Stephen Brenkley: The mission for Moores: a good spring clean-up

In the end, it was astonishingly smooth. After months of agonising, soul-searching and a side going down the pan, Duncan Fletcher, the England coach, resigned. Whether he did so before he was pushed is unimportant: change had to come, and ultimately Fletcher recognised it.

Within a day, the England and Wales Cricket Board had his successor. No fancy-dan foreigner with a track record elsewhere, but a product of their own vaunted system. What is the point, the appointment seemed to be saying, of putting in place the world's most sophisticated coaching structure and then looking abroad? It would have been tantamount to a Kolpak signing - and there are already too many of those. Peter Moores is the right man at the right time.

Although Fletcher was unquestionably a powerful force for good in the development of the England team, Moores has a considerable job ahead. He has to build a Test side who can regain the Ashes and keep them for longer than a few months, he must create a one-day team who are capable of beating somebody, anybody.

More immediately, there is the dilemma of what to do about the captaincy in both forms of the game, a decision that will influence the progress of Moores' tenure from the start. These are monumental tasks.

Without making any rash predictions in view of the recent past, beating the Aussies, perversely, may be more easily achieved than begetting a substantial limited-overs team. England remain the second-ranked Test side despite their humiliating 5-0 reversal to Australia last winter.

And Australia are an ageing team who must also shortly learn to cope without their two champions, Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath. (They will have plenty of opportunity to do this, since between October 2007 and January 2009 Australia are scheduled to play 25 Test matches, a schedule of overkill that will certainly hasten the growing mood that players' organisations would be better off running the game themselves.)

At home this summer, England will start as favourites in both their Test series, first against the West Indies, starting in little more than three weeks' time, and then against India. Both the touring sides are in a state of flux bordering on chaos. Still, Moores will be assuming control of a side who are bound to be in need of delicate handling after their experiences.

But he is in a much better position than Fletcher ever was to recognise the talent coming through. Moores was a highly successful and sympathetic county coach with Sussex and he empathises with the structure. In his time as director of the National Academy he has worked with elite players at all age-group levels. He knows first-hand who might have what it takes and what they need to do to have what it takes. One of Fletcher's weaknesses was that he simply did not know who was emerging, and had a grave mistrust of the system from which they were doing so. Moores, not to put too fine a point on it, will rebuild the bridges between England and the counties.

The one-day problem appears always to have been with us. Moores and his fellow selectors, but especially Moores, must change attitudes. It is frankly unacceptable that England are so lamentable at one-day cricket when so much of it is played domestically. Under Fletcher things became no better and might have become worse.

England won only 74 of their 165 matches in his tenure (before yesterday) but if all lesser teams are disregarded, including Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, they won only 42 of 129. Compare that with the 42 Test wins and 24 defeats from 96 matches. That record improves radically if Australia are excluded, containing 38 wins and only 16 defeats in 76 matches.

The one-day side have been a mish-mash of changing strategies, and the chief policy appears to have been that it will be all right on the night. It rarely has. England have treated one-day cricket as an afterthought whatever they protest to the contrary.

A dramatic domestic overhaul is required. The Friends Provident Trophy (taking over from the C & G, which took over from the NatWest) is a pukka 50-over competition, most of which is played far too early in the season. It should replicate the international game exactly, yet the ECB have chosen to use it for the introduction of an experimental appeals system in which teams can ask for verdicts to be reversed or upheld. It is a needless bastardisation of the formula. Meanwhile, nobody can come up with a reason for the continuation of the 40-over league. Nobody wants it, nobody needs it, nobody watches it, nobody cares. Moores has to make his voice heard, otherwise he will have trouble changing the international mindset.

There is a more pressing dilemma of personnel. Michael Vaughan is not worth his place in the one-day team as a batsman, and given England's lamentable display in the World Cup it is difficult to make the case for his captaincy changing the course of events. But who should take his place?

The name of Paul Collingwood is being mentioned with increasing fervour, though despite his many admirable qualities it would have about it something of the sergeant major being asked to be colonel. Then there would be the untenable situation of Collingwood being skipper in the shorter form and returning to the ranks for the Tests.

A more revolutionary proposal would be to remove Vaughan from both teams, though that is a beginning Moores would be unwise to suggest. Who then? Collingwood, or Andrew Strauss, to lead both teams? Split captaincies are dangerous. For now, it may be advisable, if not ideal, to press on with Vaughan and look forward to the great day when he both makes a hundred and takes a catch in the same match. But it is possible to sense already that Alastair Cook is being groomed for the captaincy. So he had better learn to play one-day cricket pretty quickly.

The departure of Fletcher will make for a different feel round the dressing room, and too much change at once would probably unbalance further a team who have had a dreadful winter. The toll of matches won and lost makes grim reading: Tests, played five, lost five; one-dayers, played 18, lost 11.

There was nothing for it but for Fletcher to go, with thanks for coming along when he did. Moores is a fresh face with fresh ideas who is more obviously enthusiastic. He will renew hope, which all of us need. And tomorrow the world.

THE MOORES EFFECT: Four players who show benefit of the new coach

CHRIS ADAMS: Without Peter Moores, it is fair to reflect that Adams would not have been half the captain he became at Sussex. The coach understood the nature of a free spirit and seemed to know exactly when to rein in a forceful character. It was a stunning partnership.

MATT PRIOR: Under Moores' tutelage at Sussex, the South African-born Prior became a more consistent wicketkeeper (Moores was a keeper as a player) and a more free-flowing batsman. He was encouraged to express himself. His inclusion in the Test team cannot be ruled out.

MICHAEL YARDY: Much unkind fun was had at Yardy's expense when he was asked to bat at No 4 for England in the Champions Trophy last autumn. But the fact is that he previously had aspirations only to be a journeyman county pro. Moores believed in him, gave him belief and an international cricketer was born.

NICK COMPTON: Grandson of the legendary Denis, he has made steady progress at Middlesex. Moores was keen to pick him for last winter's A tour and he justified the selection with a big first-class hundred and a key innings in the clinching one-dayer. Has benefited from working at the Academy.