Yes, It's a funny one. Coming back from 1-0 down to win 2-1 is a good effort but should England have got themselves in a position like this against a competitive but modest side.

Michael Vaughan was praising the character of his side and Peter Moores sais that he had heard a lot but England do need to play better if they wish to compete with the big boys. 6/10 would be a fair description of their overall performance here, and probably 4/10 in Sri Lanka. So not the best of winters by any means.

But it was a win and hopefully that will give them confidence and 'momentum' going in to the summer.

Of course, there were positives and with this England side there always are. Moores and Michael Vaughan would see the positives in Northern Rock.
If Moores is the coach his supporters (of whom I am one) think he is he will already be planning for the next series and the one after that. Nonetheless, the side for the First Test against New Zealand at Lord's in May will almost certainly be unchanged.
In the medium term there is the prospect of Andrew Flintoff returning. If he is ready by mid-May the selectors have a real conundrum. I'd leave out a batsman. But they won't. If it comes to it they'll omit Jimmy Anderson.

You are probably right there because it would be the easisest option. Selectors always say those are the decisions they ike to make. Yes, all right. It must be great going up to Andrew Strauss or Ian Bell after they had scored a hundred and telling them they are dropped. If Flintoff is fully fit, and he has 23 possible days of competitive cricket before the first Test squad is picked, he has to pay, and yes it should be at the expense of a batsman.

The winter leaves you no clearer on where England are. Stuffed in Sri Lanka where it should have been 2-0 and scratch past New Zealand - fifth in the world, sadly, is about right.

So what the new selectors have to decide - and sharpish - is whether this side can take England to beyond fifth in the world - ie to first - or whether it needs a significant tweak. I have mixed opinions but the doubt outweighs the optimism.
Strauss, by the sheer scale of his Napier second innings and its utter necessity, stays, as does Bell. Unless, they're certain of what this team can achieve, I honestly think there may be a case of looking at the place of the captain. Another certain series win again against the Kiwis will tell them nothing and if England were to lose to South Africa (romping on in Chennai against India incidentally) it may be too late.

I wonder too whether this side has the potentia to take England to where they want to be. If they were happy with their batting, as they seem to be saying they were recently, it does not say much. But who is there to replace them - Shah, Carberry, Denly, Bopara. I don't get the feeling they will take Engand back to number two either.

The 2004/05 side was actualy quite special. The only improvement on players who have gone is Panesar over Giles, but Ashley scored some very good runs at eight and his contribution should not be underestimated. Sidebottom, Broad and Ambrose have done well but I am not sure that the current side can reach the heights of 2005. If Vaughan fails to score runs he could come under pressure, I agree but only as long as Strauss is the alternative.

It's a bit gloomy isn't it, considering England have just win a Test series and in what was a cracking match. But if I had to make a prediction now, and it's what we have to do, England will not regain the Ashes next year.
Bad news from India this morning, Angus. England will play only two Tests there next winter. The intended third cannot be fitted in because of a packed schedule. Packed, that is, because of the ICC Champions Trophy, because the Indian board insist on seven one-day internationals not five and because England want to be home by Christmas. All in all and whoever is most at fault, that is hardly good for the longer form of the game.

It is also because India want to play four Tests rather than three against Australia. Yes Test cricket does appear to be in danger of getting squeezed a little, but again England are back in India again three years after their last visit. England only toured India once in the nineties so far more Test cricket between the two countries is being played now than before.

A year or so ago I believed England should enter the 2009 Ashes as favourites but I am not so sure. Australia aren't what they used to be and are more vulnerable but I am not sure England have the side to expose those deficiencies. Hopefully a couple of their players wil pick up injuries in next years IPL that rule them out of the Ashes. That woud make ineteresting reading, and explaining.

The fact that we assume Australia's players will go to the IPL on the eve of an Ashes series speaks volumes does it not?
I have been heartened by the crowds (joyous and engaged) in New Zealand, there are plenty in Chepauk today as well, but nobody in Guyana for the West Indies v Sri Lanka Test. Overall, I am worried about the state of Test cricket. Did England need to go to India this winter? Probably not.

It does, as does the fact the New Zealand's IPL players will arrive in England later than the rest of the squad. Daniel Vettori let that one slip this afternoon here. Where it all ends, who knows.

I have to say watching Test cricket in New Zealand has been one of the most pleasurable experiences I have had. New Zealand Cricket has accepted that they will not fill big stadia so have taken the games to small proper cricket grounds. In one day cricket there was all the noise a razz but at Tests it was relaxing and peaceful.

Vivaldi and Pink Floyd from the sound system, children allowed to play on the outfield during the lunch interval and families sitting on blankets listening to the radio, enjoying picnics on the grass banks. Whether that fits peoples impression of what a major sporting event should be like is debateable but everyone, especially the England supporters seemed to love it.

