World Cup select XI

Matthew Hayden (Aus): Quite simply the best batsman of the tournament. His tally of 659 runs was over 100 more than anyone else achieved; likewise no-one matched his three centuries. After his position was questioned during the CB series, it has been some recovery. His highest score by an Australian in ODI cricket in the lead-up to the World Cup confirmed his place and he set on his way with a blistering century against South Africa aided by the easy conditions at St.Kitts. Constantly advanced down the pitch to bowlers of all pace, with nobody immune from being launched over the long-on boundary. Just when the opening bowlers felt it was safe to come out again...

Sanath Jayasuriya (SL): Even at 37, he is one of the most feared openers in the one-day game, and he showed why, producing his runs at nearly a run a ball. Width is what he thrives on, and no amount of coaching and biomechanics seems able to produce a unit of bowlers which deny it him. 7 wickets and an economy rate of under 4.5 show that his bowling is as niggardly as ever; when you add that to his immense batting ability and the fact that it was he who changed the one-day game in 1996, there is a compelling argument for him to be seen as the greatest ever one-day cricketer. There will be more attacking openers capable of dismantling attacks, but one feels there may never be another Jayasuriya.

Ricky Ponting (Aus): Do we have to? Yes we do. The best batsman on the planet, his contribution seemed slight with all the attention lavished on the man above hm in the batting order. Still, the statistics, which show him to be the third highest run-getter of the tournament demand his inclusion as much as his reputation does. Still only 32, he has been kingpin for a few years now, and it will only be after the next World Cup when he might consider letting up.

Mahela Jayawardene (SL): Until Gilchrist produced the sort of innings that Australians tend to in World Cup finals, Jayawardene's matchwinning knock in the semi against New Zealand was the standout contribution of the tournament. It may have not had the explosive quality of a bash by Hayden or Gilchrist, but he held his side together at a time when they were reeling and guided them to a near untouchable position in a game of massive importance. It was living proof that there is more than one way to play ODI cricket, and one of those which defines the term "captain's innings". He does not just get in on the strength of that one knock; as second highest run scorer and captain of a side which reached the final, his selection is more than justified.

Kevin Pietersen (Eng): Pips Michael Clarke at the post, mainly due to the fact that he fought almost a lone hand and scored 2 centuries whereas the Australian managed none. Very few play the one-day game better than him, reflected by his no.1 ranking and he showed it playing imperiosuly at almost every visit to the crease. Mostly he was his own undoing, with a number of lazy flicks finding midwicket, but his focus is much better than when he first burst onto the scene. The worry is that he realises his importance is such that he has to rein himself in.

Scott Styris (NZ): The mainstay of New Zealand's batting, he was probably the surprise performer of the tournament producing innings which were both attacking and crucial. Much like Pietersen, the hopes of his team rested with him all too often, but he coped well for the best part, finishing as one of the highest run scorers as well as having one of the best averages. His bowling was also better than expected, with 9 cheap wickets enhancing his reputation as a genuine all-rounder. Jacques Kallis pushes him close, but in the final reckoning, Kallis bottled it on the two occasions where he needed to step up and his bowling returns were unimpressive.

Adam Gilchrist (Aus): The wicket-keeping slot was proving a difficult slot to fill for much of the tournament. The star names, Sangakkara and Gilchrist had done well enough, without really living up to their reputations, while Niall O'Brien and Paul Nixon has boosted theirs without really demanding selection. Then Gilchrist changed everything. Some one-day innings, such as Jayawardene's semi-final effort, are masteries of craft and planning; others, such as Gilchrist's are simply sustained, unrelenting exhibitions of shot-making. His batting has indisputably declined since he was exposed in 2005, but he still has it in him to produce innings which very few are capable of. Only two have materialised this winter, here and at Perth during the Ashes, but both have been record breaking and breathtaking. As ever, his keeping was near faultless and utterly ignored.

Brad Hogg (Aus): Barely used during the CB series, and with 5 wicketless matches in the lead-up to the tournament, his inclusion in the squad was mainly due to the inability of Cameron White, a far superior batsman, to prove his worth as a leg-spinner capable of bowling his full allocation. White blew his chance, leaving Hogg as the perceived weak link in what looked an underpowered bowling attack. He proceeded to do much as he had in 2003, when he filled in for the banned Shane Warne, and surprise everyone; after four years on the one-day scene, still no-one can pick his chinaman googly, and his control and variation led him to a tally of 21 wickets, the fourth highest, and with an economy rate better than McGrath or Muralitharan. In his 37th year, it was more a farewell than an arrival, but with Warne gone and the young Australian spinners floundering in domestic cricket, an Australian summer of Test Matches is not out of the question.

Lasith Malinga (SL): Every major tournament, even one as uninspiring as this one, tends to unearth a new talent, let loose on the world stage. During two months short on glamour and excitement, the extravagent barnet and whipping round-arm action of Malinga proved a rare highlight. Npt the most incicisve with the new ball, he was most dangerous when returning mid-innings, where his reverse swing and pace plucked out even well-set batsmen. He had already made ripples, flummoxing New Zealand in 2004 and playing a big part in Sri Lanka's successful tour of England last year. But for an injury which lost him three matches in mid-tournament, he might well have finished leading wicket taker, but unlike the man who did, he will have more chances.

Muttiah Muralitharan (SL): There is not much which has not already been said about the man whom history will remember as the most successful bowler ever to play the game. Needless to say, Sri Lanka would not have got to the final without him, where the shortened format did not do him any favours. Now that Warne turns his arm over in Hampshire colours only, he has the world stage to himself, and one suspects that he will enjoy a few more years yet, and set a target of Test wickets which could well be one of cricket's few untouchable statistics.

Glenn McGrath (Aus): Having the last laugh has proved a feature of his cricketing dotage; first his 5-0 Ashes prediction was vindicated, while after a period in one-day cricket when for once he seemed to have no answers, and his non-selection for the World Cup was mooted in the Australian press, he bounced back in the only way he knows. Top wicket taker in a winning team is a neat microcosm of McGrath's career, which has coincided with a period of almost unrivalled Australian dominance, which would have been impossible without him. In the words of the great Keith Miller, he has reitred "when they were asking why did you, rather than why don't you?

Farcical end for tournament of sad farewells

Many things have been said about this World Cup, with the complimentary ones in the minority. Perhaps a fairer judgement is that it was a tournament of unsatisfactory goodbyes: before it all began (what seems a very long time ago) one of the selling points was that it presented the last chance to see the greats of the modern game bestride the world stage. That it did, but not as we would have wished; Sachin Tendulkar, so often king of World Cup cricket, departed before it all got going; Brian Lara, the greatest batsman of his day and a genuine great, got the reception he deserved but not the final act, run out at the non-striker's end. Inzamam left the field in tears, and, tragically, one of the greatest coaches was lost to the world forever.

In the same fashion, a truncated final, concluded with the sort of farcical situation only cricket can contrive, was not a proper end to a World Cup, although those more cynical might reflect that it was one fitting for the tournament we had. Once again, the ingredients were there, in the form of one special innings, setting up a run-chase which was simmering nicely until the rain clouds rolled in.

Sanath Jayasuriya and Kumar Sangakkara had played their hands beautifully after the early loss of Tharanga and at 123-1, the game looked set for a close finish. Not so. For the rain, which had earlier resulted in the first final to be of less than 50 overs, threatened again. Sri Lanka, although going well, were slightly behind the D/L rate, and were forced to charge early to avoid losing the game thanks to the impending rain. Ponting, a far improved captain since Michael Vaughan embarrassed him in 2005, cleverly tossed the ball to one of his part-timers, Michael Clarke, giving the batsmen license to have a dip. His hands tied, Jayasuriya attempted a shot he rarely plays, dancing down the wicket, and he duly played the price, his wicket sending the D/L par score spiralling away from Sri Lanka, and effectively ending the game.

It is a minor quibble, and one for once not caused by tournament organisers, but it was disappointing that Jayasuriya was not allowed to play the chase his way. It is still likely that Australia would have won, but a close finish may well have been in order. As it was, the only thing that the climax was close to was total darkness, as the umpires and match referee ignored the rule that the game was over after 20 overs of the Sri Lankan innings, and that there was no point or need to have the tournament concluded with three meaningless overs bowled by the Australian spinners to the Sri Lankan tail-enders (a spectacle endured to avoid having to return the next day).

