Rain delayed start.

Teams

Scotland 1 Ryan Watson (capt), 2 Navdeep Poonia, 3 Kyle Coetzer, 4 Gavin Hamilton, 5 Neil McCallum, 6 Colin Smith (wk), 7 John Blain, 8 Chris Wright, 9 Dewald Nel, 10 Ross Lyons, 11 Calum MacLeod

England 1 Ian Bell, 2 Matt Prior (wk), 3 Owais Shah, 4 Kevin Pietersen, 5 Ravi Bopara, 6 Andrew Flintoff, 7 Samit Patel, 8 Luke Wright, 9 Tim Bresnan, 10 Stuart Broad, 10 James Anderson

Some interesting changes for England and it shows how they're thinking. No Luke Wright at the top of the order, here we have Matt Prior back into the fold, opening with Ian Bell. In comes Patel for Collingwood and Bresnan for Sidebottom. No's 1-5 look fine, but Flintoff at 6 is where it goes astray in my opinion and why Broad at 10?

Broad is being looked at, as a possible Test No 6 or 7, so why bat him at 10 in an ODI? It's this kind of thinking that annoys me.

I'd try Broad at 6, Flintoff at 7, Wright at 8, Patel (no idea about his batting) at 9 Bresnan at 10 and Anderson at 11.

What I think is really appaling, is a home International fixture between Scotland and England not being televised by anyone, yet I saw the U19 fixture between England U19's and NZ U19's on Sky at the weekend, what's going on?

Even when the BCC get a chance to televise a home ODI fixture they turn it down because of their Olympic programming, shows you who and what the BBC's priorities are doesn't it? The BBC should have been forced to televise it as a national public broadcasting company producing a service that their customers want.

They'd rather show a sporting event in China than a home sports event that people in this country wanted to see.

Yes: a team with three batsmen and two bowlers with six others picked because they might one day be good enough to hold down a place (of whom Broad is about the only one who definitely merited a place).

Looking to the future is all very well... but I don't think Prior will EVER become a competent gloveman. I'm also far from convinced that Bopara has the refinement to be considered more tha a bits-n-pieces batsman. That said, both seem to me to tower over Luke Wright, who is about as refined as Courtney Walsh when wielding the willow and offers about as little with the ball.

That side desperately needs a couple of players like Strauss and Joyce in the top order and some classier support bowling: I'd have much preferred the following...

Strauss
Bell
Joyce
Pietersen
Shah
Flintoff
Read / Foster / Mustard (all excellent)
Broad / Rashid (depending on pitch)
Samit Patel / Swann / Panesar (whichever is the best ODI spinner)
Simon Jones (Sidebottom when fit)
Anderson

Get specialists doing specialist jobs and keep Bopara and Luke Wright as specialist substitute fielders

I guess this situation wouldn't arise if you had a host of broadcasters like ESPN-STAR, TEN SPORTS, ZEE SPORTS, SONY-SET MAX etc all fighting like hungry dogs to get a piece of any cricketing action involving India.
Anyways I dont blame the BBC for broadcasting the Olympics, let the poor athletes get their 2 minutes of fame on the big stage of the olympics when they get that opportunity once in 4 years. Its sad atleast in India that the other sportsmen and their achievements never get the due recognition and are always overshadowed by cricketers.

Anyways for the BBC it was a question of Olympic coverage or an inconsequential match between England and Scotland which was a fairly simple decision according to me, what made it right in the end was the fact that the match was washed out anyway.

The Olympics only comes around once every four years, and in another week or so it'll be over for another four, so why not enjoy it while it lasts? It's the premier sporting event in the world, and I'm sure that millions of Brits are tuning in to follow it, so I don't think you really have any cause for complaint.

Totally agree with you Aurelius.

Who wants to watch a cricketing mismatch when you can see watch top stars performing at the greatest event in sport?

Agree with the last 2 comments

Think there was a tad of over reaction at not having a game which, if placed on BBC would not be watched by many at all, me included.

The Olympics, like the World Cup etc comes once every 4 years, and its pure excitement and entertainment is why it should be on BBC, for us to enjoy.

Think there would be some debate over the country if it wasnt showed for a bit of 1 sided, dull cricket

__________________
Hoggy Hoggy Hoggy...OI OI OI!!!

Enjoy what Aurelius? I have no interest in the Olympics, I don't follow any of the sports being featured, so why should I care one single iota what the outcomes are? Neither do I care for all the other 'free' sports the BBC picks up and televises, like tennis, formula 1 and yachting.

I have every cause to complain and perhaps if you had to pay £10 a month for something you didn't want you would have cause to complain as well. The BBC complained bitterly when it wasn't able to compete for England's home matches because financially it was so far out of reach, yet when a match does come along it could televise it chooses not to.

The BBC is behaving like a spoilt child, because it can't have the bigger home series, it doesn't want anything at all. As a public broadcaster, it has a responsiblity to provide programming that appeals to a wide audience, stuffing all their available programming full of the olympics to the exclusion of everything else is NOT providing 'public broadcasting' for everyone.

This kind of thing will be used against them the next time their charter comes up for renewal and as they're hanging on by the slenderest of threads as it is, when the switch over to digital happens, the strongest reason/excuse for their existence will disappear.

Good riddance to them, they're failing in their responsiblities as a public broadcaster. I've already sent my complaint to my MP.

You may not, but others do. I'm pretty sure that if they elected to show the Scotland ODI instead of, say, the cycling sprint final, then Greg for one would spit the dummy. I'd be shocked if a large majority of the British didn't take a strong interest in at least one aspect of the Games (especially now that they're doing so well), so what's wrong with catering to the majority?

Not for 10 pounds a month I wouldn't. It's hardly a massive price to pay, and besides, it only lasts another week (or even less). At any rate, you'll be guaranteed to be able to see the England-South Africa series on Sky, so it's not like the really important matches (by that, I mean the ones more likely to attract interest) are going to be sacrificed for the Games.