England's demise is inevitable result of top-order failure

Young players must be brought in quickly after second successive early-round exit as Hussain's side share Rainbow Nation's disbelief

Although one has sympathy for the way in which Nasser Hussain's squad were eliminated from the 2003 World Cup, England do not deserve to be in the next stage of the tournament. Helplessly watching the rain fall in Bulawayo while the sun shone in Port Elizabeth was a cruel but fitting end to a miserable campaign for Hussain's troops, but after only beating one Test side during the tournament England only have themselves to blame.

Fingers will point at England's decision not to play against Zimbabwe in Harare on 14 February, and ultimately it may have cost them qualification for the Super Sixes, but losing to Australia in a match they should have won on Sunday was just as crucial. In patches England played some reasonable cricket but in the end they were not good enough. It therefore came as no surprise when Hussain announced he was to stand down as England's one-day captain when he heard of the news from Bulawayo.

Before the tournament started it was felt the lack of class and experience in England's bowling would prove to be the obstacle which prevented their progress to the later stages but it was the batting which fundamentally let them down. In the five games they played in South Africa no player scored a century and the highest run-scorer was Andrew Flintoff, with 156 runs. This is a wretched statistic when one considers the amount of runs India's Sachin Tendulkar, or even John Davison of Canada, have scored in the tournament.

The inability of England to post or chase decent scores was down to a top four of Marcus Trescothick, Nick Knight, Michael Vaughan and Hussain all falling short of what was required. Each failed to make any sort of impact in the competition and it is at their feet that a large proportion of the blame lies. The pitches cannot be used as an excuse because they were good and only the Durham all-rounder Paul Collingwood will travel back to the UK today with his reputation enhanced.

Although England lacked a decisive wicket taker in the middle of the innings, the bowling was competitive. Despite going for 12 runs in the 49th over against Australia, James Anderson had a good tournament and the future looks bright for this 20-year-old, who won two man-of-the-match awards. England's two all-rounders, Flintoff and Craig White, pulled their weight. They contributed with both bat and ball and it was encouraging to see Flintoff back to full fitness after a dreadful winter in Australia attempting to overcome a double hernia.

Following England's exit in the first round for the second World Cup in a row, there needs to be a clear-out of older players and a plan put in place to make the team more worthy challengers in the West Indies in four years' time. Hussain's retirement from one-day cricket will create one vacancy and Alec Stewart's imminent decision will make another for young players to step in.

It is also time to say thank you to Knight, even if he is averaging over 40. He will not be around for too much longer. Only Trescothick and Vaughan, two players whom England's batting should be built around, are guaranteed of their places but they need to get their fingers out. This summer's NatWest matches against Zimbabwe, South Africa and Pakistan must be used to bring in the likes of Ian Bell and James Troughton from Warwickshire or Owais Shah from Middlesex.

On the bowling front Andrew Caddick should have played his last game in blue and the injury-prone White must be handled with care if Hussain and the England coach Duncan Fletcher want him to be available for the Test side. The bowling, though, is young and only Chris Tremlett stands out as a player they are yet to use in this form of the game.

The spinners played a secondary role throughout and Ian Blackwell has some serious work to do on his fitness if he wishes to keep in favour with Fletcher, who expects his players to look and move like athletes. Finally, after a good winter at the Academy, Chris Read, the Nottinghamshire wicketkeeper, should be given an opportunity to re-establish himself as a one-day cricketer.

The exit of England and South Africa from the World Cup and the qualification of Kenya and Zimbabwe for the Super Sixes, because of political, climatic or miscalculation problems, has given this tournament the feel of a low-key affair. It is not the fault of these weaker nations that they are through, and good luck to them, but when Lara, Kallis, Vaughan and Wasim Akram are replaced on the television screens by Obuya and Blignaut for reasons other than cricket you have to ask yourself whether the organisers have got things right.

To a large extent, it serves the International Cricket Council right that the most prestigious tournament the game has to offer has turned into something of a fiasco. Through showing intransigence by not allowing matches to be relocated or have rain days, so that the best sides progress through the tournament, they have brought this position upon themselves.

With teams taking points through to the Super Sixes, on the basis of four points for a victory over a side they played in their original pool, two points for an abandoned match and one point or half a point for wins or no results in games against sides who did not go through, Australia – with 12 points – are in a position where they may not have to win any of the three matches they will play to qualify for a semi-final place. The worrying thing is that, with 10 points, Kenya may not have to either.

England have not won many friends in this World Cup because of the manner in which they handled the Zimbabwe affair, but their absence will be missed as much as that of South Africa, Pakistan and the West Indies.