While the final itself was an indeterminate affair, what is indisputable is that Australia were worthy winners. At no point did any team come close to matching them and it would have been a travesty if another team had walked off with the prize. When you consider that the winning XI was the guts of a side that had endured a long winter, with an Ashes series followed by an interminable run of ODI cricket, their freshness was extraordinary. England, who had suffered the same winter, looked tired and beaten as soon as they reached the Caribbean; not Australia, who belied their worst run of form in many a year, the loss of their No.1 ranking and No.1 strike bowler and the suspicions that it was a tournament too far for some and a tournament too soon for others, to dominate in a way even they have never achieved. Loath as I am to accept Glenn McGrath's analysis, his comment that they have improved in every World Cup since 1996 cannot be argued with. A final in '96 was followed by victory in '99, an undefeated tournament in '03 and a run in '07 where no-one came close to defeating them.

Many thought before the World Cup that this would be the point at which Australia's hegemony in one-day cricket would end. They pointed to their poor form, the strength of others and the structure of a tournament which should have required them to play each of the other top sides. McGrath takes his leave from international cricket a fulfilled man, his one of the few happy endings. There will be no more McGrath, no more Warne; on the evidence of the World Cup just gone, there will be more Australian dominance.

Anticipation lacking for long awaited end

It's been a strange old tournament; while there have been upsets, notably the progression of Ireland and Bangladesh at the expense of the subcontinental powers, the tournament has lacked excitement, with the desperately one-sided semi-finals doing little to justify the overlong preamble. The faults are many and well documented, but at least it has brought home the point that any ICC managed event is about as dull as a century partnerhsip between Chris Tavare and Matthew Hoggard would be. It is faintly extraordinary that they have managed to so comprehensively remove all the soul and joy assosciated with Caribbean cricket, but while they wave statistics around and proclaim a great success, those of sound mind can only reflect on a tournament with all the dramatic tension of a communist election.

Still, the protracted format has still produced the final that most people wanted; on the one hand, you have Australia, unbeaten since 1999, a veritable machine in one-day cricket which has had its problems in the last few years but has crucially produced the goods when needed, even lacking their strike bowler. There are two ways of looking at Australia's seamless progression to a fourth consecutive final. You could argue that they have been at no point made to work hard for victory and the opposition has been insufficient; they would like you to believe that their own brilliance has precluded anyone from coming close to them.

But machines can be derailed. Not by a lesser model, such as workmanlike South Africa, or insufficient England and West Indies. No, to knock the Australian peacock off its lofty perch requires a team which is capable of transcending the ordinary and producing the unbelievable. And, from the sun-cream smeared Vaas, the hair trailing Malinga, the idiosyncratic master Jayasuriya and the eternal beguiler Muralitharan Sri Lanka have the ability to be just that team. If Jayasuriya blazes away, backed up by the more articulate strokeplay of his captain Jayawardene and the classy Sangakkara, the Sri Lankan batting is capable of dealing with an Australian attack which has not yet been forced to lay it on the line. Nathan Bracken may have been deadly efficient so far, but he could have a very different experience if Jaysuriya starts pinging him back over his head or upper-cutting him over the ropes. Hayden has been proflific so far, but Vaas could be the man to get the lbw decision many have deserved. And for almost every cricket fan except those who wear thongs on their feet, this will be the desired outcome. Even if Australia do win, it would be good to see them tested; far better Glenn McGrath hits the winning runs in the last over than Ricky Ponting before the rum punches have started to take effect.

But while most are hoping for Australia to stumble, even if not terminally, a third consecutive title is what we should expect. If Jaysuriya falls early, as he so often does, a Sri Lankan batting order which is slightly shallow in quality could be exposed as it was in the Super 8 game between the two. Equally, Malinga has yet to be taken on, and it will be interesting to see if Hayden gives him the charge early. In what could be one of his last ODIs, Gilchrist is due a big one after a tournament where he has ridden in his partner's slipstream and his relative failures have been masked.

Ever since February, when Australia followed their loss of the CB series with some demoralising losses against New Zealand, people have been trying to find reasons why they will not win the World Cup. Even now, after a tournament which they have dominated for its tiresome entirety, there is some doubt. The smart money says that by tomorrow, there will be none.

England player ratings

Marks out of 10 for the World Cup squad:

Michael Vaughan 3: Looked alright to begin with, against New Zealand and Canada, but failed to capitalise on starts in both of those two games and paid the price as the tournament went on, with his batting form receding to a point where he was able to do little more than block out the South African bowlers. Finally reminded us of his ability when he cut loose against the West Indies, but by then it was too late. There was also scant evidence of his fabled captaincy ability, although he was not helped by his bowlers, who were under-par. Having worked so hard to recover from his chronic knee problem, and aware as he is of the undermining nature of splitting the captaincy, he will be unwilling to give it away voluntarily, but it seems now that the decision may be out of his hands.

Ed Joyce 4: Runs against Kenya and Canada, but when tested by the better attacks, he struggled, showing both indiscretion outside his off-stump and an inability to force the pace during the powerplay overs. Discarded midway through for Strauss, he may have set back his international chances, although he was not helped by being made to open and fill the boots of Trescothick, a position and role ill suited to his silky strokeplay which was only sporadically displayed, removed from its natural home in the middle-order.

Ian Bell 5.5: Criticised for his slow scoring early on, he nevertheless made runs, while the rest of the top order crumbled around him. When moved up to open in lieu of Joyce, he showed his shot-playing ability, teeing off against McGrath in particular on the way to an enterprising 77. Possibly his best one-day innings to date, he did give it away needlessly and from then on did not register, his part in the dirge against South Africa especially disappointing. Axed for the last match, he lost his record as the only England player to have played every match over the whole winter, but there were glimpses of a future in the one-day game.

Andrew Strauss 3: Left out to begin with, he was given the unenviable task of making his World-Cup bow against the Australians, and got out cheaply despite looking good, a trend that continued for the remainder, although he alone was exempt from criticism in the South Africa debacle. Yet to recover from the heavy working over the Australians gave him, he will need a successful spell in county cricket to get back on track, although it appears that his future now lies in the longer form of the game.

Kevin Pietersen 8: Generally in good form, he showed touches of his best, notably in his half-century against Sri Lanka, and his first 50 runs against the Australians. Only really broke loose in the final game, notching his first century in a winning cause and showing how dangerous he can be when a platform is laid for him. Still, he still continued to give it away when set, one century coming courtesy of a dropped catch by Hayden . Needs to show more precision in his leg-side play, as he was caught by midwicket several times from lazy flicks, and must re-assess the way he plays when he is past 50. Even so, his superiority over the rest of the English batsmen in ODIs is painfully obvious as ever.

Paul Collingwood 6: Continued his purple patch from the end of the Australian tour as he proved the linchpin of the batting in early stages, some timely and well paced innings saving England from embarrassment against the minnows. He will probably be a bit disappointed with his contribution at the business end of the tournament, missing out against both Sri Lanka and Australia. His bowling showed up well on the slower pitches, and he showed the ability to recover from early tap. Also took a catch which was exceptional, even by his sky-high standards, against the West Indies and his name remains one of the few indelibly inked in on England's one-day teamsheet.

Andrew Flintoff 5: As was the case for much of the winter, the bowling was there and thereabouts, although somewhere short of his best, while his batting was horrible. Generally economical with the ball, he was not enough of a wicket-taking threat other than in the death overs, where he is now master. Coming in at 6, on generally slow pitches, his weakness against spin was exposed, while he appears to have lost confidence when facing seam bowling. A streaky, slogged fifty was what he needed, but it never materialised, and he needs to have a big summer with the bat to dispel notions that his days as a genuine all-rounder are over.

Ravi Bopara 6: Announced himself with a brave and resourceful maiden half-century, so nearly taking England over the line against Sri Lanka. Not much chance to make an impact thereafter, although he looked good when batting at 3 before being run out in the final dead rubber. His bowling was very underused, and he had no chance to build on a two wicket spell against Canada, against whom he played in place of the banned Flintoff. One match was enough to convince the selectors that he was worth his place ahead of Jamie Dalrymple, and he could be a fixture for some years to come.

Jamie Dalrymple 2: Lost form during the CB series in Australia, and didn't do anything when he was given the nod initially; his bowling, economical during his performances last summer, was taken apart, and he could no longer be relied on for 10 overs. The batting also fell away, and a token selection against the West Indies may well be his last, as he could prove to be an anonymous casualty of a disastrous campaign.

Paul Nixon 6: His mouth was credited for helping to pick-up England and inspire them to the CB series victory in Australia. Mercifully, he let his bat do most of the talking in the Caribbean, with useful cameos in almost every innings which justified his selection, capped by a match-winning surge against West Indies. Deserved his international break after a long county career, but it would be the wrong move to retain him this summer.

Sajid Mahmood 3: Didn't really do much to justify his initial promotion ahead of Liam Plunkett, and even less thereafter, with his usual diet of wides and slower balls feasted on by the better players, although he did creditably against Sri Lanka. He has the potential, but is not yet reliable enough to be considered for one-day cricket and, as there are better options in Test cricket, he must be sent back to Lancashire to get a season or two of bowling behind him at county level.

