We have got to keep Stewart, not ditch him

Alec Stewart need not worry too much about the ticking clock or his own recent run of modest scores. If England's veteran batsman-wicketkeeper really does want to play in the 2003 World Cup, just before his 40th birthday, then it is hard to see anything other than serious injury or some dramatic new revelation out of the match-fixing saga preventing him from fulfilling that ambition.

Those people who are now calling on the selectors to take another plunge into the unknown by picking a one-day replacement for Stewart conveniently decline to identify this budding superstar.

It may be hard for England to pluck batsmen and bowlers out of the county game, but that task looks positively simple compared to the job of lining up a successor to Stewart. When time ran out on Ian Healy, an admirable performer in front of the stumps and a usually brilliant one behind them, Australia were able to strengthen their side by including Adam Gilchrist.

Oh that England were half as lucky. Whether or not Stewart is available for the recently arranged mini-tour of Zimbabwe this autumn, the selectors must give themselves an option for the future by including another batsman-keeper.

But apart from Jack Russell, who announced his retirement from international cricket nearly three years ago and won only a few one-day caps even when in his prime, it is difficult - impossible? - to think of a serious candidate.

In any event, Stewart deserves far better than to be tipped out along with the bath water. If England have learned anything from losing all six matches against Australia and Pakistan in the triangular tournament it ought to be that they need more experience, not less.