South Africa's last World Cup ended in complete chaos and confusion.

In scenes of pure comic tragedy that could not have been scripted, Allan Donald was left hopelessly stranded after the second of two farcical mix-ups with Lance Klusener as Australia amazingly claimed a place in the final.

It was hard not to sympathise with the South Africans as they trudged away from Edgbaston at the end of one of the most eventful one-day games of all time, but there was a definite feeling that their time would surely come.

South Africa have looked potential champions in all of their three World Cups.

In 1992 they could have been in the final but for the ridiculous rain rule that prevented them beating England, and four years later they were unfortunate to be on the end of one of Brian Lara's inspired innings.

Yet in the four years since the drama of Edgbaston, South African cricket has been buried in turmoil and its team has taken a turn for the worse.

Home advantage will obviously provide a major fillip, but as South Africa prepare for their own World Cup it is hard to find a place for them among the favourites.

There are several reasons for this decline, and it is certainly not a happy tale.

Shaun Pollock must somehow turn around the recent fortunes of a side half past its sell-by date and half undercooked.

The nucleus of the team that looked so strong last time around - Klusener, Donald, Gary Kirsten and Jonty Rhodes - remain very much at the heart of the current.

But these players are now past their prime, their best chance of World Cup glory having gone in Birmingham. Yet they appear to be the best men for the job, their replacements simply having not been up to scratch.

Indeed, Donald and Rhodes have flirted with retirement but are back for one last crack due to the Proteas' inability to find any worthy successors.

Quite why this is the case for a country rich in cricketing talent and resources is difficult to pin down, but there is no escaping the fact that the last two years have been the country's least harmonious since re-entering the Test fray a decade ago.

Two great off-the-field controversies have overshadowed much of what has been happening on it, and if it has diverted attention from the actual game itself it is not difficult to see why.

Firstly the fall-out from the Hansie Cronje scandal was enormous and cricket was always going to take some time to recover, both in terms of credibility and performance. Then, just as it was trying to do so, the age old problem of race reared its ugly head once again.

The exposing of Cronje sent shockwaves around the world, never mind South Africa, where the man was a national hero. Under his captaincy, the Proteas were widely regarded as the world's second best team behind Australia, and although they at times failed to move in for the kill they were a formidable unit.

That Pollock managed to pick up the pieces to such an extent that by the end of 2001 they were travelling to Australia with genuine hopes of upsetting the world champions.

But things started to go wrong, not through the players' doing, but because cricket and politics do not mix.

Bearing in mind their problems of the past, South Africa had been playing under a quota system whereby selection must be guaranteed to at least two non-white players. In terms of encouraging non-whites and proving there was a clear path to the top, the system had its benefits - but problems came to a head when it became obvious that the best XI was not always taking the field.

There are arguments for and against the quota system but the scenario that arose when Makhaya Ntini had to pull out of a match and be replaced by the only other non-white player in the squad, the batsman Justin Ontong, was lamentable for all concerned.

The change upset the balance of the side, because a batsman replaced a bowler, and the whole affair devalued Ontong's debut - an event which all cricketers should be allowed to savour.

The result was complete humiliation in two series against Australia, and the team have been unable to generate any momentum since.

The quota system has now been scrapped but that has not lifted the heat off the selectors. Criticism was flung at them from all quarters during 2002 for their lack of direction.

They were accused of failing to attend team practices and of picking sides with little regard to likely match conditions. There was at times little consistency or logic to their decisions, and they were ultimately unseated by a vote of no confidence from the United Cricket Board of South Africa.

All of these problems have made Pollock's life difficult and prevented him, along with the likes of Jacques Kallis and Mark Boucher, from easing in the next generation of players.

That said, Pollock's performances themselves have been dull and uninspiring. Following on from Cronje, who was a fine strategist and dependable batsman, was always going to be a tall order - but Pollock has appeared to lack tactical nous.

He was found wanting in both home and away series against Australia in 2001-02, and although losing to Baggy Greens is nothing to be ashamed of it was a humbling experience.

Pollock would have been better left to concentrate on his bowling, for which he is rightly regarded among the best in the world, and improving his standing as an all-rounder.

There seem to be few better alternatives, with Boucher having led the side in his occasional absence and fared little better.

Following an improvement in recent times against Pakistan, a period of regrouping is nonetheless undoubtedly essential.

Unless some of the new guard start to make an impact it is unlikely they will seriously challenge at the World Cup.

The tournament is fast approaching - and the ability of the South African side, not to mention the future of Pollock as captain, is uncertain.