ComMittee, sorry about that.

Another good piece from Tickner, Ed. How desperate is the PCB that it has to draw matches by comittee?

maxohr, LMAO at pulling 11 cones in a sesh. I'm assuming you were a beginner at the time?

If past experience with the PCB is anything to go by, it should be the very last body on the planet with any jurisdiction regarding Asif's positive dope test. The PCB has shown no previous interest in taking action that would deter drug abuse among its players or, indeed, any behaviour deemed inappropriate. Even when we thought the PCB had finally put its foot down regarding Shoaib Akhtar, a five-year ban is reduced to 18 months and it's possible that even this slap on the wrist will not be enforced. The thing about Asif is that he's not good enough a player to merit Akhtar's special treatment and the PCB could do a lot worse than make a real example of him.

A great effort from the Proteas to draw the Test match, aided by the fact that England don't have a match-winning spinner. Panesar is okay but England really needed some more wickets and he didn't deliver. South Africa's much hyped but disappointingly insipid pace attack definitely needs some work and dropping Ntini might be the way to do it - you wouldn't drop Steyn or Morkel just yet. South Africa will hopefully have learned that underestimating England is a dangerous thing to do, but they have a couple of things in their favour going into the next Test: having scored a big century in the series already, the chances are that KP's next few outings will result in single-digit scores; and the pending return of Andrew Flintoff, who will bowl with accuracy and pace in his first couple of spells before spending the rest of the match in the pavilion with ice on whatever part of his body lets him down this time. Here's hoping I'm wrong about the latter - I'm pretty confident about the former. Oh, and I'm still waiting for Prophet to answer some Zimbabwe questions but I'm being carefully ignored.

Hey Prophet! I gave you a whole weekend to come up with answers to my Zimbabwe questions but you've decided to avoid them because all of a sudden the debate has become "boring"? Surely you can do better than that? Why do I suspect that the real reason you won't step up is that you've finally realised you can't defend the indefensible?

Trust good old KP to throw the cat among the pigeons! He's a prize idiot with all the charm of a week-dead sewer rat, but he sure can bat. The South Africans have underestimated England and KP has stuck it to them (it remains to be seen if he can maintain this form). I think Captain Rotundity may well have screwed up. Lord's is usually a good pitch and Smith probably should have chosen to bat. I managed to see the first few overs live last night and I've got to say that while the English openers were tentative, the fast bowling was unimpressive and wasteful despite some encouraging swing. Still, it's only the first day of a big series so I can't be too critical. First time I've seen Morkel bowl, he looks dangerous. England may have to face the prospect of Michael Vaughan being a bit too far past it now to match it with good opposition, but I would be reasonably happy for him to prove me wrong.

It was quite a while ago but I definitely recall a dispute with HE_Pennypacker about the rankings system during last year's World Cup. Prophet needs to take stock of other Zimbabwe opinions here and elsewhere, not just Penny's. His opinion only happens to reflect mine because we both want what's best for world cricket. Prophet on the other hand only wants what's best for the BCCI. Unfortunately, what's best for world cricket and what's best for the BCCI are two entirely different things. I doubt Prophet will answer the challenge here: admitting that he/she only wants the ZCU vote for the BCCI. You're not fooling anyone, Prophet.

I haven't said what banning Zimbabwe from the ICC would achieve, Prophet, because I thought it was patently obvious to everyone - even chook raffle cheerleaders like youself. But here we go...first, it will stop the flow of millions of cricket dollars to the Mugabe regime. Second, it will remove Zimbabwe from the top tier of cricketing nations where - performance-wise - it hasn't belonged for several years. Third, it will remove Zimbabwe from the FTP, ensuring that governments will not have to intervene to prevent tours - it will separate the politics from the sport, which is what we all want. Fourth, it could actually force the ZCU to reconsider how it runs cricket in Zimbabwe so that they actually do something positive for the game in order to gain re-admission, spending the money they have received on cricket rather than on themselves or their regular tribute to the regime (I'm not very hopeful but that's the principle). Fifth, it will enable the ICC to set strict conditions of transparent corporate governance and an active, healthy domestic cricket competition before Zimbabwe is re-admitted. Are you prepared to answer MY questions now, Prophet? Can you honestly tell me what keeping Zimbabwe in the ICC is going to achieve for cricket in Zimbabwe? Do you believe cricket in Zimbabwe is robust and healthy with Chingoka at the helm? Are you worried that banning the ZCU will result in the BCCI not getting its way in the ICC? Are you bursting with pride over the fact that a corrupt criminal like Peter Chingoka calls India his "good friends"? Are you happy that our cricket dollars are directly financing the brutal regime of a mass-murdering despot. Do you see nothing incongruous in Zimbabwe receiving a multi-million dollar appearance fee from the world crap-cricket soap lottery next year despite the fact it won't be participating? Have you got the cojones to answer me?

