England's victory over Australia on Sunday marked their first tournament success in 35 years of ICC organised limited-over events. It also marks England's most successful spell in the one-day version of the game since consecutive World Cup final appearences in the late 80s and early 90s.

One of the most debated factors in England's turnaround is the presence of overseas influences. Andy Flower, the head coach, is from Zimbabwe and out of the five batsmen used on Sunday only Paul Collingwood was born on British soil. The South African influence is undeniable, Kevin Pietersen was named man of the tournament while Lumb, Kieswetter and Trott have all played their parts for their adopted country over the past 12 months. Even the Irish are now in on the act with Eoin Morgan. 

Strikingly similar was the make up of the successful teams that played in the 1987 and 1992 World Cups. Back then, it was the Caribbean influence that played an integral role. Messers de Freitas, Small and Lewis all brought a unique energy to the team and, alongside the African influences of Lamb and Hick, it led to two tournament performances that most England fans thought they would never see repeated.

The golden question is, why does the foreign influence matter so much to the performance of the national team? That's not something I, or perhaps anyone, can fully answer. What is clearly apparent though is that when foreign influences in the England cricket team are strong success appears to be just around the corner.