James Anderson 4.5: At times, it was easy to see why he was the most talked about English bowler back in 2003, but for the most part he looked a shadow of the bowler who had burst onto the scene, knocking over top-drawer batsmen with fast swing bowling. His remodelled action has none of the natural ease of his early method, and he has lost some of his potency while gaining little in terms of accuracy. Should be persevered with in one-day cricket, and he will benefit from some time with his county, as he is unlikely to make the Test team.

Monty Panesar 5: He was economical for the most part, but he has not really cracked the one-day game, and was not the wicket-taking threat England had intended him to be, bowling too quickly in a slightly negative fashion. Not totally immune from being taken apart, he is still short of being a good spinner in the shorter form, but will have plenty of chances to learn. On the bonus side, his fielding was not exposed, and the improvement has been such that it is no longer an issue.

Liam Plunkett 3: Not great in the first two games when given the chance, but was dropped without justification, and did not do himself any favours in the final game, taking the worst punishment from a fired up Gayle. Showed his batting prowess in a stand with Nixon against New Zealand, and may get a chance this summer if he can produce the goods in domestic cricket.

Jon Lewis did not play, while Stuart Broad had little impact in his one game against the West Indies, although he was one of the more economical seamers and hit the winning runs.

Moores rises from the mist

If the end of Duncan Fletcher's reign as England coach bore some resemblance to that of his football equivalent, Sven Goran Erikkson, the manner in which his successor was appointed was a world away from the protracted and painful process employed by the FA last year. We already knew that Peter Moores, the Academy and England A coach, was due to take over the reins in at least a temporary role, although today's announcement that he was to be Fletcher's permanent replacement was something of a surprise, as the ECB had been expected to take a view after seeing the contents of the Schofield Report, due in mid-May.

Nevertheless, the rapidity of the decision gives the firm impression that Moores was always first choice, and the ECB must be applauded for making a rare decisive move. He may not be the glamorous candidate, lacking the star appeal of someone like Tom Moody or Dav Whatmore, but his credentials are impeccable. He comes from a solid background in county cricket, bringing his career as a wicket-keeper to a premature end to concentrate on coaching Sussex, for whom he played, and leading them into the first division and, two years later, to the title.

He was then snapped up by the England setup, succeeding Rod Marsh as Academy director, and coach for A team tours. This should stand him in good stead as he seeks to build on the solid foundation he has inherited from Fletcher, and bring through the next generation, the best of whom he will already have coached.

His county connections should help him to rebuild the bridges between the international and domestic games so comprehensively burned during Fletcher's time. Expect contracted England players to be turning out more often for their counties, and more weight to be apportioned to county performance. Certainly the passing of the baton will not have escaped the notice of the likes of Chris Read and Owais Shah, two who were non grata under the previous regime.

Moores, who officially begins on May 1st, will have a number of issues to ponder before the first Test against West Indies just over a fortnight later. He is probably stuck with Michael Vaughan as captain, but will have to make a difficult decision as to which of the established batsmen is axed to accommodate him. He will also need to take a raincheck on the early-season performances of Harmison and Trescothick in particular and assess their worth at international level. The right wicket-keeper is still yet to identified, while the bowling attack needs refining. This is where Moores experience with the Academy should be of most use; he, more than anyone, will know if someone like Stuart Broad is ready to take the step-up to Test cricket.

More than anything, he needs to act a as pick-me up to an England team laid low by a disastrous six-month winter. Judging by the glowing accolades bestowed on him by those he has worked with, it seems that he is perfect for the job, intense and passionate but also sparky and light-hearted. The last two coaches England have had were at opposite ends of the spectrum; on the one hand, you had the excitable and deeply patriotic David Lloyd, while his successor Fletcher proved much more of a cold-fish, focused yet distant. Moores' task will be to steer a course between these two extremes; given time and the freedom to bring in his own people, his could prove to be a very successful appointment indeed.

Quiet end for the silent revolutionary

One cannot help but notice the cyclical nature of Duncan Fletcher's reign as England coach. Not only did it neatly coincide with two full turns of the international wheel, but it ended as it began, with gutless batting and defeat to South Africa. Yet no England fan, however embittered by the downturn in fortunes since 2005, could make the glib assertion that English cricket has also come full circle, and is back where it was when he started in 1999.

The vagaries of the international schedule have dictated that the last three World Cups have all followed on from failed Ashes campaigns, away from home, with the ensuing result unerringly dismal. The fact that this is the second time Fletcher presided over such a sequence, along with the general malaise which has descended on England over the last 18 months has sparked a call for change so loud that even Fletcher, so often stubborn in the face of criticism, could not ignore.

Even if England had come home with the Ashes urn in one hand and the World Cup in the other, there was a good chance that we would have seen the last of Fletcher. For this winter represented the chance for him to make an indelible mark on the history of English cricket. In Test matches, he has achieved almost everything, beating all-comers on home soil, and leading successful ventures to Asia, South Africa and the Caribbean. To have retained the Ashes and emulated the feat of Mike Gatting's team on the corresponding tour 20 years ago would have been his crowning achievement, while a successful World Cup campaign would have dispelled all the criticism of England's one-day form throughout his reign.

Unfortunately, it was not to be. During happier days, especially the glory run in 2004-5, Fletcher was always a background figure in the public eye, with his influence behind closed doors. He may have alienated the press to an extent with his attitude, but the results were always good enough to keep the criticism at a manageable level. Recently, with performances and results on the decline, his methods have increasingly come under scrutiny. His two most high profile selections on the Ashes Tour, those of Giles and Jones over Read and Panesar were castigated, even though the reason behind them, that of strengthening the lower-order batting, had been heralded as one of his legacies. Yet he was wrong; the basis for the selections was sound, the logic misapplied.

Ever since he put his eggs in the unpopular basket back in Brisbane, he has been fighting against a tirade of criticism, making a difficult winter even more trying. It is sad that the man who has certainly been England's most successful coach will go out with an Ashes whitewash and a botched World Cup campaign ringing in his ears and that his achievements will be tempered by the steep fall from grace in the last 18 months of his reign.

He first took on the job in 1999, in a decade during which the England team had plunged from one disaster to the next. There might have been no shortage of talent, but, hampered by a selection policy which would have disgraced a paranoid schizophrenic, they lurched from one failure to the next. Fletcher showed just what might have been, winning a home series against a still capable West Indies side and then guiding them to double success on the subcontinent, with series wins in both Pakistan and Sri Lanka - arguably one of his greatest and most underrated achievements.

Central contracts were introduced in 2000, bringing to an end the madcap situation whereby England players were accountable to both club and country. The policy may have its critics, not least from those in the county game, but one need only take a look at the way English rugby is being torn apart by the club vs. country row to see that it was the right way to go.

With Nasser Hussain, appointed to the England captaincy at the same time as Fletcher was given the job of coach, he formed a strong bond which suited both men. Hussain's forthright nature allowed him to take control of the team, while allowing Fletcher to take his preferred back-stage role. Darren Gough, long England's lone strike bowler, was finally given a worthy partner in Andy Caddick, with whom he formed England's best opening bowling partnership since Willis and Botham.

Fletcher may have copped flak in later years for his sometimes misplaced loyalty to players, but he showed himself in his early years to be no mean judge of talent. Without him, we might never have had Michael Vaughan or Marcus Tresocthick, both with mediocre county records, but in whom Fletcher rightly saw the talent and temperament to succeed at the highest level. Of course not all his punts were successful; amongst the less good calls on the South Africa tour of 1999-00, were Chris Adams, Gavin Hamilton and Graeme Swann, none of whom made an impression on the international game.

From that base of players who he had inherited, he built a new team, a core of then young fast bowlers such as Hoggard, Harmison and Jones backed up by an experienced batting core of Butcher, Hussain and Thorpe. That was, in effect, the basis of the side which stormed the Caribbean in early 2004, the starting point for a golden period. That was under the leadership of a new captain, Michael Vaughan, another with whom Fletcher was compatible. The main batsmen in that side had been replaced a year later, when the 2005 Ashes came around, yet England still triumphed. Hussain had by then retired, and Butcher was injured, but it was the decision to drop Thorpe in favour of Kevin Pietersen was a gutsy one. At the time, many felt it was wrong (including myself), he was, after all, dropping the man who had been England's foremost batsmen for a decade, in favour of someone who was at that time little more than a glorified slogger. Even on the first day of that momentous series, as Pietersen defied a hopeless situation and took the attack to Australia, Fletcher was vindicated. Perhaps now, he will look back with a half-smile at how one decision could have been so fruitful, while the equivalent ones he took a year later were so awry.

