England should set their sights on becoming second-best team in world

Wherever you look at the moment in world sport, you see a one-horse race. Lleyton Hewitt was by far the best player in the men's singles at Wimbledon, Brazil were easily the best team at the World Cup, and Australia's cricketers are so far ahead of the rest, it's embarrassing – or would be if the Australian psyche were capable of embarrassment.

International cricket at the moment is a marathon in which nobody looks like finishing second. It's not that the Aussies are infallible: they have failed to win either of their last two home one-day series, succumbing to Pakistan the other day and before that to South Africa and New Zealand in a triangular that went unexpectedly pear-shaped. And only last year they lost a Test series in India, as VVS Laxman and Harbhajan Singh pulled off three of the great individual performances of all time. But it is telling that these stumbles have come against different countries.

Several teams have it in them to beat Australia, or to scrape a canny draw with them as New Zealand did in last winter's scoreless Test series. But nobody does it more than occasionally. South Africa, either side of that triangular triumph, lost 3-0 to Australia in one Test series, 2-1 in another, and 5-1 in a one-day best-of-seven.

Under Hansie Cronje, and then in the first year or so of Shaun Pollock's captaincy, South Africa were firmly established as cricket's silver medallists. But last winter they did an England. After showing plenty of authority against Zimbabwe and India, they went into the big one against Australia full of optimism, then fell apart at the first whiff of hype. Pollock, a leader by example, could not carry a team that had lost its entire middle order, with Cronje banned, Jonty Rhodes retiring from Test cricket, and Daryll Cullinan falling out of favour. Soon afterwards, they had to manage without Allan Donald as well. When England play South Africa at home next summer, they may not need the assistance of Javed Akhtar to repeat the victory of 1998.

When I visited South Africa in February, there seemed to be a widespread acceptance that their moment had passed, and that they would have to rebuild, possibly getting worse before they got better. Since then, desperate to do well as hosts of the forthcoming World Cup, they have sacked their coach, the respected Graham Ford, and now they have suddenly dumped the controversial quota system, whereby one or two non-white players had to be included in each XI at international or first-class level. From a nation that had been very clear about the need to be multi-racial, this smacks of panic.

There is, of course, a strong case for arguing that sport should always be a strict meritocracy. But, in practice, team selection doesn't exactly work like that. Anything up to seven or eight players pick themselves, and it would be wrong to dislodge any of them for the sake of a quota; but the last few places are often a bit of a lottery. The difference between Nicky Boje and Paul Adams, or between Nantie Hayward and Makhaya Ntini, is marginal.

Cricket boards have a duty to look to the long term as well as the short, and in the long run the benefits of a black South African becoming established in the side are potentially huge.

But if the demoralised South Africans are no longer second-best in the world, who are? Most of the players would say Pakistan. Under the improbable captaincy of Waqar Younis, they have won eight out of 10 Tests, and 27 out of 36 one-dayers. The only thing standing between Pakistan and a cliché-busting consistency has been the fall-out from 11 September. Ten Tests, none of them against Australia or South Africa, are not quite enough to judge anybody on.

Sri Lanka came here as the world's third-best team, in both the International Cricket Council Test Championship and the Wisden one-day table, but their stock has fallen like a share price. They have slipped to fourth in both forms of the game, below New Zealand in the Test table and Pakistan in one-dayers. New Zealand's rise to third has led one or two normally wise men, such as Vic Marks, to doubt the validity of the whole enterprise. This is like saying the Premiership is worthless because West Ham had a good season. New Zealand may have limited resources, but are making the best of them. They drew in Australia, have just won in the West Indies (something Steve Waugh's Australians didn't manage), and have three points out of four from their last two meetings with England. For Kiwis, read bees' knees.

Where does all this leave England? In mid-table, that's where: improving, but hardly by leaps and bounds. Lord MacLaurin's stated aim is for them to be the world's best team by 2005. The words "pie" and "sky" come to mind. They would be wiser to settle for second-best. The situation is most definitely vacant.

Tim de Lisle is editor of Wisden Cricketers' Almanack 2003