Will we ever compete Down Under?

Now I know what you're thinking. It was only 11 years ago that we retained the urn with that memorable series win against a Ricky Ponting led side. But take a closer look and you'll see how far away we are from beating Australia in Australia, and how far we have been from beating them either side of that victory.

But we were a serious test side then under Andy Flower and led by the 'calm authority' of Andrew Strauss. Our batting had the patience, technique and skill to bat time. Strauss, Cook and Trott, a bit better than the current top 3. Then we had Pietersen, Collingwood, Bell and Prior. Done! That's it, I'll take that top 7. And that's all you should need. Leave the bowlers to bowl. Of course it helps if bowlers can bat but the batsmen should do the batting and the bowlers should do the bowling....funny that.

That Australian side of 2010/11 was by no means weak, but it was about as weak as it gets for Australia, who were still transitioning from that great era a few years earlier. The main difference being the standard of bowling from the Australians wasn't up to the batting of the English on that particular tour. 6 of England's top 7 averaging over 43 with a certain AN Cook almost 3 times that.

Helped by an Australian attack consisting of a solid Ryan Harris, a Peter Siddle who is arguably more suited to English conditions, and a still learning Mitchell Johnson. Remember he was still quite wayward at this point and although capable of devastating spells he wasn't as consistent as later years. Opener Ben Hilfenhaus averaged almost 60 and often fourth seamer Shane Watson almost 75. Xavier Doherty was first choice spinner at the time and his career did not take off. The other 3 to take at least one wicket for the Aussies were Marcus North, Doug Bollinger and Michael Beer. Hardly an arsenal to strike too much fear into the minds of English batsmen.

The other thing not helping the Aussies around this time was a waning Ricky Ponting (who later admitted he should've retired 2 years previously) averaging 16, Michael Clarke averaging less than 22 and Simon Katich averaging under 25. And all in a country where we know you have to bat long and grind the opposition under the sun and flat conditions. The only 3 to play all 5 test matches averaged between 45 and 64. Very good series, but not much else backing them up. This was a side that was still transitioning from the greats of the 90s and early 2000s.

But lets forget that series for a moment. We've been beaten convincingly in every away series down under since 1986/87. We have recently lost this series 4-0 (5-0 had it not been for Jimmy Anderson's batting) and the last 4 series (barring 2010/11) have been 4-0, 5-0, 5-0 and 4-1. That's 1 test victory this century when you cast aside the average 2010/11 we team faced, very worrying!

What do they do that we don't?

The Australian attitude is a very aggressive one. As a nation they are quite brash. They work hard, love their fun, parties, alcohol and barbies and play sport even harder. They've worked out that their pitches and conditions don't offer much movement so the only way to be is aggressive. There's no point being a gentle medium pacer and trying to keep the runs down, you're just asking to be hit. So they make it happen instead of 'letting the game drift' which the Aussies hate. They do this by encouraging all the seamers to bowl quick, hit the deck hard and mean it! As I often heard, "it only takes 10 balls to take 10 wickets".

And when the batsmen bat, they know that they have to be equally aggressive. Even when blocking or leaving the ball there's an aggressive call to show who's in control of the ball. Just look at the way Labuschagne and Smith leave the ball. That's not just them being strange individuals, they're imposing themselves on the bowler. There's no gentle leaves or blocks from them, they mean it with the attitude of 'get past that' and always have that feeling that they're looking to score. It's a brand of cricket that could potentially work anywhere in the world, in any conditions and on any track.

We English, on the other hand, go about our cricket quite differently. As a nation we're more laid back in our everyday attitude and this rubs off in our cricket. We have conditions that suit bowlers who can present an upright seam, meaning we don't have to worry too much about pace. Over the years the guidance was always 'line and length, pace will come later'. I'd like to see that reversed. This makes people who bowl gentle medium pace quite effective in England as the pitches are often slower and offer more seam movement along with the often miserable, cloudy overhead conditions offering swing.

Similarly the batting has problems. We are often taught to defend first which I do agree with, but there comes a time where we have to take on the bowlers, not reckless, but must impose ourselves on them and not let them bowl to us, particularly spinners. Only really Alastair Cook has been successful whilst letting bowlers bowl to him, but even he had to play the odd aggressive shot and he certainly had his times where he didn't know where his next run was coming from, notably the Sri Lanka series in 2014. This is partly why we had to completely change our attitude to limited overs batting after the 2015 World Cup, where we were awful, especially with Cook at the helm just prior.

