From Apoorv Tiwari, India

Virender Sehwag ensures there is never a dull moment when he is at the crease © AFP

The game of cricket, one could easily be led to believe, is at a crossroads. The longest format of the game, once unparalleled in its ability to blend finesse with brashness, gentility with hostility, seems to be losing its aura. While it remains a format dearest to most cricketers, it just does not seem as captivating as it used to be. The other, diametrically opposite format, while exhilarating at times, will always be viewed with skepticism because it seems to summarily negate the importance of traditional cricketing attributes.

The ODI format, which could have been a convenient middle path, has instead been thwarted by the other two formats. It is shorter than Test cricket, but too long for a day. It’s a better test of skill and character than Twenty20, but simply no match to the travails of Test cricket. Even a commercially successful World Cup hasn’t put to rest speculations on the future of ODIs. What then does cricket need to rediscover itself?

The game today appears to be suffering from a malaise that transcends format. Any sport, be it an individual or a team sport, owes its greatness to the personality of the individuals who play it. We've grown up hearing commentators hailing qualities such as gamesmanship, "team before self", "playing to win", which go on to ensure that the "game is the ultimate winner". While these may seem like overhyped platitudes in an increasingly competitive sporting environment, the truth is that anyone watching the game would always appreciate these attributes in players. No one would cease to follow the game if Sachin Tendulkar stops scoring hundreds, they would be disappointed every time he misses out, but would always tune in next time in the hope that he would succeed. On the contrary, a hundred like the one Angelo Matthews scored in the third Test against Australia would always do a disservice to the game, and even to the most ardent of Angelo's cricket fans.

Maybe the modern obsession with, and accessibility to, statistics is a factor, but modern cricketers seem a little too bothered about centuries, bans, fines, none of which serves to further the team's cause. Ricky Ponting's tactics on the fourth day of the final Test in Nagpur 2008, where he let India off the hook with some confounding bowling changes, are a case in point. MS Dhoni's decision to abandon the pursuit of a more-than-achievable target in Dominica and Dinesh Chandimal's century against England in an ODI recently are also recent examples of poor advertisements of the game.

Another issue that seems to be plaguing the game is the frequency of cricket matches. Today, cricket matches are played by fatigued players, and watched, if at all, by a fatigued audience. A direct, albeit lesser obvious, consequence of this fatigue has been the visible lack of variety in cricketing talent, as well as characters. The whole experience of watching cricket today is far more mechanical, far less poetic. Even so, honourable exceptions do exist, such as Virender Sehwag. His style of cricket may seem exasperating and unfulfilling to some, but no one can deny the fact that he embodies several qualities that make him unique and endearing. He might not be a natural athlete, but don’t we have enough of those already? He never slows down in the 90s, enjoys the success of his team-mates, is jovial, and most importantly, always seems to be playing to win.

One can be fairly certain that Sehwag would have certainly attempted to chase down the target in Dominica. Some would argue that it is the only way Sehwag can be successful, but even if that were true, it does not undermine the fact that he is a rare breed in modern cricket. Amid the increasing dullness around him, Sehwag ensures there is never a dull moment while he occupies the crease. It’s his approach to the game that makes him so watchable. Everyone, of course, cannot be a Sehwag. But the game today could do with some spice and colour. Not in a perfunctory manner from IPL cheerleaders, but from people who play the game.

From Tim Wigmore, United Kingdom

Eleven cricketers who stood out in the recently-concluded County Championship season

Michael Carberry's return was one of the stories of the summer © Getty Images

Marcus Trescothick

Imperious as ever, Trescothick scored 290 more runs than the next best in either Division, despite missing three games to a cruel injury. His dominance was such that it became a cliché to describe him as batting on a different pitch from everyone else.

Michael Carberry

Though it wasn’t enough to keep Hampshire in Division One, Carberry’s return, after fears his career was over, was one of the stories of the summer. Against Yorkshire, he hit an unbeaten 300, displaying the range of shots and concentration that earned him an England Test cap only 18 months ago, while his brilliant last-day century against Warwickshire denied them the title.

Chris Rogers

Brought in to average over 50 and lead a side that finished eighth in division two in the previous two seasons to promotion, Rogers made the twin challenges seem easy.

Dale Benkenstein

There was no third Championship win in four years for Durham, but Benkenstein’s excellence remained unabated: only Trescothick exceeded his 1353 Division One runs. Long established as his side’s crisis man, Benkenstein’s experience as captain was a valuable aid for Phil Mustard.

Zander de Bruyn

In a Surrey top six that is as gung-ho as they come, de Bruyn provides stickability, and two hundreds and two fifties in the last three games allowed Surrey to claim a remarkable promotion. Somerset fans, not unreasonably, will feel they might just have won the Championship had he not been lured to The Oval.

