These exaggerated performances, played from the top of joyful mountains, and from valleys of gloom, illustrate the problem that haunts the national team and their followers. You never know where you are with England, whether they are on the right road or about to throw themselves off the cliff, and you wonder if they know either.

It does not help that an extraordinary amount of players have been chosen by the selectors during the 1990s. Since Ian Botham and David Gower, those truly special talents, lost their gloss, the search should have been on for balance and for brightness. But the work ethic sneaked in and replaced free spirits, which are imperative to cricket, with an array of presentable county cricketers who could not hope to influence Test matches.

Through television exposure, ordinary players became stars, whatever that may mean, and through sponsorship and television money they have been able to earn more than just a decent buck, so staying in the team becomes more important than winning matches.

This is obviously not the case with all the cricketers who have played for England during this time but it takes just two or three, and there have certainly been that many, to rot the core of a team's commitment. If self-interest prohibits collective self-belief in the means, there won't be much of an end. This most recent choice of England team was as close to the best available as makes little difference. Equally, it was pretty much the toughest and the most self-confident, with what it was prepared to press urgently for a sufficient lead on Sunday afternoon and why Alec Stewart was able to tell them that he had decided to declare before play yesterday morning, come what may, without the risk of raised eyebrows or a grumble of self-doubt.

Had yesterday gone ahead, Edgbaston would not have been a place for faint hearts and clearly Stewart did not think he had any. It may be that in one match the selectors and the new captain have gone a long way in eliminating the fear of failure from the dressing room. In doing so, they may have allowed them to express the talent that is surely there in a group of pretty good cricketers with whom the selectors should now persevere, using the class of Graeme Hick and the wicket-taking potential of Ed Giddins as their back up. Maybe, too, they should replace Mark Ealham with a more incisive type of cricketer, a leg-spinner like Ian Salisbury or a livelier seamer such as Dean Headley.