I am not sure the pitch gave the bowlers that much assistance, in any case England never looked like bowling the West indies out in their second innings.

At the moment England are with the also rans, and IMO not much better than the West Indies - I never noticed their 3rd slip doing the wicket keeping job for the Windies bowlers like Prior had to do for an England bowler, it really was poor to watch.

__________________
Ern

Did one of the West Indies bowlers do a Harmison?

__________________
Bill Ponsford - The only one who could play in Bradman’s company and make it a duet.

Blimey Ern, How negative are you!! Look at the ICC table, who are second? We are able to beat most sides in the World, your problem is that you don't look further than Australia. This is an insult to all other Test nations.

Australia beat us 5-0, but who else have beaten us recently? Pakistan away? Other than that we have not lost many Tests series as comprehensively as we lost the Ashes.

The fact is that the West Indies have a very poor bowling attack, little to sustain their batting, and were never in the hunt to win the first Test, and if you really believe that you are verging on nuts.

A few people on here seemed to think that the West Indies could have won the last test, which I thought was frankly rubbish, they have again failed to take 10 wickets and were bowled out a with a massive 458 runs still to chase. Meanwhile Bangladesh have again proved why Test cricket is too much for them.

I feel this contiunes to prove my theory that there are two large Chasms of quality, Australia are well ahead of the pack, the the rest and then the final three.

I feel Test cricket needs one of the chasing pack to step up soon, or it will be all too predictable.

How do you think top domestic sides would do in Test cricket these days?

I'm pretty sure the top English Counties are now stronger than the WI... and were Bond injured I reckon the best counties would prove a match for NZ. Moreover, with Shoaib Akhtar and Mohammed Asif out, I doubt even Pakistan would start as runaway favourites if they played in division one of the county championship!

I'm pretty sure the Aussie domestic sides are at least as good. In truth, I suspect the real pecking order of World Cricket is Australia... the top Aussie club teams.... then one or two Test sides (perhaps SL when on form, plus England so long as Hoggard is fit) mixed in with the top club sides from England... and THEN the gap to everyone else!

Rather as in soccer, the best cricket now seems to be played by club sides.

Just not kidding myself FF - the standard of cricket World wide has slipped IMO, look at the England bowling today at Leeds, Sidebottom apart - complete rubbish ( and I am no fan of Sidebottom ).
As for me being negative - remember I believed England would beat Australia in 2005, but I also posted on this forum that England had no strength in depth - without Simon Jones and Trescothick, England are a very ordinary side indeed.
That's not being negative IMO - just being realistic.

It's not that I don't look further than Australia - I used the West Indies for comparison when they were great, I don't think it's an insult to other teams - Australia are ahead of the pack big style IMO, and the rest of the pack -including England are light years behind.
Australia did beat England 5-0, I believe that England could have won that series, had Trescothick been available, and the England selector had had the gumpion to realise that Harmison would not stand the course - and more experience in the batting.
When England did have Australia under pressure, the batting collapsed like in Multan 2005.

England played poor in Pakistan, were adiquate in India, played poor against the Sri Lankan's, and were poor against a weak Pakistan team at home.

They were rubbish in the World Cup if that was not a "comprehensive" failure, then I don't know what is.

The England bowling is not much better, the England batting looks good because the Windies bowling is so poor.
Well nuts I must be FF - I believe that the West Indies put up a good fight to "earn" a draw in the first Test, without rain England would probably have won - but that would not have detracted from the Windies come back.

__________________
Ern

England are slipping but are still formidable at home.
The seeds of England's going down hill started when they won the Ashes.
1. Not to go over the same ground but just to mention Australia bowling attack hit the rocks Gillespie lost form with no able replacement and than the Mcgrath misfortune.
2. The fifth Test no Simon Jones. He has not reappeared.

So Engalnd have gone down a bit. They are still reasonable side.
WI are total rubbish. Everyone 20 yrs ago wouldn't fancy playing them. Imran one said his cousin Majid was hit by a Marshall bouncer and he was never the same batsmen again. Cook and Strauss experience is much different.

I am looking forward to the India series. At least they have some batsmen.

__________________
"Checkout the big brain on Brett" Pulp Fiction

So in short you agree that at the moment there is massive chasm, between Australia and the chasing pack?

And how many of the series did they actually lose? One - Pakistan Away.

So we are playing badly and we are not losing, what does that say about our position. For me it says that if we do play to our potential, we are one of the better teams in the World, just not as good as Australia??

When we do play a very poor team - like West Indies - then we do not need to be at our best to win?

Which again means that you are agreeing with my original thread?

England are probably second to Australia not that means all that much. The other Test sides are not all that strong. The trouble for England is players are injured and time is passing on.
As for potential you could say England played above their potential for a while.

__________________
"Checkout the big brain on Brett" Pulp Fiction

Time is passing on, anyone would think England has an old team. If anything the team that has not reached it's potential, has failed to challenge Australia and is ageing is South Africa.

Yes you have de Villiers and Smith, but the other key players - Pollock, Ntini, Kallis, Gibbs and Boucher are all the wrong side of 30.

Apart from Vaughan, the majority of the England team will be around for five years or more.