MIKE ATHERTON, about to captain England in a landmark game for him, stuck an old chestnut on the fire yesterday and renewed a call for the Lord's crowd to loosen its stays and get behind the team.

He, more than most, knows the catalytic effect that the tidal wave of genuine enthusiasm had on the team at Edgbaston. "When we went in to bat on the fourth evening," he said in the haze of the morning after, "it was always our intention to be positive in chasing a low target. But not to score at five an over. The adrenalin from the crowd was so strong that I found myself playing shots I never knew I had. It was exhilarating."

From the horse's mouth, then, the crowd did more "than help: it inspired.

Now comes Lord's. "I'd like to hear good vocal support in this match," said Atherton. "Not booing the opposition, we don't want that. But noise is good. It lifts the guys." He might as well ask Mother Teresa to stand up in a karaoke bar and sing New York, New York. It's not the done thing.

The Lord's Test, like those other June distractions at Wimbledon and Ascot, is less a sporting event than an occasion. Unlike Edgbaston, say, or Trent Bridge, it is a Bollinger-quaffing, smoked salmon part of the social calendar.

By 10 a.m. this morning, the Coronation Garden behind the Warner Stand will be a patchwork of tartan rugs on which to picnic long into an afternoon where the game becomes an incidental. It is a feast, and an immovable one at that.

But while the crowd purrs, and the applause ripples gently, England, historically, have struggled. Only once this century, we are constantly reminded, have they beaten Australia on this ground, and that was 63 years ago.

It is worse than that, however. In the past to years, England have lost eight times, were saved only by the weather against New Zealand and West Indies, and have won just four times, including twice against Sri Lanka in more formative years.

Only Headingley, with six losses against three wins and two draws, is a more inhibiting ground for them. Put another way, England have lost 25 per cent more games at these two grounds in a decade than on the other four grounds combined during the same time. Edgbaston and The Oval by contrast are relatively happy hunting grounds.

Now there may be perfectly rational explanations for this. Lord's, for example, comes at that stage when the wrinkles are beginning to be ironed out of a tour and the visitors tend to play better in any case. The Oval, on the other hand, as the final Test of the summer, may catch tourists with little to play for and off guard, while there are generally English touring places up for grabs.

There is little doubt though that the very nature of Thomas Lord's acres of St John's Wood provides inspiration for visiting teams over and above that upon which England players can draw.

Atherton admits as much. "Australians," he says, "play here once every four years, and some of them may not get another chance. They will be putting something extra in because it is Lord's." Imagine, for example, the sense of destiny that Paul Reiffel, who has not played a Test here, and who until to days ago was languishing back home, must be feeling.

It all, of course, raises the question as to why, if England notoriously have come out the blocks with the speed of Trevor rather than Donovan Bailey, do we continue to add succour to the opposition by apparently giving them extra impetus at this time.

In the interests of the success of the England team, should we not be shifting the Lord's Test, and perhaps swapping it with The Oval? It is not an idea that cuts much ice with the secretary of MCC, Roger Knight, who admits the subject has never been broached with him, not even by the new thrusting ECB.

"I think it would be very sad if that happened," he feels. "Perhaps we pay too much attention to precedent. It is an occasion, and I'm sure people would wish it to remain so.

"We surely wouldn't move Wimbledon fortnight, even if it was shown that it might enhance our chances of winning there."

So for now, it is up to England to raise their game; to try to draw the same inspiration from HQ as will Australia. They do have the advantage of coming into Lord's with a lead against Australia for the first time since 1985, and that in itself will help to offset any historical doubts.

"I've stressed to the team that the Aussies will be upping their game a notch or two - which they tend to do at Lord's in any case - and that we'll have to do the same," Atherton said.

Unless the medium-range weather report is a complete red herring, the game can expect serious disruption from showers, so in spite of a pitch - one of Mick Hunt's relaid ones that promises to be unyielding despite signs of cracking, the chances are that Phil Tufnell will be sidelined again.

In a full match, that may not have been the case. The Australians, for their part, will be making one change from Edgbaston and that enforced by the injury to Jason Gillespie; so Reiffel fulfills an ambition.

But there is still pressure, in particular on Mark Taylor to show that his Edgbaston century was a return to form rather than a throwback, like Mike Gatting's emotional hundred in Adelaide three years ago; on Shane Warne to show that his wearing shoulder can be overcome; and on Michael Bevan to show that his batting can warrant a place even if his bowling degenerates.

The draw must be favourite, but for Australia it remains an occasion to savour. For England it is time to lay a ghost.