Australians have shown England they are still short of being one-day world beaters

I was with captain Andrew Strauss at the presentation after Australia's victory at Lord's in the final match and his mood was thoughtful. He was not depressed, nor was he triumphant, because he knows there are areas which England need to work on ahead of the World Cup.

It is a good thing, therefore, that England didn't manage to whitewash Australia 5-0, because they might have got ideas above their station.

England have 15 matches, against Bangladesh, Pakistan and Australia, before the tournament begins on the subcontinent in February, so there is plenty of time, but it seems they have taken their eye off the ball with one or two things.

Tim Bresnan is a capable lower-order batsman but I cannot see him as a new-ball bowler and I would like to see Ryan Sidebottom opening the bowling in one-day cricket.

Bresnan is in the team because England are terrified about their batting but a new-ball bowler is there to take wickets — and he took only one in the five-match series.

Compare Bresnan with Australia's Shaun Tait — a high-class opening bowler who will take wickets in one-day cricket. I just cannot see how Bresnan, on the other hand, is going to get people out.

At the top of the order, Craig Kieswetter had a poor series and missed the chance to nail down a spot as the wicketkeeper for the World Cup after his fine performances in the World Twenty20.

Strauss needs a powerful opening partner and Kieswetter has those attributes but we saw against Australia that he is very much a leg-stump player. The way Tait bowled him first ball at Old Trafford exposed a technical flaw that Kieswetter will have to work on.

Matt Prior, the man Kieswetter replaced in the side, has responded to his exclusion in the right manner, by working hard and scoring big runs in Twenty20 cricket, and I wouldn't rule him out of a return to the 50-over side. The wicketkeeper's spot is very much open for him to make a comeback.

Do they stick with Kieswetter even though he has had a bad series? Or do they bring back Prior to open, which he has done already?

It is a vital to have a big hitter at the top of the order to take the pressure off Strauss early in the innings.

The first of three matches against Bangladesh begins at Trent Bridge tomorrow and I expect England to thrash them. I would be disappointed if they failed to do so.

I was quite surprised, however, to see Jonathan Trott brought back into the one-day squad, especially as his Warwickshire team-mate Ian Bell is already there.

Trott has replaced Kevin Pietersen, who has a thigh injury, but I cannot see him playing 50-over cricket for England. Trott can bowl a bit, so he is a useful all-round cricketer who can do a job, but we have to be careful not to muddle things.

It was good to see Stuart Broad come back and do pretty well against Australia but he should be batting at No7. He is capable of doing so but he hasn't learned how to do so yet, which is why he should have been batting at No5, with the chance of some real time in the middle, for Nottinghamshire when he wasn't playing for England, rather than spending a fortnight in the gym.

Steven Finn is a similar case in point. He burst on to the scene by doing well against Bangladesh and looked a promising bowler who could be a part of the Ashes team this winter but he has hardly bowled a ball since then.

I wouldn't be surprised if he were unhappy about being sent to the gym by the England management team, because, at 21, he needs to be bowling for Middlesex.

I do believe, though, that England have the basis of a decent side for the World Cup, even though there are these one or two areas of concern.

Finger of suspicion will always be pointed at spin ace Muralitharan

Muttiah Muralitharan, who has announced he will retire from Test cricket later this month, will always split opinion.

The Sri Lankan will be thought of either as a 'chucker' or the most maligned cricketer in history and whichever side of the fence you are on, you are never going to change your opinion, although it must be said that his bowling action was definitively declared legal in 1999.

I believe Sri Lanka have played some very clever politics with Murali. Arjuna Ranatunga, his first captain, took the team off the field in Adelaide in 1999 when he was called for throwing by umpire Ross Emerson in a one-day international against England, and Ranatunga played very effectively the trick that it was "little Sri Lanka being got at".

But Murali has been filmed, and there have been all sorts of biomechanical tests conducted on him, and it has been decided that his peculiar action is legal.

Murali loves playing the game, both batting and bowling, and I never saw him lose his temper in any match he played.

I remember once that when he wasn't playing, because his action was under investigation, I took a call from him while at Lord's. Murali was hoping the influence of the BBC would help his cause and it was quite sad to hear him almost begging to have a chance.

He has had that opportunity, taken 792 Test wickets and been a terrific role model. But unfortunately, because of the controversy over his action, there will always be a cloud hanging over him.