Of course, despite continued success at Test level, there were always question marks over England's ODI team. During Fletcher's eight year reign, there have been perhaps three batsmen who could be relied on in the shorter form. At one point two of them, Knight and Trescothick, opened the batting, while Pietersen only emerged in early 2005. Otherwise, England's batting in limited-overs cricket has been fairly dismal. Players such as Hussain, Stewart, Vaughan, all excellent Test batsmen, were incapable of expanding their games to suit the shorter format. Add to that the traditional inability of English batsmen to play good spin bowling, and you have a recipe for disaster. Yet as much as the players are largely responsible, one has to wonder how Fletcher, so revered as a batting coach, was unable to help them focus their games more productively. Furthermore, on the selection front, he was as patchy in ODI teams as he was consistent for Tests. Not only did he fail to identify talented county players suited to the one-day game, he would chop and change, somehow always ending up back with the same collection of failures, such as Solanki, Blackwell, Clarke and Kabir Ali.

Briefly, during the summer of 2005, the one-day side way successful, matching Australia. However, this was practically a mirror of the Test team, boosted by the presence of two proficient one-day players, Trescothick and Pietersen and Flintoff in the form of his life. A year later, it had descended into chaos. Everyone who was nobody was given a go: think Chapple, Bresnan, Loudon and Yardy. Even a month before the World Cup, untried players were being given their first go.

There was also Fletcher's attitude to the county game, at best apathetic, at worst, disdainful. Although central contracts have been an undoubted positive, there is an extent to which they have gone too far. While one does not want to see someone like Flintoff or Harmison bowled into the ground, they do, however, still need to bowl; it is not good enough to simply turn up on the day an expect them to produce the goods, a lesson which Harmison's displays in the recent Ashes will hopefully have driven home.

There will be a time in the near future for reviews and recriminations, and for blame to be apportioned and shouldered. But right now, followers of the England cricket team should pause for a minute to salute a man who has been of immeasurable value to them over a long period and who has transformed a team in the doldrums to one capable of, however briefly, defeating champions. He leaves with England in a state of disarray, but with a structure he has helped impose which should stand it in good stead for the future. As the announcement of his resignation was made today in his absence, he departs much as he arrived, in relative anonymity. Still, his impact on English cricket has been significant, and will linger on, even if the man himself will not.

Yorkshire grateful for R and R

Having endured a winter during which England plumbed the depths and kept on digging, it made a pleasant change to actually go and see some cricket, as I did today at The Oval. (that's the Brit Oval to you and me, the one in Kennington where Surrey and Yorkshire contested their first match of the LV=County Championship the day after England bowed out of ICC Cricket World Cup West Indies 2007 in Kensington.)

Jimmy Ormond, even more corpulent now than in his England days when his girth far exceeded his wicket tally, bowled the first ball to another old England lag Craig White in front of the ubiquitous "smattering", nevertheless a few hundred more than will be expending any interest in England's game against the West Indies on Saturday.

Had you half closed your eyes, and put out of your mind that the players were dressed in white, you might have begun to imagine that England was taking itself on in a one-day game. The batting was slow to begin with, and wickets fell just as the batsmen who had got in attempted to raise the tempo. The bowling was fairly laboured, with the return of 4 wickets in the morning session probably twice what they deserved.

While the openers scratched around, Anthony McGrath started to show why Yorkshire fought so hard to keep him, as he peppered the cover boundary with a few delightful drives before falling to Mahmood, the second of three wickets picked up by the Surrey medium pace duo of Mahmood and Clarke just before lunch. His predecessor Sayers was responsible for his own downfall, slashing at a wide offering from Clarke, which brought in the billed star turn, Younus Khan. Like many who single-handedly wear the crowd's expectations, he flattered to deceive, guiding his first delivery to the boundary before playing around a straight one three balls later.

With two of their three main batsmen having fallen on 73, Yorkshire were facing a repeat of the opening of the 2002 season against the same opposition and dismissal for a total of less than 150 on a pitch whose only concession to the bowlers was healthy carry through to the 'keeper. As he made his frequent wanderings towards square leg between deliveries, Jacques Rudolph's thoughts could have been forgiven for drifting away from the Kennington Oval to its near namesake in Barbados, where he might have been celebrating a crushing victory rather than scrapping to prevent suffering the reverse.

But if his concentration ever wavered, it did not show, as he safely saw Yorkshire through to the interval precariosuly placed at 87-4. After lunch, he and Gerard Brophy were responsible for the first period of bat dominating ball, with Brophy driving Ormond to the boundary three times in one over and forcing him out of the attack. Rudolph himself began to open up, revealing a pleasant array of off-side strokes to go with the natural left-handers' proficiency on the leg-side. Steve Magoffin, who bears some resemblance to his fellow Australian Shaun Tait in countenance if not bowling action (his arm is high and vertical) trapped Brophy on 127, bringing the great white hope of English leg-spin, Adil Rashid, to the crease.

Rikki Clarke, buoyed by a few wickets in the first session, brought himself back a tad prematurely, and decided to concentrate on a short-pitched line to the correspondingly sized Rashid. Maybe no-one has told him that small men tend to play short-pitched balls better than most, and, after Rashid had warmed up with a few wild and woolly fresh air shots, he was soon tucking into the Surrey captain, launching a hooked six into the crowd, followed up by a more delicate cut for another boundary. With Rudolph allowing no respite from the other end, Clarke soon elected to take the pace off the ball with spinners Doshi and Schofield.

The portents were not good, Rudolph greeting Doshi with three boundaries, all launched back over his head to the rope at long-off. To be fair, this was not reflective of the left-armer's overall performance, which was tight, if a bit lacking in bite. Chris Schofield, himself once the supposed future of English leg-spin, found himself bowling to his successor. One can only hope that Rashid ignored what he saw, as he was served up an entire repertoire of tripe all delivered at a pace too quick to allow the ball to grip on the surface. Both batsmen accepted the easy pickings, and it was Schofield who was made to look like the teenager.

As the game slipped away from Surrey, the two batsmen increasingly settled into the comfort zone, happy to wait for the bad balls, and scoring the majority of the runs in boundaries. Rudolph, in particular, accelerated once his half-century was registered off 84 balls, only braking once the second landmark was looming. Yet as he consolidated, Rashid pounced, a mixture of sweetly timed drives and savage leg-side hoicks rushing him past fifty and within sight of a maiden first-class century.

Sadly for him, he continued in this vein even when the new ball had been taken, and he was its first victim two overs in when he attempted to cut a ball too close to him and chopped on. Rudolph followed in quick succession, chipping to cover, before Surrey again lost the plot with the end of the road in sight. New captain Darren Gough strode to the wicket at 9, ahead of a man with a Test double-century to his name; maybe Magoffin stopped taking him seriously after a few almighty slogs (fresh-air, of course), but he made the mistake of dropping short and was clubbed for a meaty maximum over midwicket. Gough departed not long after, but Surrey could still not clean out the tail, with Bresnan and Gillespie ensuring that they will have finish the job tomorrow.

Sorry England sinks without trace

Tomorrow, officially, the English cricket season begins. Yet for team England, today marks the end of a six month venture, in which they competed in three continents for three prizes and were dismal on every front. When Strauss and Collingwood's attempt at resuscitating an England innings which had been lifeless from the first ball failed, there was a definite sense of the life support machine being turned off; 5 wickets fell for only twice as many runs, and the ship which had been reeling ever since Adelaide back in December finally sunk below the waterline without so much as a ripple

In truth, the rats had long since fled; Ashes cricket has always contained some extraordinary matches, a concentration of which made the 2005 series so special. Yet even amongst those thrillers, there remained a sole example of a team losing a game they could not possibly lose. And with as much justification as Ian Botham had when he allegedly whispered the word "Headingley" in Allan Border's ear during a tight Australian run chase in 1985, Australians will now have course to remind England cricketers of Adelaide.

For that Test match, indisputably, was England's undoing. Pundits may pick endlessly over the significance of Harmison's first ball, or the selection of Giles over Panesar, but the fact remains that all vitality and spirit this England team had lies buried at the home of South Australia. From then on, it has been an arduous struggle, a long series of repair jobs on an already fatally wounded animal.

In terms of this World Cup, England's failings are many and well documented. Any mildly interested England follower will be intimately acquainted with the failings of the top order, the blandness of the bowling attack and the reliance on individuals, some of whom could not even be relied on themselves. Frankly, progression to the semi-finals of this tournament would have been an indictment on a competition which is meant to be a showcase for the world's best.

Countless opportunities presented themselves, the structure and nature of the tournament even going so far as to offer England an effective quarter final, without them having had to win any game of note. In the end, even one big performance was too much to ask; that they have only two fragments of good play to show for in a tournament which seems to have lasted for an eternity is not far short of disgraceful.

