England need another leap forwards

It remains optimistic to suggest that England are all systems go for the World Cup. For the moment it is enough that they are no longer in gridlock – and it must be admitted that they left that state behind them with some alacrity yesterday.

Only a year ago, it should not be forgotten – and how could we? – they not only failed to reach the final of their own triangular tournament but did so by losing every group game. Not to mention the preceding five matches. Progress was inevitable only because there was nowhere else to go. In reaching the final of this summer's one-day competition Nasser Hussain's side confirmed the advances of the winter, but no more.

It was crucial that they played at Lord's yesterday; for the wellbeing of the team, the shredded nerves of the sponsors, who are about to agree a new three-contract, and the patience of the supporters, who have continued to roll up over many fitful years. But as India's captain, Sourav Ganguly, pointed out drolly on Friday when asked to compare his country's latest appearance at the ground with one they made in 1983: "That was the World Cup final, this is the NatWest final". And the latter, his tone said, is a long way from leading to the former.

Yesterday makes little difference to England's planning for the World Cup now. It was rather another staging post, and it would be daft to read too much into England's undoubted improvement. In the seven months before the World Cup starts, England have a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 15 matches to reach South Africa perfectly prepared.

Fourteen would probably be the ideal number. That would mean they had at least reached the final of the ICC Knockout Cup in Sri Lanka in September (a significant but unnecessary kind of mini- World Cup 18 weeks before the real thing) and taken by storm the winter triangular tournament in Australia by winning the first two of the best-of-three finals.

"We are very close to knowing what our squad will be for the World Cup, but what we still don't know is our best 11," Hussain said. "The door isn't closed by any means on people out there who are doing well for their counties. We haven't shuffled around that much as far as team selection has gone this summer, but we have made ourselves a bit more flexible in the batting order. But every member of this squad has made a case for inclusion in the team at some point."

Hussain touched on several raw nerves. His place in the team is rightly unassailable, and his place in the batting order may now no longer be open to doubt. Nobody could deny that his century yesterday was a triumph of bloody-mindedness, but it is partly because he has so much trouble in settling down at No 3 that the batting order has sometimes needed to be flexible. If Hussain was a No 3 for every occasion, like Ricky Ponting, flexibility, otherwise known as needs must, would not be necessary.

Still, there is a case for saying that Hussain can bat where he wants. The open secret that he intends to retire from the captaincy after the World Cup refuses to die, but nobody should doubt that this is still his (and Fletcher's) one-day team. Hussain has been captain in all but one of the last 21 completed matches and in all 13 victories, but because of injury played in only two of the 11 defeats before.

Then there is the identity of those knocking on the door. They are all the wrong side of 30 and, as Hussain said, they had to pick the best team. This summer it has been impossible to field the best 11. Andrew Caddick and Darren Gough have both been injured recently and rarely can there have been a more emphatic case of a pair of opening bowlers cementing their places by not playing.

The apparent find of the summer – and the embodiment of Hussain's point about lads in the shires having a chance – is Ronnie Irani. The Essex captain has done everything that could reasonably be asked, but why does the feeling persist that at international level he is not good enough? Perhaps because he is not, and no matter how much sweat he is willing to give, one day in circumstances that really matter, the circumstances that Ganguly meant when he talked of the NatWest and the World Cup finals, he may be found wanting. You hope not.

Rumours also persist about Nick Knight's place, which will not have been dissipated after his failure yesterday. In some ways he remains their best one-day batsman, but England dropped him before the last World Cup and may have no compunction about doing so again – yesterday was no time for a low score.

In reflecting on the change in England, Hussain dwelt on the short tour to Zimbabwe last year. That, he said, was when they realised they had to look for something different and when they alighted on Paul Collingwood and Jeremy Snape. "Who had thought of Snape for England before?" he asked. Like Irani, it can be said that Collingwood and Snape are bits-and-pieces players, but they have helped transform England's fielding. There will, it seems, always be room for so-called one-day specialists, despite the statement by David Graveney that they were increasingly leaning to the notion that you should pick your best players, the ones who played Test cricket.

But as Hussain said: "It's important to to have some one-day specialists. They come in and give the others a lift. It would be very difficult for one group of players to sustain their momentum through all the cricket that is played."

And where are England now? "I would say 80 per cent of our play in this tournament has been very good," said Hussain. But he knows that is at least 20 per cent short of competing properly in the World Cup.