Angus Fraser: Duncan Fletcher transformed England but as they lurch from one poor display to the next, one thing is clear. It's time for change

England may yet win the World Cup. The quality of cricket being played by Michael Vaughan's side at present makes it pretty remote, but it could still happen.

Yet the events of the next fortnight should not stop the England and Wales Cricket Board from looking for a new coach at the end of the World Cup. Duncan Fletcher is the finest leader England have had but it is time for change. The current set-up, which Fletcher heads, is tired and stale, and there is no sense of fun about the England squad as they go about their work.

Those of us who have followed the England team closely this winter have seen the life slowly sucked out of the squad. The criticism in the aftermath of England's 5-0 Ashes defeat hurt Fletcher deeply and it has affected his approach to the job. In public, he walks around stony-faced looking like the world is against him. He barely acknowledges the media, even though we see and work with him on a daily basis.

Of course, it is not his job to be pleasant to the media but I find it hard to believe that, with the flick of a switch, he becomes a vibrant and stimulating presence in the dressing-room. Coaching England is a demanding job and it seems to have taken its toll. It is why Fletcher's regime has developed a sense that an era is coming to an end. The players need a fresh voice and ideas to stimulate them.

In Perth four months ago, after England timidly surrendered the Ashes to a highly skilled and motivated Australia, many pundits and fans were calling for Fletcher's head. At the time I did not feel that the move would benefit England. It seemed a knee-jerk reaction just to sate the desire of a disaffected public.

Results this winter - the Ashes thrashing and a one-day side that seems to be going nowhere - do not suggest it but the England team has come a long way since Fletcher took charge six-and-a-half years ago. In 2004, England won 11 and drew two of the 13 Test matches they played and in 2005 Australia were defeated for the first time in 18 years. For these feats alone English cricket will be eternally grateful to Fletcher.

Fletcher did not win the Ashes on his own and, despite the fact that he made several glaring mistakes last winter, the defeat in Australia was not down to him either. The only reason to replace Fletcher at the end of the Ashes was if the ECB had a better coach lined up. It did not and he deserved the chance to rebuild his reputation.

At the end of the Ashes I was looking for a response, a sign that what took place in Australia was a blip. But that, sadly, has not taken place. Injury has not helped the side's cause but England have continued to plod along. Supporters enjoyed the Commonwealth Bank Series victory but the one-day team's form over the past 18 months suggests it was something of a fluke.

It is hugely disappointing to see England's plight because winning the Ashes gave those involved the opportunity to be more expressive and confident about their cricket. The victory gave them the chance to talk honestly and openly about what was taking place without fear of being ridiculed but, instead, they have become introspective and guarded. The squad seems more preoccupied with keeping hold of what it gained during the previous three years than taking steps forward.

The behaviour of several members of the squad in St Lucia, who were found to be out drinking until 4am on the eve of the World Cup match against Canada, did Fletcher no favours. The coach maintains that he has the respect of the players but the incident suggests that it may not be as high as he thinks.

The victory over Australia has brought arrogance and complacency to the England set-up, too. One of Fletcher's aims when he took charge was to create a tight unit of players that fed off himself, the assistant coaches he appointed and themselves. He prevented outsiders from becoming involved or coaches that he could not control.

Bob Cottam, the former England, Hampshire and Gloucestershire fast bowler was an example. Cottam is an excellent bowling coach, one I enjoyed working with enormously during my career. He loves bowlers and the art of fast bowling and is constantly challenging those who work with him to develop. He was, however, too honest for his own good away from cricket.

If England had a bad day and bowled rubbish he would tell the media that. He would also disagree with the head coach if he did not think a tactic or policy was right. This would not have gone down well with Fletcher, who has replaced all the boat-rockers with steady ships.

Fletcher seems to have developed the attitude that he and his coaches have every corner covered, too, and there is nothing anybody from the outside can tell them. This is foolish because nobody knows everything about the game. Fletcher has an excellent eye for a cricketer and he has worked very well with England's batsmen over the years. Michael Atherton, Nasser Hussain, Alec Stewart, Michael Vaughan, Marcus Trescothick and Andrew Strauss are among the many who have spoken glowingly about the methods he has had them employ.

Fletcher's knowledge of bowling is more limited and it is the main reason why the relationship with his bowlers is far cooler. Stephen Harmison, Matthew Hoggard and Andrew Flintoff all have healthy respect for Fletcher but they have never eulogised his work like the batsmen have.

I experienced how the close unit had become a closed shop in Pakistan two months after England's Ashes win in 2005. James Anderson was bowling at Troy Cooley, the England bowling coach, in the middle of the ground two days before the first Test in Multan. I walked over to have a chat with Cooley and Anderson. We began to talk about reverse swing, which is an inexact science. Anderson said that he was struggling to get the ball to reverse and I told him what I tried to do. He bowled a few more balls at Cooley using this method and the ball swung. A couple of days later I was told by a fellow journalist, who had spoken to Fletcher, that he would prefer it if I did not talk to his bowlers about the subject. England's bowlers, apparently, had a method and they did not want anybody complicating the issue.

Despite what has happened this winter the future for English cricket remains bright. The current side contains many highly talented and ambitious young cricketers that are desperate to take their games forward. Fletcher has the wherewithal to help them and the ECB would be foolish to dispense with his services totally. The West Indies and India, who tour England this summer, should be beaten and these victories will help dispel the feeling of doom that currently exists.

There are two real candidates for Fletcher's job: Tom Moody and Peter Moores. The superb cricket Sri Lanka have played at the World Cup has given Moody huge credibility but, in the short term, he seems set to put his family before his career and take the vacant position at Western Australia, the State he represented with distinction during the Eighties and Nineties.

Even so, Moores is still the likelier successor. He is an impressive man who created the environment that has made Sussex the dominant force in the domestic game. He would create stronger links between the counties and the England set-up, a relationship that has eroded during Fletcher's reign.