It may be one day cricket rather than test cricket being played now, but England are still struggling in the West Indies.

Defeat in the Twenty20 followed by an extremely fortunate win in the first ODI due to the Windies being unable to add up properly and then another routine defeat. At the moment it doesn't appear to matter who the coach is, or indeed who the captain is. The results aren't changing. But should England have a coach at all?

The most successful time in English cricket recently was the 18 months up to, and including the 2005 Ashes series, something that has been talked to death in this country. When Duncan Fletcher and firstly Nasser Hussein, and then Michael Vaughan led England to victory after victory. But then the wheels slowly started to come off. A stumble in the winter of 2005/6 followed by the disastarous Ashes tour in 2006/7 saw the end of Fletcher and the arrival of Peter Moores, a man who would not just rely on the same players again and again.

Well I think after the 18 months or so he had as coach, its safe to say he didn't do the job well enough. OK he wasn't helped by injures but I don't think he was good enough to be coach of the national side. His leadership didn't seem to be there and his relationship with Kevin Pietersen finally finished him off.

So should England have a coach at all?

I think there is a requirement for a coach of the national side. Other nations have improved with the arrival of coaches, so why can't England? The problem is finding the right one who is good enough to lead an international side. Now I have no idea who is out there that could do the job, however there must be somebody willing to help the team become a force again. The right coach should be able to provide experience and guidance to the players as well as improve their technique and how to deal with the opposition. And a coach and captain working together can work wonders. The Fletcher/Vaughan partnership is a very good example of that.

If it happened before, it can happen again.

The problem with F1

Another new season for Formula 1. Another new set of rules for everyone to try and understand. And just when you think you've got it, it's all change again...with nine days to go.

Since a certain Michael Schumacher turned Formula 1 from an exciting spectacle to a Sunday afternoon procession, the FIA have constantly meddled with the sport to ensure that nobody dominates it in the same way ever again.

I can see their point. Nobody wants to tune into to watching cars follow each other with the chances of overtaking being the same as trying to overtake an OAP in a Volvo on a twisty B-road.

However it seems they're doing too much. The change to current points scoring system for the 2003 season definately made for some much closer title battles, especially that past two seasons going right down to the wire. But why change it again? This idea that the driver who wins the most races over a season should win, I can see the logic, but in my mind consistancy should win the championship.

Formula 1 is about the results of the season. The Premiership isn't decided by the team that wins the most matches even if they have less points than the team that came top. So why should Formula 1?

We'll have to see how the new aero-regulations affect races. As long is it makes overtaking more likely, then I'm all for it. It is a massive shake up and produced a wide variety of cars, from the attractive to the plain ugly.

One thing that has not changed for this season (shock horror) is the qualifying system. So many different formats have been tried over the past six years, rather than old fashioned do 12 laps each, fastest lap gets pole. That was simple. Then someone decided that we should have qualifying on a Friday to decide the order that everyone gets to qualify for the grid on a Saturday. Why? And using different fuel loads. How confusing is that? Then endless changes after that, some mid-season!

Formula 1 fans have a hard job trying to understand all these changes. And for a sport which has increased in popularity since the arrival of Lewis Hamilton, new fans will be put off by the annual rewrite of the rule book.

And this latest farce could detract from what could be a vintage year of racing.

Long way home

I’m sitting here writing this on a train between Manchester and London. It wasn’t my intended journey home, but there you go. A power failure at Preston has meant no trains in and around Preston for most of today.

And ok you won’t be able to read this until I get home, due to me being unable to get Wi-Fi working; it’s giving me something to do.

A lot of people in this country moan about the trains. I admit, after a £6bn upgrade of the West Coast Main Line a power failure of this scale around the Preston area shouldn’t happen, we just have to get on as best we can.

This is what Virgin, and indeed the other train operators into Preston, have done. And done it well.

I decided to travel home earlier than planned, as I had no idea how long it would take to get home, and the idea of getting home at gone midnight didn’t appeal. So I arrived about 3.20 at Preston station. Straight away I was told which coach to get for the first stage of my journey. This left pretty much as I sat down and we were off towards Manchester.

