BBC BLOGS - Sam Sheringham's blog
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
« Previous | Main | Next »

England back to square one

Post categories:

Sam Sheringham | 22:46 UK time, Tuesday, 25 October 2011

The slaughter is over, it's time for the inquest.

Having arrived in India with high hopes after dominating Mahendra Dhoni's side all summer, England have been brought down to earth with a very painful bump.

The 5-0 one-day whitewash suffered by Alastair Cook's men was an all-too-familiar story, with England's players found wanting on the slow, turning pitches of the subcontinent, and suffering old-fashioned thrashings in four of the matches.

England have now won just one of their last 18 one-day matches against India in India, and just five of their last 20 away games against any side.

No.1 in the Test rankings, England are a distant fifth in the one-day table and appear no closer to mastering the requirements of the 50-over format, especially in unfamiliar conditions.

I chatted to former England players Ed Smith and Matthew Hoggard - BBC Test Match Special pundits for the series in India - about where it all went wrong for Cook and his team, and where they go from here.

Alastair Cook

Cook averaged only 26.60 in a difficult series in India. Photo: Getty

BATTING WOES

England's single biggest failing in the series was their inability to bat out the 50 overs in four of the five matches. Too many England batsmen got starts but failed to turn them into the kind of contributions that win matches, their utter bamboozlement in the face of spin bowling summed up by the startled look in Jonny Bairstow's eyes after his stumps were rearranged by Ravindra Jadeja in Mumbai. In total, England's batmen managed one individual innings of more than 70 runs all series. India's racked up seven.

"The lesson England have learned is that you don't leave it to other people when you are in India," says Smith. "The conditions are so different to what most English players are used to that if you do get a start you have a huge responsibility to do the job, to go on and get a big score.

"If you look at the top of the innings, four of England's five innings started with a maiden. It's not just about getting fours and sixes away in the first 10 overs. It is about taking the pressure off and getting some momentum. England allowed too many dot balls."

CAPTAIN COOK

English cricket's pin-up boy was looking like a jaded retiree by the end of a chastening fortnight. Although England's failings were largely technical rather than tactical, Cook's field placings were often too defensive, while some of the blame for his players' poor body language and indiscipline must be laid at the captain's door.

"Cook could learn a lot from how Dhoni captained in the field," says Hoggard. "As soon as he thought of something, he did it. He didn't wait for the next ball.

"Sometimes he put people in unorthodox positions but there was always a point to it. Alastair Cook's attitude was a little bit more 'we'll see what happens'. He was more reactive than proactive."

Graeme Swann

Graeme Swann only took two wickets in the series. Photo: Getty

THE KIESWETTER CONUNDRUM

Once again there was plenty of style but not a huge amount of substance from Craig Kieswetter. The Somerset stumper hit more sixes (five) than any other player except Dhoni but only scored 135 runs in five innings. And after a patchy series with the gloves, are England any closer to finding the pinch-hitting wicket-keeper batsman they so badly crave?

"We've seen the best and the worst of Craig Kieswetter on this tour," says Smith. "He has taken some unbelievably good catches but he also missed a couple as well.

"With the bat, he tends to be quite binary, he tends to decide when to hit it miles but to allow a lot of dot balls.

"I think the selectors are still making their mind up about Kieswetter. But there is a balance to be struck between trying to find the right person and chopping and changing too much.

"They have tried Steven Davies, they have tried Matt Prior and now Kieswetter. I think they are trying to get a bit of stability there and by giving him a big long run then they can make their mind up."

BOWLED OVER

With the exception of Steve Finn, who troubled all the India batsmen with his pace and aggression, none of the England bowlers really enhanced their reputations on this tour.
Graeme Swann was out-performed by the relatively unknown twirlers Ravindra Jadeja and Ravichandran Ashwin, Tim Bresnan was inconsistent and Jade Dernbach went from death bowler to drinks carrier in the space of a week.

Samit Patel leaked runs at six an over, while Stuart Meaker and Scott Borthwick were thrown in at the deep end and just about stayed afloat.

"Steve Finn was the shining light," says Hoggard. "He bowled with pace and aggression and was very unlucky not to pick up more wickets than he did.

"India are very good players of spin and have been brought up on these wickets. Graeme Swann has been the number one ODI bolwer so they will have planned not to take too many chances against him, but to target the other bowlers.

"Patel has had a good series, bowling some handy overs and showing what a destructive batter he can be. He can come away from this tour knowing he did ok."

THE VERDICT

The good news for England is that the 2015 World Cup is in Australia and New Zealand, where conditions will suit their players far better. The bad news is that England will not stand a chance of winning it unless they undergo a dramatic improvement in all areas of the one-day game.

