For those who cared enough to follow the NatWest Series, the tournament ended in anticlimax when England and Australia played out a tie. But why was it called a tie? Both sides scored 196, that is true - but Australia was bowled all out while England only lost nine wickets. There's an easy way to break the deadlock and it's none other than the bleeding obvious.

England should have won the NatWest Series final by virtue of losing less wickets. Even Ricky Ponting initially thought that was the case. It's so damn logical, so why doesn't the ICC use that criterion? Just another demonstration of the worthlessness of wicket-taking in this instant-gratification "more runs equals more excitement" mindset of the modern game.