It may be one day cricket rather than test cricket being played now, but England are still struggling in the West Indies.

Defeat in the Twenty20 followed by an extremely fortunate win in the first ODI due to the Windies being unable to add up properly and then another routine defeat. At the moment it doesn't appear to matter who the coach is, or indeed who the captain is. The results aren't changing. But should England have a coach at all?

The most successful time in English cricket recently was the 18 months up to, and including the 2005 Ashes series, something that has been talked to death in this country. When Duncan Fletcher and firstly Nasser Hussein, and then Michael Vaughan led England to victory after victory. But then the wheels slowly started to come off. A stumble in the winter of 2005/6 followed by the disastarous Ashes tour in 2006/7 saw the end of Fletcher and the arrival of Peter Moores, a man who would not just rely on the same players again and again.

Well I think after the 18 months or so he had as coach, its safe to say he didn't do the job well enough. OK he wasn't helped by injures but I don't think he was good enough to be coach of the national side. His leadership didn't seem to be there and his relationship with Kevin Pietersen finally finished him off.

So should England have a coach at all?

I think there is a requirement for a coach of the national side. Other nations have improved with the arrival of coaches, so why can't England? The problem is finding the right one who is good enough to lead an international side. Now I have no idea who is out there that could do the job, however there must be somebody willing to help the team become a force again. The right coach should be able to provide experience and guidance to the players as well as improve their technique and how to deal with the opposition. And a coach and captain working together can work wonders. The Fletcher/Vaughan partnership is a very good example of that.

If it happened before, it can happen again.