Cricket Any England cricket fan with even the shortest of memories is probably still grateful for a win of any kind, but as Andy Flower's team look set to become the number one team in the world, it looks like it is now getting to the stage when we can be a bit more picky. Alastair Cook is quite rightly taking all the plaudits after yesterday's near-triple century. He has gradually tightened England's stranglehold over India over the last two days as he pushed and prodded his way to 294. There is no doubt that the cricket purist can admire Cook's work and anyone can admire the score he amassed, but the casual Test match viewer would probably rather see the likes of Kevin Pietersen, Eoin Morgan and co. hitting India's bowlers around the park. There are probably crude comparisons to be drawn with football and the style of play of a team like Barcelona against a stereotypical Sam Allardyce side 'winning ugly'. The difference with cricket is that - while in football Barcelona are the standard-bearers for 'playing the game the right way' and entertaining the public, and Allardyce represents the effectiveness of playing the percentages - Cook arguably has not only the moral high-ground in terms of the traditions of the game but also plays the most effective style. The entertainment aspect is the missing component. In terms of England's current success, the reason the team is doing so well is down to the fact that there is a healthy mix of players that can play both ways, and well down the order. But working to the assumption that you can be choosy, would you prefer to see England batting once and batting long where possible in Test matches to force the opposition into weary submission? Or would you prefer closer matches and a few more fireworks?