It made England's corporate driven £70 a ticket days seem so commercial and greedy. But I suppose that is the way cricket is heading, and it is why England are going to India, so India come back to England soon and fill their coffers.

When the MCC knock down the pavilion at Lord's to build a stand that can hold 5,000 more spectators, I'm off.

Re favouritism for the Ashes 2009 - I also thought some time ago that England would be favourites. While both sides have regressed, the problem I think for England is that they have regressed significantly further than Australia. I see getting the captaincy sorted out (I don't think Vaughan will ever return to his previous form) will be the biggest issue to get sorted. Ponting's fragility played a large part in Australia's Ashes 2005 loss (notwithstanding other factors) and his fragility was very exposed in Australia's losses to India recently. England have got away with this one in NZ, but top class opposition will zero in on a weak captain and go for the jugular.

I hesitate to say - on the basis of New Zealand - that Vaughan is a lesser captain than he was. Part of the problem is that he is working with a lesser team than he had in 2005. You can't lose two fine bowlers like Jones and Flintoff and not pay a price in terms of control and firepower. This, in turn,lets the opposition get away, puts more pressure on the batsmen, and generally raises the tension in the side. Vaughan had a poor time with the bat, but at points I don't know if he could have done much to change the game. What can a captain do when his bowlers are not performing, and the batting is in a collective funk?

Now, there is an argument for saying that an effective candidate would not let things reach that point, but I am not sure that there is anyone who could have done much better. Flintoff was a terrible captain in his time, while Collingwood just doesn't have the credentials as a batsman and leader. Yes, the one day side look a bit better, but it's more down to some changes of personnel than anything else. Strauss has been in appalling form, and was pretty effectively butchered by the selectors to keep Flintoff happy - probably their worst decision of the last 10 years. If you want a new captain, you have either Cook, who is still too young, or KP. Personally, I'd go for KP and back him to have learned something from Warne.

For myself, I would favour some more surgery on the batting, with a new batsman - Denly perhaps, or Shah, or maybe both being given a run. I thought Strauss showed enough flaws in technique during the 177 to remain very open to question. Harsh? Arguably, but why should filling your boots on a flat pitch against a mediocre attack prove anything? Likewise, Ian Bell. Nice hundred - but why not sooner, in more testing conditions? At most, give them the series against New Zealand in England, make it clear that a minimum of 300 runs is expected, and at least one hundred. If they fail then, don't waste time, but bring in replacements against South Africa. Given New Zealand's lack of quality, England should be telling themselves that a 3-0 home win is expected, barring rain.

The bowling is in fair shape - Sidebottom was very impressive, and will probably enjoy English pitches more. Broad looked Test class - and may be heading for greatness if his promise develops. Panesar came good at the last, and remains a good bet for last day wickets, as a spinner should. Jimmy Anderson, I fear, is destined to remain Mr Hot and Cold, with the latter predominant by about 2-1. Replacing him with Flintoff, if fit, would be an easy decision. Failing that, Hoggard. I'd love to see Simon Jones back in harness, but the head warns me that the heart is destined for disappointment. Like everyone else, I have been wondering about Adil Rashid, but I think it is still early for him, and it would be a shame to damage talent by rushing him into the side.

nickzi, I agree with a lot of what you have to say, but it also shows how those easy hundreds by Strauss and Bell have complicated matters. If they score loads of runs at home against NZ, then fine. But if they don't? You then have to bring in new batsmen who'll be up against Steyn and Ntini, when introducing them against NZ would have been much better. But that chance to blood a new talent seems unlikely now to be taken.

Without wishing failure on anybody, how much easier it might have been had a couple of people who had failed previously had failed again. Vaughan is now the conundrum. The smart money would suggest that the line-up which triumphed (!) in Napier will be attempting to regain the Ashes in 15 months' time. Change would have to be made pretty quickly as both Nickzi and Lucas indicate. And while Vaughan's position should be scrutinised - I thought he did not cover himself in glory when Fleming was lacing boundaries on the second morning - it is still, in every sense, his team which is an important factor.

I think South Africa should be favoured to win. They are a strong batting team, and they have good quick bowlers. Panesar seems better than any spinner in their ranks, which might help. If Flintoff is fit and in form, England are on a par or better bowling-wise, and it then comes down to a question of whether they can find enough mental strength in the batting. I am not convinced. Perhaps Strauss will revive, perhaps Bell will finally break through - but we've been promised this for about two years, and that's just too long for me to believe it. As for the fielding, England better buck up quickly, because South Africa do field well.

Vaughan's captaincy does worry me somewhat. Yes, Southee hit cleanly and well - but really, he should never have been given more than a dozen runs. This is what captains do, find ways to choke off this sort of performance, and often of late Vaughan seems to be either ticknering with the field or drifting. I have wondered whether his sell-by date is approaching, and my doubts were not stilled by this rather unimpressive victory.