On the day that England qualified for the final of the Commonwealth Bank Series, it’s time to look back at their tour Down Under with a sense of realism. They were blown away in the Test series, one of the most one-sided Ashes battles ever seen - and any improbable victory in the three one-day finals against Australia won’t change that. However, the hard-fought victories over New Zealand bring some hope for the future and the World Cup.

Predictably the knives have been out for coach Duncan Fletcher, some brandished by ex-professionals, some by experienced cricket writers, many by supporters. Writing on The Guardian website, Andy Bull claimed: “The England coach's judgment is beginning to look flawed, and we need to look for a man who can carry the national side into the future.”

It seems that in this country we have short memories. It is the sustained success that Fletcher has brought to English cricket that led to such high hopes before the series. Under Fletcher, England have enjoyed one of their most successful periods. Leading up to the 2005 Ashes, they went 17 matches unbeaten, winning 14 and drawing three.

Under Fletcher's tutelage England have been over-achieving, but no coach can keep winning with inferior players. Only Andrew Flintoff from the current squad would get into the Australian side - and that is not the fault of Fletcher.

Some of the criticisms of Fletcher are based on the selection of Ashley Giles instead of Monty Panesar, and in hindsight Andrew Strauss may have been a better selection as captain. The build-up and structure of the tour didn’t go well and was poorly planned. Not enough time to acclimatise, and not enough warm-up matches for the players to find some form. These were minor mistakes, ones that shouldn’t have been made but ones that had no impact on the eventual outcome.

The real reason for the defeat is two-fold. Firstly, the Australians have some of the greatest players of their generation - there’s not a lot that can be done about that except to admire them and be grateful that in our generation we have witnessed a sporting genius like Shane Warne.

The second reason, where something can and needs to be done, concerns the structure of county cricket. This is a problem that blights British sport. We have dated structures run by dated organisations that are stuck in the past. Sometimes it's best to look at other nations and hand-pick what they do well, rather than continue on your merry way, thinking you know best.

When compared to state cricket in Australia, it is clear to see that English county cricket is inferior, the standard is lower and the players produced are of a lesser quality. The system in England has too many teams spreading the talent thin - and by lowering the number of teams through the playing of regional cricket, each side would be stronger. By having fewer games, of a higher standard, players will be fitter and skill levels enhanced.

The defeat in Australia should act as a wake-up call to those in charge of English cricket. The solution shouldn’t be the predictable and all-too-common response to sporting defeat -  the sacking of the coach. The ECB should respond by improving the domestic game which produces Test players. Then, and only then, will England be able to consistently take on Australia and win.

How much do you think the county system influences the England Test team's performances? Send your views to Sportingo.