We were originally supposed to head to Manchester by coach, however they clocked that entering Manchester in rush hour wouldn’t be clever. So when we made our stop in Bolton they explained what was going to happen and why. Train it was to Manchester.

This brings me on to the worst part of the journey. Standing on what can only be described as a bus on rails. Not pleasant at the best of times. Appreciated even less when you have a suitcase and backpack...as does everybody else!

Nevertheless we made it to Manchester and I’m now being whizzed towards the capital, although remember when you read this I will have made it home.

So a well done to the train companies for helping us get to our destinations as easily possible. We were always going to be disrupted, however an extra 90 minutes taken to get home is not as bad as it could have been.

One more thing. It was nice that despite all the disruption there seemed to be no angry people anywhere. Everyone accepted what was going on, and OK we would all prefer a straightforward journey home, people seemed to just get on with it. I chatted to a few people who seemed in good spirits despite the discomfort. I can’t see anyone around London being quite as understanding somehow...

Which is better? The North or the South? There's only one way to find out.FIIIIIGHT!!!!

I have been fascinated to read the articles in the student newspaper at UCLan this week about the North versus the South. It made me think about these two areas of England and which is better, if either.

Being a southerner living in the North now, I've certianly had to put up with my fair share of 'southern fairy' quips from people. I've never understood where this has come from. I'm pretty sure walking round certain streets of London you would find people who would really object to being called a fairy, and let you know about it!

I do find the people in the North though to be friendlier and more approachable than southerners. Certainly the area I come from, everyone power walks all the time with their head down giving off an impression of, 'get out of my way you bastards. Don't look at me or talk to me, just leave me alone so I can go and make a quick buck somewhere.'

Looking out of my bedroom window as a kid watching middle aged men in suits with briefcases head to the train station in the morning certainly gave off that impression.

The weather up in the North though is just rubbish the majority of the time. It rains a lot more than I'm used to. There's an old saying that summer comes soonest in the South, I reckon it's true! It's just wet here. I don't mind the rain, but it is a little miserable seeing those grey skies day after day.

I saw a comment on the UCLan student paper website where the person writing for the South tried to claim football for the South because of Oldham and Blackpool. Come off it, who are you kidding?! The most successful teams are northern, end of story. Manchester United and Liverpool are the most successful English teams ever. 35 league titles and 8 European Cups between them says it all. And do not say the Chelsea are a successful southern side. They were just good before Abramovich but never in the hunt for trophies season after season.

One of my northern friends said to me earlier, 'Lewis Hamilton' and then laughed. Yes, the south produced the current Formula 1 World Champion and his team, McLaren, which are the most successful British team in F1 second only to Ferrari who have been around twice as long.

How about music though?

If I had to chose I would take the music of the South over the North. As much as I like bands such as Stone Roses; Oasis; The Verve; The Beatles; The Smiths etc it can't, in my opinion, compete with the music of Queen; Led Zeppelin; The Who; Pink Floyd; The Police...I could go on...

So I shall.

The Kinks; Blur; Kasabian - yes they're a southern band according to research; The Clash; The Rolling Stones; Sex Pistols; The Jam and Paul Weller; T-Rex. That's quite a list.

And although Liverpool gave us the Beatles, it also meant that every concert where many artists join together (Live 8, Party At the Palace etc) is now cursed with endless fucking repeats of 'Na na na na na ,na na na, hey Jude...'. Thanks Liverpool!

Speaking of Liverpool. Does any city in the world possess a more annoying accent? I'm sure the people of Liverpool are lovely, in fact going by the ones I have met they are, but they accent does my head in. They all sound the same to me! all really high pitched and as if they got a mouthful of phlegm in their throats. Listening to an interview with Jamie Carragher or 'Stevie Gerrard' is just annoying.

It just about beats the Essex accent into top place as the most annoying accent.

