost all teams repeatedly. Let England be able to do that and then can the claims of no. 1 team be justified. So they need to beat India, Pakistan and SriLanka atleast at home and or away and the Aussies in Australia to be real champions. We are seeing that they are not really good in the subcontinent. And the tour of India beckons. All I see is the poms battered and bruised by a resurgent Anil kumble and the turbanator. So lets wait for a couple more years to pass on the crown of champions to England. Till then good luck to them.

It's a question of lessons, and learning, or in England's case NOT learning them.

Australia has learnt and acted upon at least three lessons from the Ashes defeat: enlarge the pool of match-fit players; don't put anyone into the national side who can't play at least a two-tempo game (unless you're absolutely sure you can dictate terms); have a plan B for when your bowling or batting game must change due to injury.

Now, these sound like fundamentals, but it's pretty clear that England hasn't learnt the same lessons from their victory in the Ashes as Australia has clearly re-learnt from their loss. A better example of this than Hayden and Ponting re-discovering their "slow" games (and Clarke refusing to) is hard to find.

It's a pity, really, because world cricket is always more fun when there's an exciting England team in the mix.

Congrats on the Ashes. Now does your pony have another trick?

I believe this English team deserve all the plaudits it has gotten over the past few months, but they are a bit short of being world-beaters, as has been exposed in this series in Pakistan. They have plenty of passion and effectiveness in their bowling department, but they still don't have anyone who can really match up to the sheer skill and genius of a Shane Warne or Glen Mcgrath, and Michael Vaughan is certainly no Ricky Ponting. I don't believe they can go on a long unrivalled winning spree like Australia has done the past 5 years with just will and good intentions. They'll run Australia pretty close even in Australia, but I can see them running into problems in conditions which don't suit them.

Not meaning to sound like a whingeing Aussie, but, people forget just how close The Ashes really were. In the end, the pivotal moment was that Kasper wicket in the second innings of the Second Test.

Some have said that it nicked the glove of the hand not holding the bat. Whether or not you believe that, if he hadn't been given out on that delivery, The Ashes would almost certainly have returned to Australia 2-1 rather than England 2-1. That's how close it was.

England do have to be commended for a great series, but, Australia were a long way from their best -- they got beaten by the Bangles on that tour for goodness sake ;-).

Before everyone gets carried away about poor umpiring decisions in Australia, it should be pointed out that both umpires in all tests are not Aussies anymore - and one at least gave dodgy decisions against Australia in England.

I liked the comment about most Australians not liking the best player getting dodgy decisions - we love to see Lara or Sachin etc at their best (we still like to win of course!). Also, every cricket player will vouch that everyone gets bad decisions in this game at any level. Hopefully they level out eventually. Yes it may affect a test or even a series, but that is part of the game and I have never believed that any team ends up better than par from bad decisions over a period of time.

While there is some validity to the arguments regarding Australia's defeat in England, England won fair and square regardless of lack of preparation or such nonsense - they were simply the best team during that series and as a result all of us fortunate to watch that series saw one of the greatest contests in test cricket for many years. I really don't care that England won when such fantastic cricket was played. Perhaps England's performance was because it meant so much to them and they were better prepared - good on them.

Oh, and lastly to the idiot talking about pitches in Australia not turning square - he obviously has never has watched a test match in Australia. Ever seen a test at the SCG mate? Did you watch the series against the West Indies - Warne was turning the ball square from outside leg to outside off on most pitches -if other bowlers can't use that turn, that isn't the fault of the pitch.

Ahmad Sultan's comments above are spot on!(posted 11.38)-but there is a trend in which England over the past year or so (indeed since their last tour to Australia in 2002/3)have had their most successful series of victories, maybe ever and rightly in my view have been considered therefore, as one of the best England outfits ever.
What other country apart from Australia could point to to their win rate through 2004/2005? Certainly not Pakistan or India or S Africa.
However the real test as every one is saying, is to do well in foreign conditions.It is hard to avoid a conclusion therefore that this current England outfit is slippng already and that happily Pakistan,maybe is on the rise.As a consequence England are not as far ahead of the others as we thought.

This actually is good for the international game.It creates more interest.Great for an Aussie to see Pakistan beat England! Similarly I am sure the rest of the world cheered when England finally, after so many years gave Australia a hiding! ie don't let the paper scores fool you - we were 'done' well and truly by a better led team with better strategy and better individual performances. It was what we needed.

Results since have shown however that AUSTRALIA remains the team to beat.

I never saw the Ashes but everybody else who saw it seems to think it was an amazing series, which is fantastic because it surely seemed that way.

England were absolutely wonderful against the Australians and played with superb aggression and passion. However, I truely believe had Glenn McGrath been fully fit, there is no way England would have won the Ashes. It just doesn't add up. People have OVERLOOKED the fact that Glenn McGrath did not play in either of the two English victories and the man has dominated them ever since he started playing again them. It's not liked he bowled badly when he played, he picked up 19 wickets @ 23.15 striking once every 42.3 balls in the three games that he played.

Are England the world champions? No! Did we crown Sri Lanka and India world champions after they beat Australia @ home? No! Why are we hailing England as champs?

England are good with the potential to be very good. But their struggles in the Sub Continent cannot be overlooked. They lost a game they should have won in Multan. They didn't bat particularly badly (except for the horrid attempt at a six by Andrew Flintoff). Danish Kaneria bamboozled them while Shoaib Akhtar ripped them out with searing pace. Pakistan should have won in Faisalabad, they only dropped 5-6 catches and missed a stumping on one of the days. Plus, as it turned out, they benefited from the amount of overs that were lost due to bad light And now in Lahore, England are once again on the verge of losing the match and the series barring a superhuman effort (or rain).

