It is destined to go down as cricket's JFK moment. Where were you when Michael Vaughan skipped down the track to lift Chris Gayle over long-on for six? The Spin was on a grassy knoll of sorts, relaxing in the sun and listening to the radio (well, the Caribbean was hard work), so it is yet to witness the event with its own eyes. But assuming it actually took place - and with apologies to the conspiracy theorists - then what better way to encapsulate England's fearfulness in a World Cup that has been laughing at them from the moment they collapsed against New Zealand on March 16?
Vaughan's sparkling 79 in 68 balls might just have been the most frustrating innings by an England batsman all tournament, and there was plenty of competition. The time to play it had already passed (against South Africa, Vaughan scored no runs off his first 19 balls; against West Indies, he managed 21). Yet he chose the most meaningless game yet to demonstrate that he might have had a decent one-day career after all. Instead, we were treated to a strange mixture of the dying swan's sweetness and the dull thud of the dead-cat's bounce: England through and through.
Under normal circumstances, Vaughan would never play another one-day international again. But these are not normal circumstances. The coach's resignation - and the Spin uses the word in its loosest possible context: Duncan Fletcher did not sound on Sunday like a man who wanted to go - and the swift instalment of his successor have deflected some of the flak. These two factors might yet encourage the selectors to seek stability elsewhere, and that could mean Vaughan gets another chance come the Twenty20 international against West Indies on June 28 at The Oval. But it shouldn't.
The arguments about Vaughan's deficiencies as a one-day player have been aired often enough, and are not weakened by three wickets and an elegant thrash. But what has been overlooked is the fact that he was in charge of a team that - with the exception of Kevin Pietersen, Paul Collingwood and the bowling of Andrew Flintoff - played like diffident dormice. Yes, this could have been a function of the staleness that had become endemic under Fletcher. But the captain must take blame too, not only for failing to instil a more adventurous approach, but for personifying its very absence.
What happens next might depend of the findings of the Schofield report. It would help if power were taken out of Peter Moores's hands, thus absolving him of the need to make a tricky decision early on about the one-day future of a player who will captain his Test side. If not, the tensions could be unbearable almost before they have had time to fester.
Like all followers of English cricket, the Spin recognises what Vaughan has done for the English game. But if the last four World Cups have taught us anything - and please tell us they have! - then it is that preparation for the next tournament can never begin quickly enough. And that means handing the one-day captaincy immediately to Andrew Strauss or Collingwood (both have their merits) and allowing Vaughan to concentrate on proving that he still merits a place in the Test team.
Otherwise, we risk wasting precious time before 2011. You almost certainly did not read it here first.
Extract taken from The Spin, Guardian Unlimited's weekly take on the world of cricket. Subscribe now - it's free