Overall Liverpool is much better than Essex and East London. Yes welcome to the home of the 2012 Olympics. Hackney. Doesn't sound good. Of all areas of the South the could have picked, they chose there. It says a lot for somewhere when the Eurostar train dives under all of it rather than run along the surface. To be fair if I was a foreigner arriving in London the last place I'd want to see first a place where the most famous export is Eastenders.

Ah, television. I'd agree the North has the better soap opera. Coronation Street is streets ahead of Eastenders. I don't remember any popular sitcoms being filmed in Albert Square recently. Apart from that though I think television from the South is better. One of Britain's most popular shows, Top Gear, is filmed in Surrey. The evergreen Only Fools And Horses is a southern product. Excellent TV shows which will forever remain popular with the British people.

Anyway that's enough. I'm heading home soon and I know that summer will come soonest in the South. Yet despite the television and music, the South doesn't have the friendliness or the community that you get up in the North.

And I don't think the South can compete with scenes like this...

Where now for Pakistani cricket?

The attacks this week on the Sri Lankan cricket in Lahore have left the future of cricket in Pakistan in a delicate situation.

The sub-continent's most loved game faces an uncertain future in one of the best cricket nations in the world. A nation which is supposed to be hosting the 2011 Cricket World Cup along with India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.

It is extremely sad to see a sport, cherished by so many people in South Asia, being driven out by acts of terrorism completely unconnected to the sport.

International cricket in the sub-continent was already in the balance following last year's attacks on Mumbai - which very nearly ended England's tour of India - before a rearranged series took place, rejuvenating the country.

But Pakistan has a much deeper problem. The fact that militants from their nation were blamed for the acts of terrorism in India and now against the Sri Lankan cricket team means no team will visit their country for a long time to come.

The security around the Sri Lankan team will have to be examined closely. No attack, no matter how organised, should be able to inflict that much damage on a team. And the results could potentially have been far worse. This is why no side will tour Pakistan. Nobody is confident about the level of security visiting sides will have to ensure an attack like this will never happen again.

For now Abu Dhabi has offered itself as a host for Pakistan's forthcoming fixtures against Australia, New Zealand and England's next tour in 2010. The ground has already been used in limited overs matches but never test cricket. And although I'm sure the Pakistan players will be grateful to be able to play against the best sides in the world, it won't beat playing at packed stadiums in the home country.

Meanwhile the ICC will decide what the future holds for cricket in Pakistan. Any decision they make though will have to be thought out very carefully to ensure that it is the right one, not only for international cricket, but also for Pakistan.

What's going on with the England cricket team?

Watching the England team draw the penultimate test match in Barbados I find myself asking, what happened to the team that beat Australia in 2005?

When England won the Ashes in 2005 there were the 2nd best side in the world, having won in South Africa and beaten the West Indies home and away. They should have kicked on from there to try and overtake Australia as the best side in the world, they certainly had the players.

However if anything, the opposite has happened. England have struggled with injuries and what feels like a different captain leading the side in each series.

Since the 2005 Ashes Michael Vaughan, Marcus Trescothick, Andrew Flintoff, Andrew Strauss and Kevin Pietersen have all led the team with varying degrees of success. And this winter's tour of the West Indies has highlighted how the England team have stood still while all the others have progressed. A side that England beat 3-0 when they last visited in 2004 are 1-0 up with one match to play, although the state of the pitches has not helped.

If anyone is a better example of England's downward turn it is Steve Harmison. A bowler who after the 2004 of the Caribbean was ranked number one in the world after taking 23 wickets in the four match series including a sensational 7-12 in Sabina Park. He is now 29 in the world, below Matthew Hoggard who hasn't played international cricket in over a year.

Such erratic form from players such as Harmsion, Ian Bell and whoever the wicket keeper is in any particular match (it changes so often it's impossible to keep up, but they all seem to be the same) and endless injuries means that England constantly have to chop and change meaning the team cannot progress.

How can you know what your best side is when you have to change every match?

Watching England struggle to win in the West Indies, a place they won so comfortably in five years ago, is sad to see. And with Australia coming back this summer they need to sort their act out very quickly.

Let's hope England can use the Ashes as a starting point for future success, as they should have done four years ago.