For the fan who has suffered every beating along the way, the sanctuary of a Test Match, at home, cannot come soon enough. Any chance to bury the winter of discontent will be seized upon. But while fans seek to forget, it is of paramount importance that those in charge are made to hurt a little more, so that maybe they can glean something of use from such a hapless campaign, as they seek to build for what seems an uncertain future.

Shadow Boxers must beware sucker punch

Achievement in sport is, of course, relative; when Australia cantered past Bangladesh they celebrated with no more than a casual shrug of the shoulder, a job well done, but nothing more than was expected. Yet for Ireland, today's victory, if not the pinnacle of their World Cup (for what could topple beating Pakistan on their own saint's day) at least justified their presence in the second round of the tournament and will be greeted with delirium back in the Emerald Isle. That was their cup final; tomorrow could be another.

Australia are almost certain to finish top of the Super 8, meaning that their semi-final will be against the winner of Tuesday's encounter between South Africa and England. Sri Lanka and New Zealand are already through, and are likely to meet in the first semi, which, considering the magnitude of Sri Lanka's victory in their initial match, would make the Asian side favourites. As it is hard to see past Australia in the other knockout tie, it is no surprise that tomorrow's clash is being touted as the dress rehearsal for the final.

Regardless of this, the match-up between the two front-runners has long been the most anticipated fixture. Bar Australia, almost the entire cricketing world will be behind Mahela Jayawardene's men. Steve Waugh wrote of Michael Bevan in his autobiography that, "his genius became mundane when people were spoiled by his continued brilliance" and perhaps we are suffering something of the same in judging Australia's performances. Why is it that Hayden is seen as a butcher, while Sanath Jayasuriya is revered as a flawed genius? Despite their five match hiccup before this World Cup, and the fact that the rankings would have Australia only the second best ODI team in the world, they have long been the leaders in the field. They are a machine which churns out victories time and again. Maybe it is this which leads the average cricket follower to regard a breathtaking Gilchrist innings or a choking and incisive spell by McGrath as just a bit ordinary. Conversely, this Sri Lankan side wins as a by product of entertaining; they have so many maverick elements that it would be nigh on impossible for them to be boring. They even overshadowed their only loss of the tournament, Lasith Malinga's 4 wickets in as many balls capturing headlines and imaginations alike.

Yet as much as tomorrow's match presents itself as a clash of cultures, there is some similarity between the make-up of the two sides. Both have opening partnerships which look to decimate bowling attacks. The first over for both innings will be bowled by a left-arm seamer, while the second (dependant on Malinga's fitness) will be hurled down from a decidedly unusual round-arm action. If Malinga makes it, Sri Lanka have the definite edge on the bowling front; Nathan Bracken may imitate Chaminda Vaas in form, but he possesses none of the latter's experience, nous and gumption. Shaun Tait is also a somewhat pale shadow of Malinga, both in bowling and personality. Sri Lanka, of course, have the superior spin options, with Brad Hogg closer to Sri Lanka's second slow bowler, Jayasuriya, than their premier twirler, Muralitharan. Should Australia continue to replace Shane Watson with an extra batsman, they may well be made to pay for spreading their bowling resources too thin, with Sri Lanka more capable on carrying out the sort of punishment England threatened.

On the flip side of the coin, no-one would dispute the superiority of Australia's batting unit over not only Sri Lanka's. but indeed that of any in the competition. The top 4 are all in supreme form, and, although the lower order has been deprived of crease time, a reserve of Symonds, Hussey and Hodge does not read too badly at all. On the other hand, while Sri Lanka can just about live with Australia up front, their batting is much more top heavy, with the trio of Silva, Dilshan and Arnold fairly unthreatening.

With the absolute importance of this game relatively slim, Sri Lanka may choose to rest Malinga, which would tip the balance in Australia's favour. This would both mean that he could be given an easier return from injury, while it would also benefit Sri Lanka to prevent Australia getting a look at Malinga, so that they would be coming at him cold, should these two teams contest the final. And that outcome is very much on the cards; even so, this is a tournament which has thus far shown a distinct aversion to running smoothly. England vs. New Zealand for the final anyone?

Climate right for White Rose to bloom

In view of England's miserable winter, an Ashes thumping followed by what looks an increasingly forlorn World Cup campaign, the attention of those who support England first and their county second has begun to turn towards the start of the county season, with the first round of Championship matches beginning on Wednesday. Not least for those who follow my own preferred county Yorkshire. For White Rose fans over the last five years, the 2001 Championship has seemed but a distant memory, with many senior players deserting the ranks and being replaced by distinctly inferior talent. After another dismal season in 2006, salvaged only by the emergence of Adil Rashid and the triumphant farewell of Darren Lehmann, the trend looked set to continue. By October, both Lehmann and Michael Lumb had left the club, with Anthony McGrath set to follow them out of the exit door. Effectively they had lost the entire middle order. To compound matters, the man who had been lined up to both fill one of those holes and to take over the running of the first XI, Chris Adams, took one look and hot-footed it straight back to Sussex, who were more than happy to welcome him back. The only ray of light was the signing of Younus Khan; yet even that did not run smoothly, with Younus announcing himself as captain, while Yorkshire insisted they wanted someone who could be there from the beginning of the season. A side that had only just maintained its first division status in 2006 was left without a captain, coach, and its two most important batsmen.

Remarkably, when Yorkshire take to the field against Surrey on Wednesday, they will be almost indisputably stronger than last season. Jacques Rudolph was a major coup, and although there are misgivings about his contract and indeed his motives in agreeing to sacrifice international cricket, he is a far superior player to the man he replaces, Michael Lumb. After Jason Gillespie was confirmed for a second season, the general consensus was that the club had signed all the players it wanted, with the emphasis turning to finding a new coach and captain.

The only rumbling was about Darren Gough, yet to sign the contract Essex had offered him. Gough certainly made noises about Yorkshire, but to take seriously a man who was still convinced he could lead England's attack in the Caribbean, was a bit much to ask. So it was a major surprise when everything fell into place, and the club lured him back. The influence of his signing did not stop merely when the ink had dried on his two year contract; it answered the captaincy question, as well as bringing back into the fold both Martyn Moxon, as coach, and Anthony McGrath, reconciled and mollified by the presence of those he knows and trusts.

The change has been so sweeping that it is hard to gauge quite where Yorkshire stand. Their team to face Surrey will contain 8 internationals and there is a reassuring feeling to the whole team, with class performers in all areas. Much will depend on the starts they get at the top of the order, with the man to partner Craig White as yet undecided. Joe Sayers is likely to be selected, although Matthew Wood has a chance, and could be galvanised by the return of the coach under whose charge he did well enough to be an international prospect around the turn of the century.

There is also a decision to be made in the middle order, and they have to decide whether they want to play Adil Rashid in April, or jettison his leg spin in favour of an extra batsman, probably Andrew Gale. With Hoggard available early season, in addition to Gough, Gillespie and Bresnan, Yorkshire may decide that 4 pacemen will be enough to do the job on helpful early season pitches. Nevertheless, it is very much in the balance, and the decision may come down to how they read the Oval Pitch. The final dilemma is over who should keep wicket, a perennial bugbear since Richard Blakey's retirement. Both Guy and Brophy have shown good form in the pre-season, and either could get the nod, although the smart money is on the latter.

Yorkshire certainly have the talent and experience to challenge for the championship. That would, of course, be the best case scenario, with everything gelling perfectly under the management of Gough and Moxon. Even so, as party-pooping as it may sound before the season has even begun, it is worth sounding a note of caution: Khan and Rudolph have limited experience of English conditions, while the ageing pace attack could suffer if Gough cannot last the course and Gillespie repeats a disappointing debut season. Much expectation is also being heaped on Adil Rashid, and it is hard to banish the thought that producing a successful second season may be beyond him. Who knows? Gough could be the dream ticket or a recipe for disaster. Whichever it is, it will not happen quietly, and the result could be a season historic even in the rich heritage of a great club like Yorkshire.

The Super Six?

Although international cricket has now become a year round affair, the English season still runs April-September and the county game creaked back into action today when 2006 champions Sussex took on MCC in the traditional curtain-raiser. I have already previewed the prospects of each team, noting players to watch out for. Those were exclusively young, up and coming players, and here is an alternate list of 6 to watch, comprising old, young, overseas and homegrown.

Ali Brown (Surrey): 15 years on from his first-class bow, "Lordy" may be entering his final season at The Oval, where Surrey have long benefited from his extraordinary strokemaking ability in view of his limited opportunities at international level. He still opens for them in one-day cricket, now accompanied by James Benning, something of a protege in the big hitting department, and one to whom England may turn in their search for an attacking opener. Hidden in the middle order behind fellow old lags Butcher and Ramprakash in the longer format, on his day Brown has it in him to shine even brighter, and it will be a sad day for fans of the county game when he is no longer around to entertain them.

