England's success in the 1966 World Cup went against everything English football had stood for till then. In the '50s, the stars of the game had been big burly centre- forwards and tricky wingers who played a major role in making football the most popular game in the country.

And yet, a dozen years on, for Sir Stanley Matthews' finest hour, England won the World Cup with a formation that would become the norm in the land: the 4-4-2 with side-midfielders instead of the old-fashioned wing-forwards. That team came to be known as "the wingless wonders". England won because they decided to innovate and move with the times.

But the irony is that in the following half-century they have continued indulging in the unhealthy obsession of that 4-4-2 formation. What was once a great innovation has been stuck to religiously even as the rest of the world has moved on.

I have been reminded of this repeatedly over the past fortnight or so as the Pakistani team begin their long journey to the World Cup with a plethora of corporate events, invitational dinners and press conferences. Every answer to a question, every explained strategy, every nod towards inspiration references 1992. Pakistan's greatest hour hangs above each of the country's World Cup teams like Damocles' sword, with that achievement getting bigger with each passing year. Every answer seems to be along the lines of "We will do as we did in 1992" - a strategy most often evoked by the team management, several of whom were part of the squad at the time.

But much like England and its football, the world has passed Pakistan by while they continue to stick with what worked in 1992.

One of the things repeatedly stated over the past few days is that the openers will need to provide a "stable platform". The strategy still seems to be to consolidate for 35 overs before going berserk. Few players better encapsulate the problems with an out-of-date mentality quite like Pakistan's first-choice openers - Ahmed Shehzad and Mohammad Hafeez.

Pakistan's problem, at least with these two, isn't their inability to stay at the crease or to hit boundaries - they do that at pretty much the going rate in international cricket. But if your boundary runs are still just south of half your batting average and your stay at the crease isn't that dissimilar to the rest, why are you so much worse than the others?

Openers' runs in boundaries in ODIs Batsman Runs in boundaries per innings Average Strike rate Ball per innings Ahmed Shehzad 17.4 34.8 72.0 47.5 Mohammad Hafeez 14.5 30.9 73.1 39.9 Tillakaratne Dilshan 15.3 38.6 85.7 38.5 David Warner 16.5 33.3 85.1 39.1 Quinton de Kock 21.5 43.6 88.4 47.8 Shane Watson 18.4 40.6 89.8 38.3 Moeen Ali 18.9 34.1 109.7 31.1 Shikhar Dhawan 23.0 45.5 90.9 46.9 Rohit Sharma 14.2 37.9 81.0 38.6 Chris Gayle 21.0 37.3 84.4 41.4 Hashim Amla 20.8 53.1 88.3 56.0

The problem for Pakistan is the same as it was four years ago, and will remain the same four years from now - dot balls. The complete ignorance of the need to rotate strike, or the perils of overlooking those capable of it (see Alam, Fawad), is one of the least talked-about problems in cricket circles in the country.

Younis Khan and Misbah-ul-Haq will, rightfully, get a lot of blame when they launch their tuk-tuk in the middle overs, but as has been shown on this site before, Pakistan's middle overs are still better off in this regard than the start of their innings.

The problems not only start at the very top but are exacerbated by the personnel there. It is something that Salman Butt, Imran Farhat, Nasir Jamshed and every other opener in Pakistan has been guilty of. In the age when 50 and 90 (average of 50, strike rate of 90) is the yardstick to define world-class batsmen, Pakistan haven't had a single opener since Saeed Anwar who has even come close to getting to 40 and 80, let alone the higher standard of the modern game.

In trying to create clones of Anwar, everyone seems to have forgotten a basic tenet that made him great - his ability to keep the scoreboard ticking at will. Anwar was doing 40 and 80 in an era when only the very best came close to that mark. Yet all those who have followed him have failed to reach his standards even as conditions and rules have become easier.

Pakistan was one of the first teams to follow the Sri Lanka-led trend of attacking from the top. Anwar was one of the genuine greats of the game in the '90s, and everyone but the Pakistanis has learnt from him. And his aren't the only lessons Pakistan have forgotten.

Javed Miandad was one of the first batsmen to have milked the middle overs, and Pakistan, in the '80s and '90s, was a team filled with bowling allrounders who could make it rain in the death overs. Everything that once made Pakistan great is no longer there, and there is very little chance that this will change.

The recently concluded Pentangular Cup provided a window to the cures that can fix Pakistan right now. The only opener who seemed capable of rotating the strike was Baluchistan Warriors' Sami Aslam (although he is already being labelled as someone who is unable to hit boundaries), and the only bowling allrounder to succeed with the bat was Sindh's Anwar Ali (192 runs at a strike rate of 126.31), whose quality has been pretty obvious to those who have watched him over the past 18 months in international cricket.

But Pakistan need three good matches in Australia and New Zealand, three good knockout games, and all will be forgotten. On such fine margins are the legacies of entire generations based.