The long and winding road.

Rebuilding; restructuring; building for the future; working towards the next World Cup; evolution without revolution; finding a new direction. Is that all? Probably not, but then you can't really blame the likes of David Graveney for having a lot of ways of saying the same thing after three consecutive world cups where England have bombed out. Put simply, England have a crap one-day side, and haven't has a good one since 1992 when they contested the World Cup final. The approach of the team is like a student who has four years to prepare for an important exam and crams in all the revision with a week to go. When your two best players made their debuts months before the tournament and even during it, a high-water mark of incompetence has been reached.

But just as fans are ever hopeful of success despite a damning record, so the wind of change brings with it renewed expectations. The presence of a new coach in Peter Moores would have been enough to whet the appetite, but the resignation of Vaughan, who had become something of a lame-duck captain in the one-day game, heightened anticipation. Kevin Pietersen rather spoiled the fun by pulling out of the captaincy running the day before, although in reality Paul Collingwood was elected unopposed. It will be interesting to see how the Durham man, popularly portrayed as the most trenchant of foot-soldiers, reacts to his elevation. He has limited captaincy experience and will have to learn on what is a rather unforgiving job of leading a side in the 50-over game. With Vaughan to remain as test captain, Collingwood is a safe option in that he will not rock the boat and will be happy to slip back into the ranks when England revert to tests in July. The danger is that the addition of a fourth duty to the man who is already fulcrum of the batting; important back-up bowler; and outstanding fielder will impair his contribution as a player, something England cannot afford to let happen.

While Collingwood's appointment as captain was one of the more predictable parts of today's squad announcement, there were a few diversions from the well-worn path. The least sign-posted move was the selection of Wawrickshire's Jonathan Trott, a blood on carpet merchant who possesses an exceptional List A average of over 41. The fact that he is South African born and eligible only on a British passport will have cricket's blue-rinse brigade up in arms, but he has clearly been brought in to spice up the top 3, hopefully at one wicket down rather than opener.

One of those positions will be filled by Alistair Cook, thus far restricted to just a brace of ODI appearances, but given the chance to prove he has the shots he hides under a bushel in test cricket. His partner will be the cause of some debate; Matt Prior, whose ideal position would probably be rabble-rouser at 7, might be employed in the position he has now vacated for Sussex. However Prior may not be so willing, which would leave a choice between Bell, Shah and Trott, for different reasons all unsuited to opening. It may not be the long term route, but, for this series at least, Prior should open in lieu of Marcus Trescothick who could well return for the longer series against India in late summer. At least in trialling Prior, England would be exploring what could be a long-term option, whereas the deployment of Shah, Bell or Trott would be an open admission that England have no better course than to twiddle their thumbs and wait for Trescothick to declare himself ready.

A top 3 of Cook, Prior and Trott is about the right mixture of tap and tonk, with the test opener acting as anchor for the others to tee off. Pietersen and Collingwood, about the only two to pick themselves in position, would follow to make a quintet which has potential lacking in similar edifices of past XIs. The loss of Ravi Bopara to compound the absence of Andrew Flintoff rather knocks the stuffing out of the lower-middle order, leaving Bell and Shah to fight over the slot at 6. If they were, as they would no doubt prefer, the shirt at first drop, Bell's greater ability to deal against the moving ball would probably rule in his favour. However, in the rather more rowdy ambiance of the lower order, Shah's more streetwise and maverick approach will probably win him selection.

Flintoff's injury and the necessity for Prior to play up the order mean that England are short of regulars to balance the lower order effectively. Defnitely a tardy selection and hopefully one which has not come too late is that of Hampshire's Dimitri Mascarenhas, a solid medium-pacer with an interesting selection of slower-balls and capable of hitting a long-ball down the order. He should be perfect to fill the void at 8 and England will hope that his approach, reminiscent of successful one-day players of the last decade such as Ian Harvey, does not prove dated.

Two bowlers who can swing a bat, Liam Plunkett and Stuart Broad, have been included, but to expect one of them, almost certainly Plunkett, to bat at 8, with Mascerenhas one place higher is over ambitious and would be a long tail. That paves the way for the return of Michael Yardy, given another chance to change the lasting impression he made, which was one of fans and press alike querying why Philip Tufnell had been sent in to bat at 4 for England in the Champions Trophy way back in October. It was an unrealistic expectation for him to succeed in that position, and he should be more comfortable slotting in at 7 in this team and rattling through his overs, something he showed real promise in, with an impressive economy rate of 2.98 from his five matches.

Sidebottom and Anderson are certs to open the bowling, and the accurate swing bowling of England's new test star should prove an asset with the white ball, while Anderson, despite a middling World Cup, still has the ability, and has just begun to find his feet with Lancashire after a slow start to the county season. The final decision is whether to include Monty Panesar or another seamer in view of the likely presence of Yardy. In Panesar's favour is that he had an excellent test series and England need to give him plenty of practice at the one-day game, with the next World Cup a subcontinental affair. Then again, he has not been all too special in his one-day performances to date and the veracity of a second spinner is doubtful, even though he would be the primary slow bowler. If he didn't play, one of Liam Plunkett or Stuart Broad would have to, and surely the selection of Plunkett, despite an excellent showing with bat and ball for Durham in the semi-final, would be a risk in view of his patchy ODI record and poor form. Likewise, Broad has played little cricket, with the figures from his recent county games suggesting someone who is slowly finding their feet after injury and who should probably be protected from the international stage. A rock and a hard place for Moores and Collingwood to choose between then; but there will be plenty more of those to negotiate if they are to succeed where many others have failed and mould a successful English one-day team.