Is that a blimp over Lord's? Oh, wait, it's that bloke who hit 250-odd last time he was there. Say what you like about the oh-so-corpulent one, his last Test outing at the home of cricket wasn't too bad. Damn me but I'm looking forward to all the acrimony etc on this forum during this series, especially since I'm nominally neutral (albeit with an almost-instinctive anti-English bias which I will try to keep reigned in). This series is what REAL cricket is all about! I hope it's a close one. Generally I think England has been underestimated with regard to this series - after what happened in 2005 that is a mistake that should be avoided - but South Africa would appear to have the edge on paper.

Prophet, don't forget to take your chook raffle pom-poms with you after your personal grooming is finished. Regarding Zimbabwe, once again you've failed to comprehend the issues. How could you be so blind as not to realise that without the millions flowing to them from the ICC, Chingoka and his cronies would have nothing to be corrupt with? Sorry, that was a silly question. Your transparent and unashamed post-colonial jingoism is the obvious culprit. Whether or not Zimbabwe cricket would be improved by removing its full member status is immaterial, but I'll tell you this: keeping the ZCU as a full member for no other reason than to ensure the BCCI has an extra vote on its side is certainly not going to improve cricket in Zimbabwe. Handing over unearned cricket millions to Chingoka and the Mugabe regime isn't going to improve cricket in Zimbabwe. It's a complete farce to have Zimbabwe as a full member when half of the other full members refuse to play against them - even it's Indian patron cancelled a tour for no apparent reason. What are you afraid of, Prophet? Are you worried your precious diddums BCCI won't be able to get its way in the ICC without their ZCU pets? Admit it: like the BCCI, you couldn't give a sh_t for the state of cricket of Zimbabwe or the brutal excesses of the Mugabe regime which are funded by it. The BCCI just wants a faithful lapdog client member on the ICC so it can show everyone it's in charge - an all-too-typical attitude of small men with small minds and smaller genitals. It would be utterly laughable if not for the tragedy that is Zimbabwe.

ranvir4u has apparently forgotten that England, not India, is the last country to have beaten Australia in a Test series three years ago.

Prophet, you're letting your personal agenda interfere with your comprehension. I've personally despised Mugabe since I was old enough to learn about his defunct anti-humanist politics (Maoists are even more stupid than Shoaib Akhtar) and his slaughter of 20,000 people soon after he seized power (and by the way, I'm simply older than you, not "gifted" whatever that means). But that's not the issue here. The issue is cricket. While Zimbabwe's cricket remained relatively healthy I had no problem keeping the cricket separate from the politics. However it was taken out of our hands by events which inextricably linked the racist and repressive Mugabe regime to ZCU: the exclusion of players on the basis of their ethnicity or politics, the regime's intimidation of some players and charges of treason following the Flower-Olonga armband protest, tours abandoned by the governments of England and Australia in a moral protest against Mugabe, and the endemic corruption which sees Chingoka and his henchmen pocket millions of dollars from the BCCI-led ICC meant for cricket development in the country. Has cricket developed in the country? No, it has deteriorated terribly - first-class players living on the streets as currency changers, whole competitions abandoned (they didn't even run the Logan Cup one year), cricket grounds choked with weeds and shoddy financial management. Zimbabwe can't field a team which even challenges Protea first-class teams. By any measure, Zimbabwe should not be a full ICC member. They have only remained so because of the BCCI's cynical greed and its badly misguided post-colonial agenda to dominate world cricket. I have merely pointed out that by doing so, the BCCI is essentially saying it loves the Mugabe regime and thinks world cricket should help finance it. Anyone who thinks Mugabe doesn't get the lion's share of ICC money is a fool.

Of course you would, Enigma. Say what you like about Pakistan, but they're not chokers - they're rarely in a winning position from which they can choke.

