England gets back controversial win over Pakistan

Hair's call, made alongside West Indian umpire Billy Doctrove, was disowned by the International Cricket Council (ICC), who amended the result to a draw at a meeting of member nations in July this year.

But the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), responsible for the laws of the game since they were first drawn up in 1788, concluded at a meeting of its world cricket committee in Delhi this week that the original result - a forfeit after Pakistan's players refused to return to the field after being accused by Hair of ball tampering - should stand.

The committee comprises a range of current and former international players, including Steve Waugh, Shaun Pollock, Mike Atherton and Indian captain Anil Kumble.

At the end of their two-day meeting, chairman Tony Lewis declared the ICC had no power to change the result of the Oval Test.

"The ICC has no power under the laws of cricket to decide that results should be altered, whether it feels it 'inappropriate' or otherwise," Lewis said.

"The ICC's decision is wrong and sets a very dangerous precedent.

"Cricket is the worse for this decision."

Not long after the MCC's recommendation was announced, attention turned to Majid Khan, the former Pakistani captain, match referee and chief executive of the Pakistan Cricket Board.

Majid said the committee's decision was unanimous, for it was simply a matter of law.

"The rule states that you can't overturn a decision. The result should stay as is," he said.

When asked what the reaction would be in Pakistan, Majid said: "We'll wait and see."

The original decision gave England victory and resulted in a suspension for Hair, who was reinstated after an employment tribunal hearing in October 2007.

Pakistan's then captain, Inzamam-ul-Haq, now playing in the rebel Indian Cricket League, was banned for four one-day internationals for bringing the game into disrepute, but his team was cleared of the initial ball-tampering allegations.

The subsequent ICC ruling meant England won the four-match series 2-0 instead of 3-0, and caused former West Indian fastbowler Michael Holding to resign from the game's governing body in disgust.

Lewis said that in the realm of natural justice, the Oval match would always be a forfeit, regardless of what the ICC now chose to do.

"As far as we're concerned there is no record of any other result (but a forfeit)," he said.

"We're not reversing the ICC result, we're just saying they had no place to do that.

"We, MCC, wrote the rules in 1788 ... legally, there is absolutely no way the ICC can change the laws of the game, which it did do."

Australia cricket down but not out, yet

HOW long has it been since the public has had such little confidence in the Australian cricket team?

Ten years? 20 years? For the younger generation — never?

After last week’s massive loss in the second Test against India, the knives have come out for the Aussie team, almost as fast as Virender Sehwag’s flashing blade and as sharp as Zaheer Khan’s sledges.

The loss in Mohali has knocked the stuffing out of Australia’s aura of invincibility.

But it is going too far to suggest Australia is in free fall — one loss doesn’t mean a team that has dominated for so long is suddenly a rabble.

But it does raise a series of questions.

Do we have an attack capable of capturing 20 wickets in batting-friendly conditions?

Why, after the arrival of Shane Warne in 1992, are no quality spinners coming through the ranks?

What is it about India and its cricketers that gets under the Aussies’ skin?

Are Brett Lee and Mathew Hayden on borrowed time?

These questions are difficult to answer.

But the biggest concern that the mighty ship that bludgeoned and intimidated so many opponents has sunk is when you compare the current Test team with the side that dominated through Australia’s golden period.

There is no way Simon Katich (as hard as he tries) would replace Michael Slater or Mark Taylor; the same applies for Michael Clarke (Mark Waugh), Shane Watson (Steve Waugh), Brad Haddin (Ian Healy), Mitchell Johnson (Glenn McGrath), Cameron White (Warne) and Peter Siddle (Jason Gillespie).

Was Australian cricket ridiculously blessed circa-1998 or are we now scraping the bottom of the barrel?

A bit of both perhaps.

Of course the retirements of some of the biggest names in Australia’s cricketing history is always going to hurt — Warne, McGrath, Adam Gilchrist, Justin Langer and Damien Martyn have all departed in recent seasons — but no one would have expected the crash to be so severe.

But I’m not sure if the series in India is a true reflection of where Australian cricket is at.

Winning in India has, throughout our proud cricketing history, been the toughest of challenges, even when the Aussies were at their strongest.

So even a series loss shouldn’t mean Australia is no longer the No.1 cricketing nation.

But if the team starts struggling to win at home — this summer’s home series against South Africa will be a huge test — or losing to lesser likes such as the West Indies or New Zealand, then critics will be right in saying Australia’s era of dominance is officially over.