The problem of course comes when these cricketers who have been picked by their counties to get results are considered by England for an away tour. Do we really think a 46-year-old Darren Stevens could make a difference in Australia? Of course not. 70mph jaggers in England look impressive and he could probably go well against other Test nations in England as he's still knocking over batsmen for Kent (he's still scoring runs as well by the way). But it's gentle medium pace that would get hammered in Australia, and the problem is that the likes of Anderson, Broad and Woakes bowling 80mph isn't that much more effective.

4 years ago, I watched the difference in the ODI leg of the tour to Australia. We were lacking some firepower. Mark Wood came into the side and had David Warner in a complete tangle, getting him to glove one straight up. Warner trudged off, completely surprised by what he'd just faced, but the truth of the matter is we need to breed more bowlers like this who are going to be effective anywhere in the world, and pace is a huge asset that must be developed.

Just look at the impact Kiwi Adam Milne had on the Hundred and T20 Blast last year. Our county cricketers looked frightened to face him, and that's a guy who struggled to get into the New Zealand squad for the World Cup. New Zealand have developed their cricketers from 5 million people. The Aussies have 25 million to choose from. So surely we can develop a few more fast bowlers out of the 55 million people we have in England?

T20 tournaments offering big paychecks have helped white ball cricket but they have had a detrimental effect on our test cricket. We play on pitches that offer plenty of movement, especially with a new red Dukes ball. So when our best batsmen, who have been jetting off earning their millions, are asked to come back to the test fold they struggle to transition from launching sixes into the stand with a white kookaburra ball that barely moves to then having to be boring, solid in defense and bat for longer periods against the tougher-to-bat-against moving ball.

One format pays a lot less than the other and lasts for much longer with declining crowds. It's a no brainer which most professionals prefer to play. Just look at David Warner abandoning his country when there was a ODI series a couple of years ago complaining that he hadn't spent enough time with his family, despite being in Australia! A couple of months later he was full of spirit playing for Sunrisers Hyderabad in the lucrative IPL. I'd have a lot more respect for these people if they just said, "the IPL pays a lot more".

It's a similar story for our English players. Our best players are off all over the world so we've then had to pick our next best from the County Championship.

Which brings us to the next problem.

In my opinion, the quality in the County Championship is diluted too much. Too often the weaker counties make it look like a minor counties game, full of players that are nowhere near close to playing for England. Even when the stronger counties play, the change bowlers are your military medium pacers who, granted can be effective in England.

I think we should have a close look at Australia's model where they only have 6 4-day teams. This makes it considerably harder to be a professional cricketer but when they do get there it must mean that they are on the brink of playing for your country...that is of course if they want to play test cricket for their country.

There's a reason why some of these weaker County Championship players travel over to Australia and play grade cricket, they're not good enough to get into an Australian state side, but good enough to play professionally in England. If we can weed out the weaker players into club cricket it would make club cricket stronger, just as grade cricket is strong in Australia. The best players that get into the 6/8 teams will constantly play against each other and keep the quality high, even when England are playing, at least that's the theory.

I would have 6/8 city based teams, and they'd be the same teams for 4-day, list A and the really short version. Can we at least make a decision to either play T20 blast or the Hundred. I think having both is too much and too similar to each other, but it's the counties who make these decisions so can you imagine what they would say to this if it meant some of them would be disbanded!

In summary, I would encourage our bowlers to bowl quicker and more aggressively and have our batters up their intensity. Facing these kind of bowlers consistently will get the batsmen used to shifting their bodies to react to the ball quicker. Hopefully we won't look so clueless when we face the quick Australian openers.

There would be less professional cricketers with those lucky enough to be selected by these franchises constantly playing against each other meaning that standards don't tend to drop, and if they did there would be top drawer club cricketers knocking the door down to become one of the elite.

The T20 tournaments' paychecks is something that will struggle to be ruffled. If it takes less time to earn a lot more money then why would any professional in any job not take that route. To keep test cricket alive and thriving we would need to pay test cricketers serious amounts and at the same rate that T20 tournaments hand out. I do not see this happening, especially as attention spans appear to be getting shorter and shorter (or maybe I'm getting older). But who is going to pay even more money to dedicate their day to 7 hours of test cricket for it to move very slowly.

I see the rivalry between England and Australia will keep test cricket going for a little while longer, but look at the crowds when Sri Lanka play the West Indies for example. Where will the money come from to keep paying the best players to play? We'll then have to pick from weaker cricketers until eventually the standard is so far away from these T20 tournaments that it unfortunately does not exist like it currently does.

And don't expect England to come close in the next Ashes series down under either...