No comment from our Wootton Bassett correspondent on the Benson Dravid decision then. Very keen to condemn when it goes against India how surprising he's not so fast when it goes the other way then.

One eye Nostro?

I can't see why England's big shout for lbw was turned down, but I guess that's cricket.


Great game of cricket IMO, India did look like they could've won this match, but India's tail was just too long. But it was neck and neck not long ago!

__________________
Frank Skinner: "You know when Glenn McGrath trod on that cricket ball? Don't you wish it would've been a landmine?"

Yep. 2 evenly matched sides IMO. 4 to go and I still make them favourites to win this series.

I just logged on; I was a bit busy banging my head against the wall. I have got 2 eyes, thank you and yes, Dravid too got the "benefit of doubt" when he should have been out. I am not the one to moan about "if onlys".

The simple bottom line is that England won because they played better in this match. Collingwood showed quite a lot of promise as a captain in field placings and strategy, something which Dravid came up short again. India were a batsman too short and the gulf in the two teams' fielding and running between wickets was palpable. I have mentioned this many times before.

Not unless they improve dramatically on the field.

Yes, he did and of all the bowlers we played today he has the lowest ODI career economy rate. We also need the variation in our attack badly.

That is the biggest differance between the sides. India probaby lose 30+ runs per match because of this.

__________________
Mark.

Agreed - there was little difference between the sides, for a one day game there was some good cricket played.

Good to see Ganguly back in this form, a player who has taken stick at times he does not deserve.

Panesar did OK but no more IMO, I wonder what the margin would have been had Flintoff played at his expence.

__________________
Ern

Its hard to say, but surely if Flintoff had played then Tremlett would have been dropped and Monty would have played. To my mind that would be our most balanced attack.

__________________
Mark.

That seems to be the difference between India and most other sides except Pakistan, who are not much better. Against fit ODI team like England, Australia, South Africa or NZ, India might lose more than your 30 runs overall in a sinlge ODI. In my estimation, they lose out at least 10% of their own runs by poor running between wickets and another 10% by poor fielding athleticism - not trying harder to dive, pick-up and throw; a lot of them seem to be poor throwers as well. All this adds upto around 50 runs lost by India in an ODI where both sides have scored around 250.

Unless some good coach or trainer comes along and kicks butt - HARD, India will remain as an 'occasional' team.

That's most likely what would've happened.

__________________
Frank Skinner: "You know when Glenn McGrath trod on that cricket ball? Don't you wish it would've been a landmine?"