England’s Moeen Ali (left) and captain Eoin Morgan congratulate Bangladesh on their win in their World Cup match in Adelaide on Monday. (Reuters)

By Mike Selvey in Adelaide/theguardian.com
   
In practice, on those occasions when they have not been in the nets and have had the use of a full-sized ground, the England team have undertaken what they describe as “game-day-scenario practice”.
This is what us old timers might, with a sneer, call middle practice, but rather than just a simple bat against ball, they do attempt to create hypothetical situations, say 50 from 25 balls or something like that. To this end, 276 from 50 overs might have been a worthwhile exercise.
Anyway, during these sessions, the bowlers have at times become particularly narked, on account of the batsmen running down the pitch and belting the living daylights out of the ball.
“Why the hell don’t you do that in matches?” is the thrust of their ire, to which the correct response from the batsmen would be: “Because we have proper bowlers coming at us.”
In truth, the bowlers have a point and it was never better illustrated than in the insipid way the England batsmen were subdued and ultimately conquered by Bangladesh bowling that adhered largely to the old fashioned principle of hitting a good length consistently and hitting the deck hard.
A question to be asked then is this—would England have batted in such a meek manner, had they already qualified for the quarter-finals? The answer, one suspects, is that they would have been uninhibited, or at least less restrained, knowing that whatever happened it would not affect their overall progress. With that sort of pressure removed comes a freedom.
England batted as if their own shadows would have given them the jitters—they were, or at least looked, totally scared of failure, knowing what the consequences would be.
This was not a batting side blazing away in an effort to show their dominance and at the same time trying to advance their run rate in order to compensate for possible weather interruptions to what is now their final match in Sydney this Friday.
Eoin Morgan was caught on the fence but beyond that each of the dismissals had an element of feebleness, starting with the dozy run out of Moeen Ali, and the entire middle order deciding to play with half a bat in trying to run the ball to third man (as if using the full face, to hit the ball in front of square, was too easy), and edging catches.
Even Jos Buttler, who at least gave it a go, perished in a manner that had him hanging his head as he had just done likewise with his bat. It was, by the way, the second time since they have been in this country that Buttler has resurrected an innings that looked dead and taken them to the point where a win was possible.
The first time England won, and on this occasion they lost, the point being that on neither occasion was Buttler able to see them over the line himself as MS Dhoni would have managed; it takes time to learn and he will get there.
Of course, in collectively playing like that, the consequences of which England were so afraid have duly started to arrive. First, there will be management repercussions, although quite who is accountable to whom is intriguing. Thus it would be Moores who agreed his coaching staff but Paul Downton who employed Moores. Who, though, employed Downton?
If Moores decides that he needs to change his coaching staff (which will happen anyway, as David Saker had already handed in his statutory six months’ notice to terminate his contract) but Downton then decides to terminate Moores’ contract, what then?
And what if Downton sacked Moores (despite his stated backing) but was himself sacked?
It is all quite fun actually, but the answer has to be that first and foremost the man at the very top is accountable for all that happens below. Everything that happens is contingent on Downton’s position, so there is unlikely to be any action on anything of that nature until this tournament is over.
By then, the England selectors, of which Moores is one, will have chosen their party for the three-Test tour of the Caribbean that starts next month. It would be perfectly possible for Moores to be given gardening leave during that tour pending a decision on his future and, say, for Paul Farbrace to take temporary charge in much the same way as Andy Flower did in the Caribbean after Moores was sacked before. This, though, seems unlikely.
What is absolutely certain is that James Whitaker, the national selector, will insist that far from resting supposedly key players before a particularly challenging nine months, England will now take the strongest squad they can muster, of which not the least intriguing aspect will be whether this includes Jonathan Trott, who insists he is fully restored to health in body and mind.
As for the one-day side, the whole template will now be torn up and the process will start anew from the first ODI of the summer.
It will begin by making a judgment, not on who could be an integral part of the next four years up to the 2019 World Cup in England, but on who will not be around then.
This will almost certainly include Jimmy Anderson, Ian Bell, Stuart Broad and Ravi Bopara, and possibly also Eoin Morgan, whose captaincy, despite having been handed a hospital pass at the start of the year, is under question along with his decline in performance.
The next time England take the field in coloured clothing, none of these players should be seen. It will not bring instant results but it will be a start.
In Moeen Ali, Joe Root, Jos Buttler, Gary Ballance, Ben Stokes, Alex Hales and James Taylor there is a nucleus of batsmen from the next generation already in place, with others—Jason Roy, Sam Billings, James Vince, for example —coming up on the rails.
Bowling will be the problem.

Five ways forward for England
Re-assess the management set-up
The shockwaves from the 5-0 Ashes defeat to Australia are still being felt and the resulting regime of the coach Peter Moores and the managing director Paul Downton looks stalled already. With the ECB under new stewardship in the form of the chief executive, Tom Harrison, and the incoming chairman, Colin Graves, the onus is on the leadership team to breathe fresh life into England rather than accept failure as part of a rolling and seemingly never-ending cycle of so-called development.
Look up from Twenty20    
Power has been at the forefront of this World Cup, with Australia’s Glen Maxwell, scorer of the second fastest century in the tournament’s history, a prime example of how Twenty20 is throwing up players whose ability to strike the ball outweighs fears over their technical ability. It is telling that England have dithered over Alex Hales, despite two years of sitting in the top three of the Twenty20 rankings and a star showing at the World T20 last April, but were more than happy to parachute Gary Ballance into the World Cup side on the back of a successful summer in the Test arena.
Greater intensity in domestic game
With 18 teams to accommodate across three formats, the Royal London Cup, when it comes to the priorities of a club, naturally comes third behind the exhaustive but prestigious County Championship and the commercially more successful NatWest T20 Blast. The lack of intensity on display in the tournament, it could be argued, is therefore failing to equip players for when they take the step up to international level, irrespective of how many overs are being played.    
Spot the trends
Going into the World Cup it seemed every nation—bar England—recognised how the fielding restrictions would lend themselves to 35 overs of high intensity but relatively risk-free batting, followed by a late surge. The result? Monster scores. Sticking 100-plus runs on the board in the last 10 overs has far outweighed the benefit of getting off to a flyer, and yet in the spirit of Sri Lanka circa 1996 England have sent Moeen Ali out over the top with the instructions to attack with full impunity, an approach that paid off only once against Scotland.    
Stop barking up the wrong trees
If England’s inglorious group stage exit in 2015 has taught us anything, it is that previous inept World Cup campaigns were not, as we were told, caused by the gruelling Ashes series that preceded them but rather a fundamental failure to grasp the evolution of the 50-over game. Now, we are being told by Downton that inexperience is the real reason why Eoin Morgan’s men failed. Don’t believe it. In the four years between the World Cups, England have played the same number of one-dayers as Australia, using nine fewer players. England also boast six players who played in the previous World Cup, compared with Australia’s four.