Varun Chopra (Essex): Following in the footsteps of Alistair Cook as an early-blooming Essex opener, he made a century on his first-class debut last year while still in his teens. He is still not yet 20, and a further four half-centuries in his nine games last year showed that it was no flash in the pan. His chances of a consistent first XI place depend to an extent on whether Cook is selected by England, but it seems that he is not the type to waste an opportunity. A former England under-19 captain, he has one of the best mentors available in Graham Gooch, and in a few years when Strauss, Vaughan and Trescothick are finding the lure of the commentary box hard to resist, England could well have a ready-made replacement and a opening partnership for some time to come.

Saqlain Mushtaq (Sussex): The forgotten man of spin bowling, he was as influential as either of his two more illustrious partners in crime during his pomp in the late 1990s. It was him, not Muralitharan who brought the doosra to the game (although back then, it was just Saqlain's "mystery ball") and this brought him success at Test level, although it was in ODI cricket where he always prospered the most, often bowling at the death. Unfortunately for Saqlain, injuries, loss of form and the rise of Kaneira have all seen his international prospects decline, and he was finally discarded after a mauling at the hands of India in early 2004. In theory, the country he would now represent is England, with his British passport pending. Of course this will not happen; the England selectors may be prepared to accommodate an import like Pietersen, but there is no question of them considering someone who has already had a long international career for another country. Nevertheless, re-united with Mushtaq at Sussex, he could still have a major impact as he once did for Surrey, and a decade after the two twirled away in tandem for Pakistan, the prospect of them revisiting past glories will be more than appealing to Sussex fans eager for a third Championship pennant.

Graham Onions (Durham): Pacy and capable of extracting useful lift, he earned a call-up to replace the injured Darren Gough in England's one-day series against Pakistan at the end of last summer. He should see plenty of bowling, as Harmison and Plunkett will likely be summoned by England, and will want to build on his 50 wicket haul in 2006. With England looking to mould a new ODI side in the aftermath of the World Cup, there is a place or two up for grabs, although he will have to fight off the likes of Stuart Broad, as well as the more established Plunkett and Mahmood. However, if the men in possession continue to founder while he carries on supplying catching practice for Durham's appropriately named keeper Phil Mustard, there is a chance that they will turn to him; the fact he has started to be included of squads certainly indicates he is not far from the selector's thoughts.

R.P.Singh (Leicestershire): The latest in a long-line of Indian left-armers, he was one of the young players Greg Chappell attempted to bring into the Indian team, before the youth policy was discarded and with it the World Cup. Tall, quickish and capable of swinging the ball both ways, he would hope to have the same sort of impact as Zaheer Khan last year for Worcestershire. It is rare enough for county batsmen to have to face left-arm fast bowlers, and the better ones tend to prosper, as evidenced by the healthy returns of Khan, Ryan Sidebottom and Jason Lewry. The prospect of him opening the bowling with England hopeful Stuart Broad is an exciting one for the Grace Road faithful, and those two may need to be the key performers if the team is to do well. A county spell was the springboard for Khan to make a successful international return, and Singh will want to emulate him, his chances improved by the wind of change already uprooting trees on Indian cricket scene.

Adil Rashid: (Yorkshire): Something of a cliche for a list like this, but I'll include him anyway. Surely Yorkshire would not have known last season when they drafted him in for the injured Darren Lehmann to bat in the middle order and bowl a few overs of spin that they were in fact unearthing the great new hope of English spin bowling. Six wickets on debut created a predictable frisson, especially with the knowledge that he had been scoring centuries in almost equal measure for the 2nds. The batting never really materialised, despite one half-century, but he did carry on his bowling form, picking up 25 wickets at about that average. The worry about him being overbowled came to the fore when he suffered a stress fracture at the end of the season, which has led to a remodelling of his action. As rare as it is to bowl leg-spin on the English domestic scene, it is even more unusual to have another to bowl in tandem with. Yet this is a luxury Rashid enjoys, the performances of Mark Lawson being as crucial as his own in ensuring Yorkshire's survival last season. What sets Rashid aside from Lawson is his control and good economy rate (3.41 in first-class cricket); he is not the archetypal young leg spinner, magic balls buried beneath a mountain of long-hops and full tosses. What is paramount is that he must be given time. All talks of England are ridiculous as we stand; what he needs is a few full seasons in county cricket, learning his trade, and, equally importantly, working on his batting. After all, English spin is in the good, very large hands of Monty Panesar and there is no pressing need to rush Rashid. Possibly the best young talent in the English game, definitely the most hyped, all Rashid can do is perform for Yorkshire and a good second season, which tends to escape many promising players, will stand him in good stead.

Road to nowhere

Luck, perhaps, has not smiled on England during the course of this World Cup. They have not really deserved much, truth be told, but the little things which can have such significance on one-day cricket have seemed to be piling up against them. Yet in the field today, a few things started to go England's way: Michael Vaughan's horror show of a dropped catch somehow turned into a run-out, while Paul Nixon's drop fell not to ground but into the hands of Strauss at slip. The general performance in the field was slack, with none of the teeming enthusiasm displayed against Sri Lanka, and it was only thanks to a fast bouncy Kensington Oval pitch that they managed to unsettle the Bangladeshi batsmen, who have thus far found little success away from the low, slow decks similar to those they have at home.

From 65-6, they should really have finished the job and knocked over the rest for under 100. But instead of bowling the common-sense line and length which had brought early success, Flintoff was forced to pursue a short and wide angle of attack against stand-out batsman Saqibul Hasan, after Vaughan employed an 8:1 field. This is one of his weaknesses as a captain; as much as pre-conceived plans can be useful, he sometimes struggles to see the wood from the trees and ploughs on regardless of situation. There was some merit in the idea that short-pitched bowling might unsettle the Bangladeshis, with their inexperience playing the bouncing ball. Here, however, it should have been obvious after a few lacing back-cuts that this was a line of attack the batsman relished and that the sensible option would be to post a normal field and tell Flintoff to bowl straight. Nevertheless, Saqibul was allowed to continue on his merry way to an unbeaten half-century, with his tail-end partners succumbing only to a few flighted deliveries from Panesar.

Masharafe Mortaza is often cited as Bangladesh's only pace bowler of international class and his threat is underestimated by few. However all this attention has allowed less glamorous partner Syed Rasel to slip in under the radar and bag the greater hauls, as he did today, finding Ian Bell's edge and pinning Andrew Strauss to the crease. Bell's dismissal, attempting to force the pace after a slow start was partially explainable, but for Strauss to give it away after he had looked good and got himself in was poor. Worse were the dismissals of Pietersen and Vaughan, both misjudging leg-side heaves. By the fall of the fourth wicket, with Pietersen continuing his journey down the pitch to Razzak all the way back to the pavilion, all thoughts of boosting net-run rate had gone with him, the outcome of the game suddenly in doubt again. Flintoff did his best to settle it with a few lusty blows before he was deceived by Rafique's cunning arm ball, his wicket falling in the same over as Bopara's and opening the game up as a contest when he had been on the verge of sealing it. Collingwood and Nixon limped over the line, in the same fashion one might be expected to complete a three-legged race, but once again Bangladesh gave an excellent account of themselves in defence of what had seemed a terminally insufficient score.

As for England, a win is what they can claim, but a sloppy fielding display and a batting performance for which the word pathetic only begins to do justice, is what they must account for. South Africa are next up, the first of two knockout matches, and a team bristling in new-found confidence following their slaughter of the West Indies on Tuesday. They laid down their marker in emphatic style, challenging England to do the same. After they had bowled Bangladesh out for 143, there was a good opportunitu to storm to victory, boosting the net run rate as well as their own confidence at the same time as re-opening the still fresh wounds of South Africa's humiliating loss to the same team. In time-honoured style, England seized on an opportunity as a chance to fail miserably and are still to convince. Rational England fans have now given up hope they ever will in this tournament.

Two games remain for England in the Super 8 stage of the tournament. We know the line-up, the opposition and what is required. Sadly for England , we think we know the outcome as well.

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.

England's grip slackens

Ever since 1995, when the baton of power in international cricket was wrenched from a West Indies team in the last throes of a glorious era, it has taken something very special to topple Australia. The ruthless, win at all costs attitude, conceived by Allan Border in the fallow era of the mid-1980s, and begat to Taylor, Waugh and Ponting, allied with a talent pool which stubbornly refuses to dry up, has made them into a team against whom victory is the ultimate for any other side.

