(MATT POYNTING is a cricket fan and BPL Citizen Journalist.)

The one-day series between England and Australia - which ended in Perth tonight - has shown how different the long and short forms of the game really are. It has also raised several questions about the state of cricket in Australia and reinforced - in my mind - one obvious way in which our cricket could be improved.

A record-breaking run-chase in game No.5 was the highlight of Australia's strong 6-1 series win against their Ashes rival, and underlined how strong the game is in this country - evidenced, of course, by victories in the past three World Cups.

But several issues have arisen from this series. The most significant perhaps, leading into a World Cup, and with a Test series against Sri Lanka scheduled in the not-too-distant future, concerns the coaching set-up.

After 30 years of one-day cricket, we all know how different it is to its five-day counterpart. From the styles of batting and bowling, to the time of day it is played, to the types of players that are picked, the two forms of the game contrast and complement each other perfectly.

But the one innovation that still hasn't been initiated seems to be the most strikingly obvious: having different one-day and Test coaches.

Throughout the late 1980s and 1990s, as one-day cricket exploded in popularity, more players were brought in as specialist short-form or long-form players. Players like Mark Taylor and Justin Langer were phased out of one-day teams and exclusively selected for Tests, whereas others such as Michael Bevan and Andrew Symonds became exceptional one-day players. James Hopes has played more ODIs than Don Bradman did Tests, yet the former has never donned the Baggy Green.

If players like Hopes, Cameron White and, further abroad, Keiron Pollard (WI) can all be picked as exclusive ODI players, and men like Michael Clarke and Shahid Afridi can be made captains of their respective ODI teams, why can't specialist one-day and Test coaches be hired to guide their teams through major contests like the World Cup and The Ashes?

For no other reason, the separation of the two forms of the game takes the pressure off the national coach. Australian cricket has separated the two forms so much that hiring two coaches seems the next logical step.

After Australia's resounding ODI series success against England, Tim Neilsen could easily remain the one-day coach. He has a solid team to work with, and evidenced by the record run chase (334) recently, he has his tactics in order.

But his team's performance on the Test stage didn't compare: the Australians, as if we needed any reminding, were well beaten by England.

Installing a specialist Test coach enables that coach to focus fully on the longer form of the game. In an age where there is more cricket than ever, the schedule is obviously too full for both Tim Neilsen and England coach Andy Flower, with both suffering convincing series defeats in different formats. Splitting the jobs relieves the pressure and narrows the focus.

The US National Football League clubs hire coaches for every facet of gameday. There are four main coaches: the Head Coach; Offensive and Defensive Coaches; and a Special Teams Coach. Each of these have coaches below them. It is a strong system which allows for accountability. When a particular department fails, the head of that department is sacked, instead of cutting a coach with strengths in other areas.

If Cricket Australia had sacked Tim Neilsen at the height of the criticism which followed the Ashes series loss, Australia might well have lost the one-day series under a new, inexperienced coach.

My solution? The best way for Australia to return to its dominant standing atop the ICC rankings in both forms is to have separate coaches. They can focus totally on their squad of players, their format, and their methods of winning.

Who knows, perhaps by the 2014 World Cup, Australia could have Mark Waugh as its one-day coach and his twin brother as the Test coach. Or is that just a pipedream?