You're quite right Dayvo, and that's why the performance of the England team across all forms of the game has been so lamentably woeful over the last few years. They've hardly won a game, have they? Let alone something really important, like an Ashes series.
Fair point, SRW, achieving no.1 ranking is definitely not a bad effort. TBH, though, I'm not concerned with one-day/T20 cricket (entertaining as it is). Test cricket is (IMO) the monitor of skill and supremacy.
The Ashes series of 2005 could have gone either way, but England, overall, were, marginally, the stronger team throughout the series.
The 2006/07 5-0 drubbing by Australia showed that we hadn't developed and had become arrogant and nonchalent.
Back in England in 2009 (after losing several major players to retirement) Australia lost the final deciding Test and England regained the Ashes.
Only the 2010/11 series did England
thoroughly outplay Australia (with Alastair Cook playing himself into the book of Ashes legends).
England became the world no.1 in August last year: they then managed to lose 3-0 to Pakistan five months later. Then they struggled to a draw against Sri Lanka (with Pietersen scoring 193 for once out in winning the 2nd Test) in the early spring of 2012.
England beat a poor West Indies side this summer, then followed it up with a resounding defeat to South Africa, who took over the world no.1 title.
My point is, England are not as good as statistics make them out to be. As the world no. 1 Test team, they didn't win a series (except against a hitherto-mentioned poor West Indies team).
I'll declare there!