Consider the performances it has taken to defeat them; only against Brian Lara and Sachin Tendulkar, two batsmen who defined a generation, did they stumble in the late 1990s. For England to at last regain the Ashes, it took an effective reincarnation of their two 1981 nemeses, Botham and Brearley, to overcome them. Four years earlier, when vanquished by India in the titanic struggle of 2000-1, VVS Laxman touched a level, albeit briefly, that has been unsurpassed since, and for some time before.

A good start is not just enough against this ilk of Australian teams. It is never sufficient merely to position boot on throat; initial success must be followed up, for, even when an Australian team is at the lowest of lows, and the fat lady has long since gone hoarse, the fight never dies, and the spirit is never totally suppressed until the coffin has been firmly nailed and buried deep underground.

England have suffered on this account numerous times - a winning start to the 1997 series was effortlessly turned around into an Australian series triumph; even in the successful campaign of 2005, an England team at their very peak was made to prove their mettle time and time again. At Lords, they responded to being bowled out for 190 by skittling England for 35 less and piling on the agony second time around. They came close to the impossible at Edgbaston, and were only defied by one of the great rearguards at the Oval.

More presciently, on the previous occasion these two sides had met in the World Cup, Australia, on their knees at 135-8 in pursuit of over 200, squeezed home. Again today, England batted first, with the habitual top-order failings, unaltered by the recall of Andrew Strauss, followed by a more pleasing recurrence of a big stand between Ian Bell and Kevin Pietersen. At 164-2, with the two batsmen motoring along and McGrath licking his wounds after an early mauling by unlikely predator Bell, Ricky Ponting invoked the delayed powerplay, so often the harbinger of wickets. The result was as predictable as it was miserable for battle-weary England fans: Australia knew that one wicket would open the door, giving them the foothold they are expert in converting to dominance. It was Bell who gifted it to them, slapping McGrath straight to cover, and precipitating a mini-collapse which saw off Collingwood, re-accustoming himself with failure, and Flintoff, in such bad nick that it is almost a relief to see him depart, so that one no longer has to witness the excruciating spectacle of him scratching around for runs.

Pietersen, sublime as usual for his first 50, tried his best to give it away in the 60s, as he so often does, although Matthew Hayden refused to tango, shelling an easy chance at mid-off. Much has been made of his inability to convert half-centuries into the real thing, something he had not managed for over two years. It looked at times as if he had forgotten how, although the second chance offered by Hayden was a bit to good to pass up on, with the three figures finally brought up in the last five overs. By then however, he had totally lost his way, and quickly holed out to long on. Perhaps it is unjust to carp about the fashion in which his innings petered out (after all, an England fan should be celebrating the rare occurence of a century rather than criticising it) but it was hard not to see a Ponting or Smith in the same situation carting the bowling to all parts at will. In the final reckoning, England might have taken 247 at the toss, but in reality, it was well short of what was hoped for at 164-2, and 20-30 shy of a good score on what was a flat pitch.

Although England could feel aggrieved with the negative verdicts on a few early lbw shouts, generally the new ball bowling lacked bite; Mahmood still bowled enough dross to be taken for a minimum of one boundary an over (although there was that rare and highly prized commodity of a maiden) and Anderson never really found the right line to consistently trouble the openers. Despite the eventual dismissals of both Hayden and Gilchrist before the hundred mark, and some tight bowling mid-innings, the result was never in doubt once Ponting had made it his will to grind out his innings and lead his side home.

The issue of England's bowling attack will now be one for the senior management to chew over before the next game. Anderson, despite not having one of his better days, is still England's best opening bowler, although one would hope that the position of his partner Mahmood comes under heavy scrutiny. It is evident that Team England have a high opinion of him and it is easy to see why they are encouraged to persevere. He has a nice loose-limbed run up, with a fast arm, and a good armoury. He is also a natural athlete, capable in the field, and not wholly clueless with a bat in his hand. However, all the natural attributes in the World do not bring success on their own. Before that can be achieved, he must achieve consistency, an anathema, without which he should not be considered. Maybe with a more settled, experienced attack around him, Mahmood could be considered as a luxury, but not in this team. Liam Plunkett, his likely replacement, also has problems with maintaining line and length, yet is a slightly more solid prospect, who maximises the new ball and provides a threat to even the best openers. Duncan Fletcher has hinted that Mahmood was preferred as they do not think that Plunkett offers anything in the middle or death overs. While a very cynical commentator might venture to doubt that Mahmood offers anything at all, there is certainly little substantiation for the idea that he is useful as a gamebreaker in mid-innings. His return, especially in a delayed powerplay situation, where a captain usually tosses the ball to his strike bowlers in expectation of a breakthrough, is twice as likely to bring a flurry of runs as a wicket, while the prospect of him bowling at the death is enough to send even the most steadfast of followers into hiding behind the sofa.

Yet as much as the opening pair have been a problem for England, the way they approach the middle overs is equally concerning. In Flintoff and Panesar, they have two bowlers who constrict, but rarely achieve breakthroughs. Monty, as much as we love him, has yet to prove himself in the shorter format, and appears to be firing the ball in too quickly, not giving the ball enough chance to grip and turn. As was pointed out on radio commentary, he would do well to cast an eye over Daniel Vettori's masterclass of left arm spin on the same ground last week. Flintoff, easily England's best bowler, can choke the runs, but tends to pick up the majority of his wickets at the death, by which time, when defending a total, the game may be up. All the other big teams have a man they can turn to around the 30 over mark, with nothing happening, who will more than not produce a wicket. Stephen Fleming has Shane Bond, Smith has Pollock or Ntini, Jayawardene has Malinga and Ponting has Tait, who did that exact job today, dismissing England's rock Collignwood.

England must now accept that they have let another chance, albeit a more nascent one than against Sri Lanka, slip, and are now at the point which was always bound to arrive, needing to win every game in order to progress. Bangladesh proved against South Africa that it would be foolish to start thinking beyond Wednesday's encounter. Nevertheless, England would hope to prevail, leaving what could be a knockout match with South Africa 6 days later. When England line up for that game of games, they must have a comprehensive win behind them, with hopefully a few issues resolved to boot. They would be well advised to start at the top.

Tigers rip up the formbook.

Expect the unexpected. That is as good a mantra as any for this World Cup, which took another dramtic turn earlier when Bangladesh claimed their second significant scalp of the tournament. And this was no narrow victory, guided by fortune or hanging on a controversial decision; they trampled all over the South Africans, their domination beginning with a calm opening stand, blossoming into a delightful mid-innings partnership between the precocious Mohammed Ashraful and the equally impish Aftab Ahmed and culminating in them claiming the first six South African wickets before the third column on the scoreboard had been called into action.

One could argue that this result should come as no suprise; after all, isn't this the same Bangladesh who dumped India out of the tournament? Well, it was today, but the Tigers who clambered all over the shocked South Africans had been far less fierce in their initial Super 8 encounters, showing all the fight of a decidedly sickly moggy in submissive defeats to the two Antipodean powers. Consistency is obviously a problem, but that is the price that has to be paid when bringing through such a young side. The rewards, as evidenced by the two outstanding victories, are rich indeed.

As for the South Africans, not only have they been humbled, with their credibility and No.1 ranking blown out of the water, but they now face a struggle to make the semi-finals, after today's result opened the door for England and the West Indies. The outcome of their fixtures with those two sides will now be crucial; should either or both prevail, the final match between the hosts and England could be an effective quarter-final. England have the first chance to make a bid, albeit against the form side Australia. Nevertheless, what 24 hours ago was a crucial tie for England has lost no importance, but can now be regarded as one of two routes to goal. With all being well, it now appears that three wins against Bangladesh, South Africa and West Indies would be enough to ensure qualification.

Even so, that would be a considerable ask for a team so fragile in both development and confidence as England. Furthermore, despite the abiding memory of their against the odds CB series triumph, equally prominent in their thougts is sure to be the last occasion on which they entered into battle with Australia as underdogs with a fighting chance. It seems that the best bet against the World Champions is to have every chance or none at all. Unfortunately, like so much of this England one-day side, the reality is something of a halfway house and they must guard against being trapped by an Australian side which delights in proving itself both rock and hard place.

Floating England have their wings clipped.

The Butterfly effect (or chaos theory if you will): Does the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings in Brazil set off a Tornado in Texas? The Wikipedia definition is: Small variations of the initial condition that may produce large variations in the long term behavior of the system. Sitting pretty at 101-2, with overs and wickets aplenty in hand, Ian Bell's bat, having already been grounded at the non-striker's end, bounced a millimetre of the dusty turf. No significant moment, you might think. A moment however, significant enough to see him freakishly dismissed, with Pietersen's bullying straight drive deflected onto the stumps at his end. Bell's bat bounced, and the ensuing earthquake not only removed him, but also blew away the power trio of Pietersen, Collingwood and Flintoff, who fell like drunk men trying to balance one-footed on a moving pedalo.

