I'm not celebrating losing, just the fact that for once we didnt capitulate!!

Bell rightfully took the plaudits for a brilliant ton in contributing to winning the last ODI, now he must take most of the blame for batting too slowly and costing us a game. It has been said by many an ex pro, commentator, man on street.... that getting a 60 when batting in the top 3 usually wont win you the match but scoring tons will....... Theres a lesson in there for Bell, hopefully he will learn from it.

For the bowling, Tremlett again showed he can go AWOL when the pressures on. I would rather we played a spinner to give the attack a bit of variation

As for the bits and pieces players I dont think we did too badly today only Mascaranhas is a bits and pieces player and he did well with the ball last match and batted well tonight. Bopara is a very promising bat and the experience will do him good. Just remember we have had it far worse - remember Jamie Dalrymple, usual performance 5 0 30 0 and 2 with the bat . By and large i agree with you i would like to see proper bowlers and proper bats - after all the likes of Colly and Bopara can turn there arm over if need be.

Oh and well played India they batted well and held their nerve when it counted in the field, also they wernt afraid to select slow bowlers!

__________________
Mark.

Just got back from Bristol. Great game, fantastic atmosphere.

A few points about England's performance:

1. Anderson, Flintoff and Broad bowled some excellent stuff. They passed the bat on numerous occassions.
2. Before the game, nobody around me could understand why Panesar had been dropped. True, he wasn't spectacular by any means at the Rose Bowl, but it left England with a wholly one dimensional bowling attack and Tremlett was found wanting.
3. Prior needs to take a long hard look at himself. He played some nice shots, but should have been out three times in 28 balls on a flat track against a moderate attack. The fact that he survived a slog to be caught off the no-ball then repeated the same in the same over when England were flying is absolutely unforgveable.
4. Flintoff - dreadful shot.

But, Bell stood out. His innings was absolutely awful. He played as badly tonight as he did well on Tuesday. To score at a strike rate of 66 when you are chasing such a huge score is criminal. He lacked imagination, didn't push for singles, and didn't seem to be looking for boundaries.

There are really no "if onlys" in cricket or any other game. But since you have mentioned it:

If only Bell had been caught when on 1.....Powar dropped a sitter.

I just thought that I'd mention that little incident which has convenienly slipped from most peoples' minds.

But overall, it was an unconvincing win by India. The bowling completely lacked venom; Agarkar was hopeless for the most part and Munaf Patel clearly not yet match fit. The fielding was poor; they lacked commitment and looked very unathletic in comparison to their English opposition. Look at Flintoff; supposed to have just recovered from an ankle injury and yet he risked another by that big slide into the ad boards, all to save one run. That is the sort of commitment that I would like Indian players to show but apart from a few dives by Yuvraj, it was like watching a bunch of old women running about in panic.

Yes, Maybe Rachael can explain why Bell batted so poorly. It was a flat pitch against an ordinary attack with fielders who cant catch to save their lives. No excuses I am afraid. I like Bell but he is not good enough for international 1 day cricket (yes, Rachael even if he is technically correct). Overall, I think this England side is not too bad. Perhaps replace Bell with Shah and Prior with anybody, then I think that this side can be quite competitive. Also, Tremlett needs to go and Panesar in. Flitoff added the balance to the side and was very impressive for a guy who hasnt played for a long time.I am particularly impressed with Bopara (I like his temperament and He is a talented player) and Broad. At least England have a base to work with. Of course, they could always bring Vaughn, Yardy, Dalrymple and Plunkett back

__________________
434, world record for the shortest period. Whos choking now?

If only..... then England may have won .

I was more annoyed with the stupidity of Bells innings more than anything else, we had to score at more than a run a ball and Bell decides to block. The only way he could have redeemed himself would have been to have scored a ton and then off, say 120 balls.

__________________
Mark.

They must have held some very strange nerves PC. If they continue to field the way they did yesterday, England will not have much to worry about. Unless India improve their fitness and are prepared to be more physical in the field, their one off wins could become few and far between. That's what bugs me; there is plenty of talent, but a shortfall in application.

Ultimatley, it was Indias match to lose towards the end so they did hold their nerve (just!).

I've always felt that about India. They have a good talented batting line up and an impressive young crop of seam bowlers coming through. What I do find strange about India is that some very average players get hyped up beyond belief i.e. Pathan and get selected above more talented players.

If India worked on their fielding and were more consistant in their selection (as they were in the test series) they would be a very hard team to beat home or away.

__________________
Mark.

[quote]
True, but some of them - including Pathan - are actually above average - or at least were to start with. The problem in India is that once a cricket player achieves a measure of success, he is stratospherically hero-worshipped and the hype and expectation finally gets on his nerves. A few manage to escape; Tendulkar had enough talent to overcome the pressure on most occasions while Dravid was also too mature and level-headed to let the hype get him. Dhoni is a classic example among current players of one who is succumbing to pressure. He is not as bad a batsman as his recent record suggests. Left alone, I am sure he can do better.

True, but I am beginning to wonder is more to the Indian fielders reluctance to throw themselves about than meets the eye. Bloody sponsors have a major say in Indian cricket and perhaps there is some sort of pressure not to risk enforced absence due to injury.

If that is the case then that is a sad state of affairs...

With all of the sponsors, TV companies and fans in India i get the feeling nothing is straight forward regarding cricket .

__________________
Mark.

[quote=pie_chucker;143470] It isn't. I don't recall the specific details, but a few years ago there was a big hullabuloo about the relative sizes of 2 sponsors logos on the ODI players shirts!