They can't be world champions until Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath hang up the boots. Australia's reserve is pretty ordinary. Brett Lee had a good series versus the West Indies but it was his first decent series since his debut versus India in 99/00. He's is extremely overrated. Gillespie is tough under fast bowling conditions but benefits from Glenn McGrath. The rest are pretty useless. You're only as good as your bowling lineup. Australia's is, by far, the best until the two of them hang up their boots.

So why don't the rest of us chill out until then.

Oh yea, another thing. How about them English experts stop bashing the pitches in Pakistan. It's not like when India, Pakistan, or Sri Lanka tour England that they get pitches that suit them. Far from it! If the pitches are so "flat", why aren't England putting up scores of 400+ in every series and, at least, drawing the games. Pakistan seem to be generating results and neither of the three matches have been "dull" by any stretch of the imagination. Get real Ian Botham, it's all part of home advantage. The sign of a world class test team is when they overcome all those obstacles and win away (like Australia have).

Also, people need to quitting whinning about Aussie sledging or whatever. If you're playing for your country at the top level, you should be able to handle it. If you can't, maybe you shouldn't be playing test cricket! That goes for every single team that loses to Australia. For some reason, they seem to be complaining more about verbal actions rather than the actions of playing quality cricket.

I think England is an emerging team rather than the best team.Beating Australia is the first hurdle which they passed.They are struggling in Pakistan for not having a top class spinner in their side.Its been evident in their approach of looking for draw in the second test against pakistan rather going for win to level the series. This is not the case with australians in eden gardens chasing the unprobable target more than 350 in less than a day. They can accept the defeat in the process of going for win. Thats the attitude aussies have and England should take a leaf out of aussies book. Subcontinent is the biggest challenge for them. Its the question which england have to answer.

England is still a very good team and just because Pakistan played really well does not really mean that England is not the same team that defeated the Aussies.

Australian team is lot weaker now and England can beat them again if Simon Jones is included in England or in Australia.

Pakistan's best spinner Kaneria didnt perform as we have been told before the series started. It has been unexpectedly Shoaib who has shown enough commitment to cement his spot in the team as the premier fast bowler, rejuvenated Rana and part timers like Afridi and Malik who did the job with the ball. Afridi and Malik are ODI bowlers and have been around for a long time so tranforming their success into the test arena was only a matter of time though we would classify them in a different category than Kaneria.

Pakistan may have won the series but their batting problems have not been resolved. Shoaib Malik does not seem to have the technique required to succeed at this level as a test opener and Younis Khan has not been able to perform at all. Pakistan is very fortunate that Akmal is done well as relying on Inzamam and Mohammad Yousuf can be too risky as they can not be expected to revive Pakistan's batting fortunes all the time. So someone needs to stand up and show more consistency.

Thanks to those who liked my piece. To those who thought I was trying to take the gloss from England's victory, I can only apologise for apparently not making my initial post clearer. Here it is in black and white: My post isn't concerned with the English team, rather the perceptions of them from the public at large, especially the media.

How many times did you read that the Super Series had been devalued because of Australia's loss to England? (quite a few)
How many people did you hear questioning the ICC rankings because of the Ashes result? (far too many)

Many people stopped short of saying England were the new #1, but the inferences were there, from many sources, some of them widely read and respected. The flipside to these viewpoints gained far less print time, because anyone who dared to try and place England's victory in perspective was shouted down by beery Englishmen, and anyone else with a vendetta against the Australian cricket team.

I just re-read my initial conclusion, and I stand by it. Currently England have shown themselves to be no better than most other Test playing teams. Over the next 18 months, starting from the third Test, day 4 in Pakistan, they have a great chance to make me eat my words.

I thoroughly agree with your article. England did well in exploiting what no Australian cricket supporter wanted to admit - the Australian team has players who are rapidly approaching retirement and they suddenly began feeling it (especially when Freddie was bowling). Thank you England for giving our selection panel a wake up call and finally a team good enough to expose what no other could - Dads army must give way to the next generation. Australia were well and truly caught on the hop in a generational transition. But oh what could have been if one B. Hodge and one M.Hussey had played in all 5 tests! Also, one thing that must be said - Jason Gillespie let the entire team down with his completely souless performances. May he find his passion again. Frankly I was beginning to become sickened by the routine manner that Australia despatched thier opponents in the year before the ashes. As much as I hate to say this, Australia's loss was good for test cricket and for the building of a new Test side in what has become a full circle - Back to the Border era of re-building.

Despite England's recent defeat i would still maintain that England is still deservingly no. 2 team in the world.

Now the pitches in Pakistan were by no means helping spinners like Kaneria so Pakistan's victory is deserving as they showed better skills than the English team. Each game went into the 5th day and thats the fasciating thing about it.

We all know that umpiring decisions play a huge part when a team plays against Australia. But if Australia played in Pakistan they would have lost too as they would have come here afresh from their Ashes debacle.

England is still a very good team and they can beat Australia in England or in Australia if umpiring is neutral. However for Pakistan to beat Australia it would be a different proposition as umpiring will need to as neutral as possible and it has never been the case.

Great comments on the Ashes by Ken Tinker.

One point missed though. What about who batted first?

Test 1: Australia batted first, and won

Test 2: Australia should have batted first but foolishly decided not to and lost

Test 3: England won the toss and batted, draw, but England very nearly won but for a blinder from Ponting

Test 4: England won the toss and batted, and won

Test 5: England won the toss and batted, draw

If Australia had batted first in just one of the tests (apart from the 5th test) they would have won the Ashes, I can say that with total assurance.