Monday, October 8, 2001 No sooner had Zimbabwe located their long-lost fighting spirit than England wrapped up the series with a well-judged run-chase. Each of their chases has been more impressive than the last – the first was wobblier than necessary as one foot came off the gas, 1999 World Cup style; the second disdainful as they set themselves an artificial target of winning inside 35 overs; the third cool, calm and collective, with so many batsmen contributing that they overhauled a big total without an individual fifty. As series victories go, it has been highly efficient. But is it significant?

We already knew that England were good at one-day cricket against poor opponents. Fifteen months ago, they saw off Zimbabwe and West Indies in a one-sided triangular. Shortly before that, they beat Zimbabwe away, 3-0. And Zimbabwe are a weaker team now, after losing Murray Goodwin and Neil Johnson, and acquiring a backdrop of horrible anxiety which only Andy Flower seems to be able to shut out.

Beating them in straight sets means England can go into the World Cup in 18 months' time in South Africa confident that they can see off Zimbabwe, who are in their group. The trouble is, so are Australia, Pakistan and India. If ICC stick with the Super Six system – a decision which will be announced on October 27 – only three will go through from each group, and England will have to outperform India as well as the Zims to be sure of making it. It could come down to who scores more runs against Namibia and the Netherlands. Who would you choose to open the innings in those games – Ganguly and Tendulkar, or Knight and Trescothick?

England went to Zimbabwe not just to win but to make winning a habit, change the culture as Nasser Hussain put it, collect some much-needed experience and unearth a gem or two among their beginners. They have reached the first goal, but there is work to be done on the rest. The winning habit demands that they win at least one of the last two matches, in Bulawayo this Wednesday and Saturday. The experience factor requires that Owais Shah should play in both games, probably at the expense of Graham Thorpe: the best thing about the series win is that it has been achieved with only 21 runs from a man who, a week ago, seemed indispensable.

The culture has changed, with sharper fielding, greater teamwork and some attempt at versatility, even if it only means Mark Ramprakash picking up cheap wickets. There have been two real finds: Matthew Hoggard, who has reproduced the white-ball skills he shows for Yorkshire, and Jeremy Snape, who is shaping up as the perfect fast-food cricketer – when the chips are down, he chips in.

Ben Hollioake and Andy Flintoff, the still-youthful prodigies, have done their best to behave like old pros. And Hussain himself has been a bigger figure than ever before in a blue shirt. If you had to pick the World Cup team now, it might go like this: Knight, Trescothick, Hussain, Thorpe, Flintoff, B Hollioake, A Keeper, Snape, Ealham, Gough and Hoggard, with Shah, Ramprakash, Giles and Mullally or Kirtley in reserve.

The keeper could be anyone. James Foster has been better at stumping than catching, and has done more squabbling than batting. Alec Stewart may be old enough to be his dad but he remains a strong contender, if only because a swift recall would save us from his wooden TV commentary.

Tim de Lisle is editor of Wisden.com.

More from the Editor
Match Two Verdict: Are they in the right country?
Match One Verdict: Zims' self-destruction makes it easy for England

© Wisden CricInfo Ltd