A thrilling stand followed, with seasoned warrior Paul Nixon, who became the second member of this England team to reverse-sweep the best spinner in the world for six, accompanying young Ravi Bopara, who sports a greater growth of hair on his chin than "the badger" does on his gleaming pate. But it was not enough; Dilhara Fernando, with 3 needed of his last ball, dummied his first attempt, saw which way Bopara was heading, and castled him with the next. It was a brave effort, and showed why England have placed so much faith in Bopara, despite his inexperience.

But it should not have been down to him. Once again, the openers tanked, with Ed Joyce caught cold and cumbersome by Malinga, although the strangle of Vaughan was fortuitous, both in the unsual mode of dismissal, and the extent to which umpire Billy Bowden felt sure he could detect an edge, while detailed forensic analysis failed to reach a satisfactory conclusion. Kevin Pietersen played in his usual domineering way, adding a useful 90 with Bell, despite some frenetic and ill-judged running. Although recently given the title of No.1 one-day batsman in the world, as much as teams rightly fear the hulking South African, they can rest safely in the knowledge that he will get himself out somewhere between 50 and 70. The champion innings would have been to see his team home, no great ask in terms of run rate for a man like Pietersen. Evidently he knew better, and perished trying to show Murali who was boss; unfortunately for him, the great twirler has seen many an idiot try to dictate terms to him, with the result invariably going only one way. Even more unfortunately for England, the return of Pietersen to the dressing room heralded as it so often does the raising of the white flag. Flintoff fell to a flat flooted swipe against a slower ball, the sort of shot which makes his pedalo antics look bright, and for once Collingwood was not the man for the job, his shuffling feet caught flat on the crease by a Malinga in-dipper.

Earlier, England had actually bolwed quite well; James Anderson was skilful and luckless with the new ball, Sajid Mahmood the opposite, although the dismissal of Kumar Sangakkara with a wide slower ball full-toss was cunningly conceived. Only captain Jayawerdene really got going, his half-century coming at nearly a run a ball, with his off-side play especially pleasing on the eye. Although Panesar had a rare off-day, Collingwood recovered well from some early tap, and Flintoff twice did the exact job asked, removing Upul Tharanga, just as he was starting to cut loose mid innings, and then returning at the end to slip one of his inch perfect yorkers past Chamara Silva, also nailing the dangerous Vaas. The effort in the field was also a cut above; Bopara and Collingwood were tireless, a stiff neck not preventing the latter from taking a trademark diving catch at backward point off Vaas, while Ian Bell's diving save and throw down of the stumps turned a likely boundary into a wicket.

If only England had been as upbeat in their batting display; the two excellent partnerships which accounted for the majority of the runs just failing to mask the two critical collapses. Nevertheless, England can take much from this defeat, although not the crucial two points. Australia on Sunday is now a win or bust situation, and they must respond by going for broke. Pietersen proved today that the new ball does not trouble him, and warrants promotion to No.3, with Ian Bell opening alongside the captain, who one hopes will be inspired by Australian opposition against which he has often thrived. Andrew Strauss should then come in at 4, with Ed Joyce dropping out. Otherwise, the remainder of the team all deserve to retain their places.

It is hard not to feel that England have blown their big chance; they twice had Sri Lanka on the rack, and we will never now know whether one more Bopara boundary would have created a wave to carry England through to the semis. What we do know is that it will take one hell of a momumental performance against Australia on Sunday. Same tactics as today; bowl first, take early wickets and expose the undercooked Australian middle-order. The attack they will face on Sunday is not half of what they had to deal with today; Shaun Tait is a mere pimple on the Malinga-scale, while Nathan Bracken is an equally pale imitation of Chaminda Vaas. But that is more than made up for by a batting line-up which is twice as good as what anyone else has to offer. Glenn McGrath, in his last match against England, has predicted that the Poms will be no problem; he's probably right - but then it would be really good to rub his nose in it one more time.

Soft England must prepare for a hard landing

For a team which has been so umimpressive at one-day cricket, it seems a bit much for England to keep on insisting that it will all be alright on the night, and that they will flick a switch and start playing properly now that they are to face up to some of the big names. For the wearied English sporting fan, it's all starting to look a bit like that other World Cup last summer; our footballers scraped past some very ordinary teams in a dreadfully unconvincing manner, while all the while maintaining that the big performance was just around the corner. More worrying for for the cricketers, it seems that said big performance which has thus far eluded them is not around the next corner, but was in fact left behind at the last crossroads, where, after a winter of discontent, fans briefly basked in a Collingwood wonderland.

Citing complacency as a reason for another sluggish display against Ireland just does not wash; if they cannot raise themselves for a World Cup, even against a lesser team, then what is the point of being there in the first place. The importance of momentum cannot be underestimated. Ricky Ponting knows that; following a painful Ashes defeat, his team won ten out of ten Test Matches in the run up to the next series, and steamrollered England, whose run-in had been beset by injury and poor form. Likewise, following 5 consecutive one-day defeats prior to this tournament, Australia used their group games as a springboard to get themselves back into form and demolish fancied South Africa. They now look as strong as they ever did. England, on the other hand, depsite the scheduling gift of three consecutive easy games have muddled through, doing just enough to avoid embarassment, while never dominating and building confidence. They should be hitting the ground running for tomorrow's big game, yet they approach it in no better shape than they did the first game against New Zealand.

We know that England have it in them to beat anyone on their day; beating Australia in their own backyard proved that (and don't listen to moaning Aussies blithering on about fatigue - England had played a mirror schedule). What is so frustrating is that there is no way of knowing whether they will produce the goods; it is by no means beyond the realms of doubt that James Anderson could wreck the much vaunted Sri Lankan top order and win the game there and then. He has it in him, the ball should swing for him. But that is a possible; Australia know that they will get a fast start; even if Hayden and Gilchrist fall, the runs will keep coming form Ponting, Symonds, Clarke and Hussey. England are dealing in possibles; good enough to win a game, any game indeed, but not the currency which will win a tournament, especially as long a one as this.

As far as tomorrow's game is concerned, it may not be do or die for England, but lose, and they will be on a slippery slope. Australia follow, refreshed by a week-long break, on Sunday, and should that not go England's way they are in a situation where they would realistically need to win their last three games. This would be achievable against Bangladesh, and in the last game against a West Indies side which will be out of cotnention by then. The much meatier filling to that flimsy sandwich will be the stumbling block though, in the match-up against South Africa. England have not played them since the winter of 2004-5, and a 5-1 thrashing then reflects the still cavernous gap between the two sides in the shorter form of the game.

A win is what England need from these next two games; just one win, which would be much better achieved at the earlier opportunity, which might give hope of a positive result against Australia, which would all but secure qualification (wow... you can wake up now). Their best chance is to bowl first and take early wickets, exposing the Sri Lankan middle-order, unproven under pressure, to a newer ball. For all the power in the top four, there is a soft underbelly to this Sri Lankan side, especially with Marvan Atapattu kicking his heels on the sidelines. If the new ball bowlers do well, Flintoff and Panesar finish the job and the Sri Lankans are restricted to a manageable total, then that would put England in the run-chase scenario which Pietersen in particular thrives on. Most of all they must nail Jayasuriya early; let him get a flier and he will more than not make you pay for the duration. That is why England must be bold in selecting Anderson's new ball partner (not Mahmood - that would be stupid) and go for Plunkett. As much as he is generous with wides, he has the ability to take key wickets with the new ball, wickets which could win England the game.

Of course the run chase will be no doddle, especially bearing in mind the for of England's top order. Against Ireland, Ed Joyce saw a straight ball dance naked in front of him and still decided to let it go. A second misjudgement, this time of a catch in the field (his second easy drop of the tournament) could see him relegated in favour of Andrew Strauss. Good player that he is, he has no runs (or games) behind him, and is not exactly a one-day player anyway. Don't hold your breath for a change in fortune. We are still waiting for Michael Vaughan to score some runs; sadly, it seems that the cool, calm brain which has so often seen England through in tight corners, falls out of his head when a bat is put in his hand and a set of pajamas handed to him. Someone needs to tell him that it is his job to see off the new ball, and hang around long enough to unleash some of those wonderful cover drives and pull shots, which make him the most pleasing England batsman to watch when on song. Thus far, it has been left to the phlegmatic Collingwood and a slightly pumped-down Kevin Pietersen to shoulder the burden of five, not two. Should the arrogant swagger and busy shuffle be absent from England's innings until the 20th over tomorrow, then there is cause for hope.