India made 5 changes for the 7th ODI.
Out: V Sehwag, MS Dhoni, M Kaif, Harbhajan Singh, MM Patel
In: AR Uthappa, R Dravid, IK Pathan, KKD Karthik, S Sreesanth.

England made two changes:
Out: VS Solanki, MJ Hoggard.
In: GO Jones, Kabir Ali.

As far as experience is concerned, India had just two players in Dravid and Yuvraj Singh who have played more ODIs than England's most experienced player - Paul Collingwood. The omission of Dhoni and Harbhajan Singh and the inclusion of GO Jones, Kabir Ali must have given England some hope of winning this match.

India won the toss and chose to field first which is not a disadvantage in a day match when the par score may be difficult to predict. In fact, England's total of 288 looked competitive until the opening stand by Uthappa and Dravid of 166 put it into perspective given that England had lost 4 wickets at the same stage in their innings. That was in the 29th over. At the same stage in the 6th ODI England had India 134/5 at the end of over 28.

Given that England's attack contained the main wicket-takers from the previous ODI - Plunkett, Mahmood, Anderson and the addition of one-day specialist Kabir Ali then I suspect the pitch didn't suit them on this occasion. It certainly didn't help that they had second use of it this time. In the media, the pitch was described as:
As for this defeat, Strauss conceded that England, who lost their last six wickets for 31 runs, had fallen short of a testing target:
Strauss also thought the Indian bowlers had the best use of the wicket:
Please cast your vote in the poll whether you think England have any excuses for losing the 7th ODI.

The main reason I voted No was because Pietersen's batting effort - he clocked up 64, with his half-century being reached in 38 balls and his overall series stats: Avg: 58.20; SR: 92.67 puts the other batsmen in the shade. The other England batsmen need to lift their game. Pietersen has not a lot of experience in ODIs or the sub-continent but still applies himself to the task. If the other England batsmen learnt from his example England would be a much better side.

The SR is another area of concern. The minimum SR should be 75.0. Bell, Prior, Flintoff and Solanki were below this mark in the series and the results speak for themselves. England must not allow so many dot balls - they must take singles - especially when the power plays are finished.

My other criticism concerns the bowlers allowing debutant Uthappa to make 86, the highest score by an Indian on debut. He could have made a higher total had he not carelessly run himself out. England's bowlers and fielders allowed not one but two century partnerships. That is just poor bowling or fielding. No excuse for that.

Voted 'no'. England went to a good position and lost it from there. Yes, India played very well, but England definitely made a few mistakes pointed out by Mike that can not be excused.

__________________
My computer can beat me at chess.....but its no match for me at kick boxing.

Got themselves in a good position when batting and didn't score as many as they should have so it is their own fault.Well done India on chasing down the total with relative ease.A classic display of how to time your chase.

England are so grateful to a good Test side they are not that bothered about a ODI.
A lot of them see Test cricket as real cricket and I tend to be in this camp myself. But the rest of world don't see it that way. So I think English cricket has been dragging its feet on this one.
Take Hoggard great Test bowler but can't bowl one dayers. Tell me what other side in the world has a top class bowler in Tests who can't bowl one day!
Tell me what side has a player like Vaughan who has performed consistently badly in the side but seems to have place for as he wants it?
So no wonder they don't do well.

__________________
"Checkout the big brain on Brett" Pulp Fiction

I don't really get your point here: Pietersen did ok... as did Collingwood and Jones... neither of whom should come in for much criticism for getting out soclose to the end of the match and with so many wickets in hand. From the top order that only leaves Bell... who batted well before an unfortunate mix-up, Prior, who didn't get going, and Strauss, who isperhaps the only one of the six to have made a start and not gone on to dominate - but no player can do that EVERY time they play.

The bowling was indifferent.... but on a pitch on which it was hardly worth bothering: few bowlers in the history of cricket could have dominated the bat on that surface....which was basically unfit for the game of cricket given that it allowed for no contest between bat and ball.

If one thing could be criticised it would be Strauss' field placement.... but those were entirely appropriate to the pitch: sure, it meant India could tick along at a comfortable rate without taking risks.... but in truth the only alterntive - unless fortune had smiled on the thankless bowlers - was India shooting along at an even faster rate and getting home sooner!

Had England posted 350 then the need for extra runs might have allowed mild pressure to be eerted... but you can't criticise any team for scoring 280 rather than 350: both scores are absurdly high.... and with any game tht gets even close to that range the outcome is a lottery rather than a reflection on performance - the same players can play the same way to the same bowlers 10 times on that sort of track and each post anything from next to nothing to a score that almost single handedly wins a match..... and there would be nothing significantly better about the matchwinning knocks where fortune favoured them than about the less influential knocks when fortune didn't favour them.

What should happen is severe disciplinary action against the ground authorities who produced a "contest" completely devoid of... well.... any sort of balance between bat and ball....and with that, any interest.

I voted 'no'.

Other than Sreesanth's opening bowling spell did the Indian bowlers look dangerous; this means that England had 43 overs of bowling that was not putting them under pressure. Their recognised weakest aspect; spin bowling, was basically ineffective as the ball was doing nothing for the spinners and India did not have Harbhajan, possibly the only bowler who could have extracted a decent amount of turn from the pitch.

Kevin Pietersen I think would have gone on to get more runs had he not become injured, certianly his foot movement became less prominent which he is very dependant upon to work the ball around for singles. He became dependant upon scoring boundaries which led to his down fall.

This would be an excuse for England losing; however, the other batsmen really should have stepped up to the mark, they could have pinched the singles extrememly easy as the ball was always there to be hit. The bounce of the pitch was consistent and seam movement was non-existent.

Strauss appeared to go into defensive mode with his field placings once the openers had settled themselves. Why did he not stop the singles and make the batsmen risk getting themselves out? There was no series depending upon whether he won this game as captain or not, it was the final game, why not be a little more creative?

__________________
Watch this for a perfect about.
James May

I voted no because England did not have the disipline to defend a good score, the bowling on the bits I saw was diabolical, and the England one day side need with a matter of urgancy, a bowling coach, and I nominate Darron Gough.

I also voted no because England have played with no spirit at all IMO throughout this one day series.

EDIT:I could well have voted yes in this poll - because India played so much better than England in this format of the game, that a possible excuse for England is that India did not allow England to play that much better than they have.

__________________
Ern

I must put a Post script here, although I have nominated Gough as a coach, I realise that some are wanting him recalled into the one day side.

This I think will make matters worse, the old workhorse is past it as a player, but must have a lot to offer as a bowling coach, and maybe Boycott as a batting coach (even for one dayers).

__________________
Ern

This is what probably happened. I don't think England's bowlers put in a whole-hearted effort to allow two century partnerships. The first one was made during the power plays when most of the fielders where inside the circle. If you can't take a wicket during that period you might as well give up - which is probably what happened. I think there were a number of underlying issues at work. For example: Last match in a lost series the bowlers were probably going through the motions to save themselves from picking up any injuries. Strauss' field placings with fielders in the deep were probably designed to let the ball come to the fielder rather than having to chase down balls that pierced the net of close fielders. As Vrock said, there was no reason for defensive thoughts in any department given that the series was already lost. England could have played positively throughout but chose to play conservatively. From the way India were travelling they could have scored 320 if they were required to. I'm sure there were more runs in the pitch but England didn't want to take runs in singles. Thoughts of home were probably uppermost in their thoughts.

I'm still not sure what excuse you think England had Rachael. Both teams were evenly matched. Both teams played on the same pitch. What excuse do they have?