Jonny Bairstow

In an otherwise bleak season for Yorkshire, Bairstow’s excellence, culminating in a memorable England ODI debut, provided some solace. Attractive and calm in front of the stumps, he scored his runs at a strike-rate – 69 – that few top-order batsmen could match. With the gloves Bairstow improved but is not yet the equal of his late father.

Will Gidman

With one first-class appearance before the season began, not many bookmakers would have bet on Gidman becoming the first man for 15 years to score 1000 Championship runs and take 50 wickets. But do that he did, and with a batting average (45) more than double his bowling one (21). A late developer at 26, Gidman deserves selection into the England Lions team.

Glen Chapple (captain)

It’s not only sentimentality that earns Chapple a place in this side; his achievement in lifting the pennant without stars ensures he leads. At 37, his canny fast-medium bowling was effective enough to claim 55 wickets at under 20, despite often not being fully fit. Though he was uncharacteristically short of runs, Lancashire would not have won the Championship without his 97 in their penultimate game.

Tim Murtagh

Unlucky to never represent England (though he may still play for Ireland), Murtagh’s best season yet propelled Middlesex to promotion. Eighty wickets in 15 matches highlight his ability, which is especially good with the new ball, as a three-wicket burst in 16 balls against Derbyshire also illustrates.

David Masters

Lazy cricket writers have spent years describing Masters as a “nagging seamer” and “journeyman”, but he forced them to be rather more imaginative after claiming 93 wickets. Masters’ mastery of the Tiflex ball and constant ability to seam it was never more evident than when he claimed 8 for 10 against Leicestershire.

Gary Keedy

The mark of Keedy’s bowling is that his left-arm spin is almost as effective in April as in August, while his parsimony (giving away just 2.5 an over) means Lancashire never lost control in the field. His 4 for 57 from 28 overs in the first innings of the victory at Taunton perfectly encapsulated his qualities.

From Alex Braae, New Zealand

Is there something unworthy about a No. 1 side being solid and dependable, at the expense of being supremely and unpredictably talented © Getty Images

England are the deserving world leaders of test cricket. Such a simple sentence, but one that has been uttered so infrequently in the wake of their demolition of India. Why is this? Perhaps it has something to do with the way this England side are seen to be, as Andrew Miller put it "ruthlessly competent". For some reason, this appears to be something of a denigration as well as a plaudit, to be competent implies that a spark of genius or greatness is missing.

England's bowlers put the ball in the right areas, nick batsmen out in the slips and trap them LBW, without creating extraordinary moments or unplayable deliveries. Their batsmen play solid, percentage cricket, without being the swashbuckling adventurers seen in recent years in India's team. The hallmark of England's batting is the flick to midwicket for a single. But what is wrong with this?

There is a sense among cricket commentators that there is something unworthy about a No. 1 side being solid and dependable, at the expense of being supremely and unpredictably talented. We like to think of Test cricket as being the ultimate long-form sport, yet the heroes of the game are those who turn a match in 20 minutes of magic. Sehwag scoring a century before lunch. Steyn ripping out the top order. This is absolutely not what cricket is really about, something that this England side has recognised. When we think of the last great Australian side, the first name to come to mind is Shane Warne, the bowler who has been hit for the most sixes in Test cricket, but who also had the potential to win any game on the fifth day.

The men who deserve the credit from that team though are the likes of Steve Waugh or Glenn McGrath, the real engines of that winning side. McGrath would put the ball on the right spot for days on end. Waugh would square his jaw and will himself through adversity. In short, they were winners. This England team is a side full of winners. They deserve to be No. 1 because they understand exactly what winning in the longest sport entails.

The reason India looked so abject in this series was simple, England had the firmer hand and steelier gaze. Let's not forget, this Indian side contained players who were truly spectacular, players who have a reputation for explosive brilliance. However, they couldn't handle the pressure of a side who came at them relentlessly day after day.

India worked hard on day 1 of the first Test, and so did England. With Zaheer, Sharma, and Kumar all bowling well, the series appeared to be reasonably even. It was an illusion. England showed straight away why they would not lose. They gritted their way through a tough day, and backed up quickly enough to wrench the game out of India's grasp over the next few days. Much has been made of India's ability to bounce back, but the series was in truth already over.

The No. 1 Test side should be the team which takes the longest amount of pressure before buckling. Without a doubt, the team that best fits this bill is currently England. English fans would do well to enjoy this period, it can't last forever. In the meantime though, cricket fans worldwide should salute a team who define test cricket, through their grit, resolve and perseverance.