REGARDING Neil Bramwell's article (LET, December 17) pointing out the weaknesses of the England Test team, I thought it quite funny of him to suggest that though putting Dame Edna Everage and Rolf Harris in the line-up would have weakened the Aussie team, they may have still scored more runs than the visitors' tailenders.

What is the difference between the teams? Both have talented players, so why the wide gap?

Could it be that commitment and belief are lacking? Could it be that too much emphasis is placed on being sporting and generous in defeat?

To the Australians it appears to be: Win at all costs and never give a sucker an even break.

They seem to take the game by the scruff of the neck and refuse to let go. When you show any sign of weakness, they go on the attack and push on.

Although the likes of McGrath and Fleming and Co are good, some of our sides have faced as good, if not better and overcome them - Lindwall, Lillie and Thompson for instance.

It takes more than just skill to win at the highest level. Some of our players seemed reluctant to come to the wicket - as if one pad was fastened to both legs. It seems strange then we can compete favourably in the one-day game and attack the same bowlers with success, but in the longer Test matches it's more a matter of survival and trying not to get out, more often than not to no avail.

England can and must do better if they are to be a force in world cricket.

K SOWERBUTTS, Southwood Drive, Baxenden.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.