Aussies already play fair. Australians taught the rest of the cricket world the meaning of "fair". Fair means playing by the rules set out for everyone (that's also Ricky Ponting's definition), and as has been stated, the rules already cover sledging. Have no fear, however: while it certainly won't stop Australians from sledging as they have always done, it's the BCCI calling for a total ban so there will be a total ban.

Australia do seem to have a knack for dropping dead rubbers, and I'm at a loss as to why. They claim they do not take their foot off the pedal after winning a series, and this is partly borne out by them fielding their strongest available side in the last ODI and the result of their most recent Test series.

yoyoma, after the way he's been treated, and the way he's made India pay for that treatment, Symonds is entitled to say anything he likes about India's over-the-top celebrations after the T20 circus. I thought Indian fans knew their cricket pretty well. This is why I - and possibly Symonds too - find it perplexing they couldn't put the T20 result into perspective without first being crushed by the ACTUAL world champions of cricket.

This is like talking to a kindergarten student. ibtisam, you're getting it wrong again. Why do you constantly live in denial? It was Pakistan, NOT PAKISTAN 'A', which was bowled out so cheaply by Australia five years ago. 'A' sides do not play Tests. I'm happy for you that you are able to take comfort in Pakistan's performance during the T20 circus, because South Africa is soundly beating Pakistan in REAL cricket.

callmenuts, making such comments only reflects poorly on your own intelligence.

yoyoma, Symonds can say whatever he likes about India's over-the-top celebrations for getting lucky in a 20-over circus after the way he's been treated and the way he has made India pay for such treatment. It's a cultural thing - sub-continent behaviour when celebrating or lamenting their cricket teams' performance is quite unfathomable from an Australian perspective. Symonds is on record saying T20 is an unimportant novelty which his team does not take seriously.

callmenuts, I said that being captain of Australia was more prestigious, I did not say it was a higher honour. That you could make such a childish comment reflects poorly on your own level of intelligence.

No, it was a Test match in which Pakistan was bowled out for 59 and 53 by Australia. It was not Pakistan A ('A' sides cannot play Test matches), it was Pakistan, which set a new record for being bowled out for a low score, and then beat that record in the very next innings! Matthew Hayden made 119 in that match, outscoring the combined total of Pakistan's two innings. As usual, you are wrong and have nowhere to hide Pakistan's continuing failure at the elite level of cricket.

438/9, I think a few reasons behind Australia's success are pretty self-evident. There's no doubt that just like the West Indies side of the 1980s, Australia has been fortunate to have a wealth of unique talent come together at the right time (don't forget that some of that talent is now gone and more will soon follow). Apart from that, Australia covers all the basics with considerable diligence. The team's training resources and facilities are second-to-none, no expense is spared. The team's work and fitness ethic (with the possible exception of Warnie and Boof when they were still playing) is exceptional - I strongly doubt there is any team that trains as hard or for as long as the Australians. Individual achievement is subordinated to team achievement. Initial success resulted in public support and expectation not seen since the days of The Don, as well as a strong sense of self-belief among players that they can - and probably should - win every game they play. I can only imagine that opposition teams find this self-belief to be more intimidating than anything else. Except maybe for tennis during the Australian Open, there is no domestic sport that can come close to competing with international cricket's popularity during the Australian summer. The domestic first-class and List-A competitions, while poorly attended and rarely televised, remain of a high quality (based on only six teams) and there are programs and mechanisms for recognising and nurturing new talent - Mitchell Johnson was spotted by Dennis Lillee almost 10 years ago, for example. I think one of the biggest factors has been long-term planning, something the other major cricket countries seem to lack. This started in the days of Allan Border's captaincy and Bob Simpson's stint as national coach after we hit the bottom of the barrell in 1984-85 - it was decided we would never sink that low again.

Strauss has the results under his belt while Flintoff looked lost as captain while touring Australia - it's only fair to say the under-preparation and injuries and Ashley "the-worst-selection-in-Ashes-history" Giles weren't his fault but there were still some match-losing errors on Freddie's part, the Aussies didn't have it all their own way. What a tremendous cricketer, it will be great for the game in England and globally if the big bloke can get back to his best like 2005, take the leadership pressure off him and he may just do that. Hope it's a tight series, but I reckon the Poms will take it 2-1 or 2-0 or better if Steve Harmison hits form too. So happy to see some real cricket again after that fiasco pyjama party in the Windies.