England need to back ability with desire

Geoffrey Boycott: "England have a few problems"

England's relationship with the World Cup has been somewhat dysfunctional in recent times. Back in the day they were habitual contenders - runners-up on three occasions in the first five tournaments, most recently at Melbourne in 1992, when Graham Gooch's pace-setters were mauled by the cornered tigers of Pakistan. But ever since that balmy night England's World Cup body-language has screamed indifference. Four consecutive debacles from 1996 onwards gave the impression that they no longer cared about the game's most prestigious global trophy.

This time, however, it could all be different. Could... After all, in the Caribbean back in May, they won their first ICC tournament, after 35 years of failure, when they routed Australia in the final of the World Twenty20. Either side of that they won five consecutive 50-over series - their most prolific sequence in one-day history - starting with a maiden triumph in South Africa in November 2009, and ending with an emotional 3-2 victory over Pakistan in a late-September grudge match at the Rose Bowl.

There was no questioning their passion for the format in those ten months, but as ever with England, their progress over 50 overs comes with a caveat. In their most recent series in Australia last month, they were crushed 6-1 - the identical scoreline by which they succumbed in their previous series defeat, in England in 2009. On both occasions, the team was emotionally spent after gruelling Ashes victories, and it remains to be seen whether they can rouse themselves for another seven-week trek, so soon after completing their single biggest objective of the winter.

All the same, they've certainly planned for the World Cup as if they intend to give it their best short. The piecemeal selections that were a feature of the early 2000s have given way to a solid squad mentality, and whether or not England confound their recent tournament reputation, it can no longer be said that they are an accident waiting to happen. Emboldened by Andy Flower, their hard-bitten Zimbabwean coach, and following the lead of their captain Andrew Strauss, whose freedom of expression has revived a one-day career that spluttered to a halt in the last campaign in the Caribbean in 2007, they are a side that no opponents will dare to take lightly.

But can England really be considered contenders once again? After all, it wasn't so long ago - November 2008 to be precise - that they were thrashed 5-0 on the one-day leg of their tour of India, and of all their World Cup embarrassments, few can rival the last Asian event in 1996 for sheer unrelenting awfulness. But times can change quickly in international sport. After all, it wasn't so long ago that many of these same players were inflicting three innings beatings on the once-mighty Australian Test team. Desire counts for so much at this level. If England can want the World Cup as badly as they wanted the Ashes, they'll bring themselves that much closer to contention.

World Cup pedigree
England have hosted more tournaments (four) than any other country, and they've appeared in more finals (three) than any team other than those serial champions, Australia (six). Unfortunately, that is the full extent of their achievements in the World Cup. Since 1992, they have won 13 out of their 25 fixtures across four tournaments, but eight of those have come against associate nations, and a further two against Zimbabwe (in 1999) and Bangladesh (in 2007). Their most recent outing was a one-wicket win in a dead rubber against West Indies in Barbados, which leaves two results of which to be proud - an eight-wicket win over Sri Lanka in 1999, and a James Anderson-inspired crushing of Pakistan four years later. On neither occasion, however, did England emerge from the group stage.

Form guide

Impressive, going on hopeless. If England's home-and-away series wins over Bangladesh were to be expected, then to topple both South Africa and Australia in quick succession was unquestionably eye-opening, even if the Aussie 3-2 victory was bookended by that brace of 6-1 thrashings by the same opponents. (Even if, as we've already discussed, England weren't really trying for those matches ...).

	Desire counts for so much at this level. If England can want the World Cup as badly as they wanted the Ashes, they'll bring themselves that much closer to contention

On those occasions when they put their minds to it, England's seam attack has the courage of its convictions in both attack and defence (and as often as not, those two disciplines have ended up being one and the same anyway), while Graeme Swann's unwavering confidence lends a new degree of menace where England used to be content to meander through the middle overs. But the most crushing blow to their fortunes is the loss of Eoin Morgan, their likeliest match-winner in any given run-chase, and a player who could have had the world at his feet on the improvisation-friendly pitches of the subcontinent.

Expert eye
Angus Fraser: England have not coped particularly well with limited- overs cricket on the subcontinent. They played on some subcontinental-style pitches against Pakistan in the English summer and were beaten. Ian Bell can adapt, and Kevin Pietersen is always a class act. So batting will be their strength. They have become a very good fielding side too. The weakness will be the fast bowling, as Jimmy Anderson won't be that effective with the ball not swinging a huge amount. England will bank on Swann and Michael Yardy on the slow pitches.

Where they're likely to finish
Much will depend on the focus that exists after the squad's insultingly brief stopover in the UK following more than 100 days in Australia. But assuming they can put the last month to one side and pick up where they left off in the English home season, a semi-final slot ought to be the minimum objective.

Watchability
In Morgan's absence, the onus reverts to the shoulders of Pietersen, a player who has been allowed to coast in recent contests, but whose impact when he ups the tempo remains second to none. If he rediscovers the hard-hitting form that won him the Man of the Series award in the World Twenty20, then England will still be in possession of one of the tournament's most alluring drawcards.

Key players

Pietersen misplaced his mojo for much of 2010, as he struggled to pick up where he had left off in early 2009, prior to the ankle injury that laid him low in that summer's Ashes. But as a man for the big occasion he is unrivalled in England's ranks - let's not forget he pitched in with two hundreds in their doomed World Cup campaign four years ago. His opponents may well wonder if his best years are behind him, but none of them would dare to presume such a thing.

After a seven-year gap between his first and second international match, Swann's star has been in the ascendancy ever since he marked his return to England's ranks with a starring role in Sri Lanka in late 2007. His skill, confidence, prodigious powers of spin, and attacking mentality have revived the classical offspinner's art, with barely any need for a doosra in his armoury. The number of times he has struck in the first over of a spell, in all formats, is extraordinary, and he takes particular delight in tormenting left-handers. If he enjoys a good tournament, England can expect to go far.

But sadly, their key player remains the one who's got away. Morgan's extraordinary repertoire and ice-cool temperament have arguably been the single biggest factor in the team's one-day renaissance. Quite simply, with a player of his class in the ranks, there was no longer any reason not to take the format seriously. Each of his three hundreds to date for England have been magnificent and match-sealing, but the team must now prove that his broken finger hasn't broken their hopes.