Last throw for weary England

World Cups, with their cyclical occurrence, should be a point at which a team is performing at its zenith, tactics and line-up honed and perfected over a four year gestation period. At the end of this tournament, barring an unlikely England triumph - the ultimate golden sticking plaster - the usual platitudes will be rolled out. We will be assured how the team and the management will endeavour to "build for the next one", the same tawdry line that has been re-heated three times ever since Sri Lanka painfully blew them out of the tournament, and into the modern era, in 1996.

Yet the four years spent building for 2007 has produced a team clouded in doubt: they don't know who should be opening the batting, or the bowling for that matter. There is the thorny issue of a captain, with whom the comparisons with Mike Brearley have never been more prescient (for the wrong reasons) and a spinner meant to be the best our best since Derek Underwood, being made to bowl like the man whom he succeeded in the role, Mike Yardy. Add to that the fact that the star all-rounder is batting about as well as the aforementioned spinner and you begin to understand why this is a team which is left in the unenviable position of needing to beat three Test teams on the bounce (by the way, in case you're wondering, England's last three World Cup wins against Test Nations span 5 tournaments).

A year ago, during the tour of India, Duncan Fletcher pronounced that he knew 10 of his preferred 11 for the forthcoming tournament, (for the record, the ten would have been: Trescothick, Strauss, Vaughan, Collingwood, Pietersen, Flintoff, G.Jones, Giles, S.Jones, Harmison, ) the only doubt being over the No.9 position, where they were still to find a strike bowler capable of swinging the bat (Flintoff anyone?). Of that 10, just half made it to the Caribbean, with one of them, Strauss, not as first choice.

It is the names at the head and foot of that list which have proved the greatest losses. Trescothick has long been England's one reliable one-day performer; he was the man to get England off to a fast start, also possessing the ability to milk and slog the spinners in the middle overs. His 11 centuries easily outweigh the number scored by the entire touring squad. Harmison, on the other hand, was not exactly Mr.Dependable; he was, however, a bona-fide strike bowler, able to pick up wickets with the new ball and then return to winkle one out in mid-innings. In short, they were England's two gamebreakers, who led the attack in their respective roles. Yet neither came close to making the final 15. One cannot criticise Trescothick, whose problems are myriad and mystery, although the timing and nature of his comeback innings, slaughtering a Devonian bowling attack for over 250, put the failings of England's top order in a very cruel, albeit realistic light. Harmison could be there, returning to spearhead a misfiring attack on the pitches where he found glory 3 years ago. But after a year where he struggled for consistency with the white ball, he threw in the towel and shied away from the battle. A month later, when made to face his failings with ball in hand at the Gabba, he was shown to be unfit for the task, and the career of a fast bowler who had it in him to be great may be slipping into the shadows.

Unless there is a remarkable turnaround in fortunes, England's World Cup campaign faces a similar fate. The top order has not produced once when it has mattered; Ian Bell booked his place with an assured 70 against the Australians, although England are have four options as to who partners him (put another way, they haven't got a clue). Joyce, Strauss and Vaughan have all failed repeatedly, although it is likely one of them will get the spot. Most probably, the captain will plod on, hoping to find a sucker willing to give him the even break he is in desperate need of. It has been mooted that England should send out of form Flintoff to replace him at the top, with Vaughan slotting in down the order. England have two different ways they can try and use Flintoff as a batsman: either he does go in as opener (Can he do any worse, they cry) with license to wreak havoc in the powerplay. Failing that, they ought to keep him back until after the 40th over, to add impetus to the end of the innings. What needs to be avoided is him being exposed to good spin bowling in a delayed powerplay situation, where there is a compulsion to attack. Should they persist in sending him in at four down against Bangladesh, he is going to be subjected to trial by left-arm spin, and England will be wasting one of their two big hitters. Against Bangladesh, to avoid him coming in cold against the spinners, he may as well open with Bell, although this precludes Pietersen coming in at 3, both as it makes England's batting too top-heavy with hitters, and also because it increases the chance that they will have to bat together, a situation in which they rarely appear to be fighting the same cause.

One can only hope that the selectors recognise that Mahmood has frittered away any favour he might have gained against Sri Lanka with another guileless display against the Aussies. Plunkett would be the obvious replacement, although with Stuart Broad having joined the squad, they might as well throw him in. It is very doubtful he will do any worse, and the addition of a fresh face may just be the kick England need to put them back on track. A long shot maybe, but the time has come for England to gamble.