The Aussie batting of the last few years has routinely been grossly over-rated: Ponting's a bit special... as is Clarke... and Langer was damn good as well.... but I've no problem with the likes of Cook, Vaughan, Bell and Pietersen at the top of the order - England have a stronger top 4 than any in world cricket right now.

As for the bowling... I've no worries about Sidebottom / Hoggard / Flintoff /Panesar lining up: sure, the world of cricket has seen stronger attacks... but not MUCH stronger attacks - that quartet (assuming all were fit and had bowled enough to find some form) should ensure that no opposition is able to bat itself into an impregnable position with any regularity.

I do find your view of pitches curious though: since when have most Test pitches been anything OTHER than a joke? Can you recall a Lords or Oval pitch that warranted anything other than a draw? Or an Old Trafford or Edgbaston pitch for that matter? The only test pitch in Australia that's occasionally capable of hosting a genuinely sporting contest is the SCG. Most sub-continental pitches and WI pitches have draw written all over them.

One Test ground in the recent NZ series warranted a result. That's actually an improvement on what's served up in most tours.

Sadly, when England lose the England batsmen tend to get the blame for not ensuring games are at least drawn: I'll concede that it's sometimes been at least in part down to the batsmen... but it's mostly (in recent years) been down to England's bowlers getting carted, which leaves the opposition enough time to get 20 wickets.

England needs to get back to a core trio of dependable bowlers capable of sustaining a Test economy rate of between 2.5 and 2.8 throughout long spells over long days. With that in place, getting batted out of a game takes so long that a result becomes impossible. THEN the pressure is on the opposition - and I wouldn't rate any current side as clear favourite over England in that situation.

This obsession with "taking" wickets on modern (covered) pitches strikes me as lunacy: wickets are (these days) more commonly gifted than taken... and what matters is simply ensuring that the damage done between gifted wickets is either so little, or done over such a long timespan, that the game is not swung decisively by the opposition's batting.

Sustaining quality through time and awaiting opposition implosion is, unfortunately, the only way to go on covered wickets and with batsmen armed with modern bats: I'd rather bowlers started each spell anticipating a susptain period of bowler-domination but that just doesn't seem to be an option these days.