"Don't forget, three months ago, India couldn't buy a win in England," says Hoggard. "It's a massive turn around in fortunes but you don't become a bad team overnight. Whether it's batting, bowling or fielding, England have to up their ante and back themselves to come out with a positive attitude."

Smith says: "Although it feels like a disappointing tour, if this group of players are going to go on and become as big a force in one-day cricket around the world as they want to, they will learn some lessons from this trip that will be very useful in the future. I imagine that some people will have found out some things about playing India that they won't forget."

Comments

Page 1 of 4

  • Comment number 1.

    What about avenging the shame in Eng in all the format just no 50-50?
    Besides, all know India is too powerful at home their game is just ordinary in other subcontinent....
    Having said that, the margin with Eng lost to India in all 5 games were pathetic ... Where is Nassir hussain who was one bragging about Eng and saying Indians were Donkeys...You need you need a correction here? In Eng you call Donkey In India we call Monkey - plz no racism here....

  • Comment number 2.

    that wasn't racist, donkeys means slow and runnish

  • Comment number 3.

    Does it boil down to the fact that the groundsman prepares a pitch that suits the home players? In which case the idea of Tours becomes meaningless when deciding world rankings. Perhpas a Home and Away format would be better and having a Series in two countries spread over 6 months. Then a 5 - 3 loss to India does not seem so bad. It is only when you win away from home that you can be considered great. Don't forget that India lost the ODI in England.

  • Comment number 4.

    India's series loss in England wasn't just about England playing at home. They were playing with 13 players including Duckworth and Lewis. Almost every game here was rain affected. Whereas in India not even a single game had rain interruption. England were beaten convincingly with big margins in 4 out of the 5 games. People have been saying we do not give too much importance to ODIs but the same team's fielding pratice etc was shown on TV during the summer series to demonstrate how serious we were about this format of the game and how well we prepare - whatever happened to all that bragging - I think India gave England a lesson in the fielding department as well.

  • Comment number 5.

    who really cares about these 5 games ? that is the problem .. .the players know it is an irrelevance and so do the fans ... but I guess it made some money, so thats OK.

  • Comment number 6.

    2.
    At 07:07 26th Oct 2011, Simon wrote:

    that wasn't racist, donkeys means slow and runnish


    ----------

    Think the point the other poster was trying to make was that it might only mean slow and runnish in England, whereas if used to describe Indians, it means something more offensive to them.

    Monkeys might well mean loveable and fun in Spain rather than what we believe them to be saying...

  • Comment number 7.

    As often said, statistics less often lie. Statistically India's performance in England recently appears an aberration but England's performance appears expected. Unlike Windies and Aussies, no current team can call themselves world beaters. Currently among England, Australia, South Africa and India (closely followed by Pakistan and Srilanka at home) vying for the top spot, South Africa (if Gary Kirsten could fix the mental fragility), seems to fit the bill the best. England's good performance is trumpeted as the best performance which Mr Fergusson would describe as noisy nostalgia. The so the called "experts" comments after a nostalgic victory should be seen in the context of emotional euphoria, labelling it as the best zing ever. Undoubtedly England is a good team, thanks to the fabulous work ethic of the 2 Andy's and certainly England and India did not become a bad team overnight. Let the common viewer be not embroiled in naming and shaming after an emotional euphoria like the so called "experts", if I may say.

  • Comment number 8.

    @ 5 if the game was so irrelevance, how comes India moved upto 3rd in the ODI rankings and England slipped fourth? As You got such a trashing with the 5-0 whitewash thats why you do not care, soooo i guess its right that as a Indian fan, we got battered 4-0 in test WHO CARES, it was meaning less and we had been the number 1 test side for 2 and half years, won the 2011 world cup and the 2007 20-20 world cup, so you see India have done it all, also good way to make money in India tour of England aswell coz according to you it was meaningless :)

  • Comment number 9.

    "In total, England's batmen managed one individual innings of more than 70 runs all series."

    Yet he seems to be the one that took the most flak over the tour... Not that England fans are fickle or anything ;)

  • Comment number 10.

    England definitely need to tone down their big talking. Alright you just thrashed India at home but some of their players' comments and their general attitude on the field reminded me of the great Aussie sledging teams of old.

  • Comment number 11.

    I think one defining aspect has been overlooked – England’s overly aggressive on field attitude towards their opponents.

    I found the posturing and particularly batsman waiting at the boundary edge to see if the replays showed a catch or the ball bowled was good, rather distasteful.
    I’m sure England’s “attitude” just made the Indians even more determined to embarrass them where it matters – On the pitch.

    If you want to bully your opponents then you have to make sure you’ve got the game to back it.

    England would do well to remember the words of Ghandi - “Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.”

    Too often our batsmen got out looking for big hits when a more subtle dab for one or two was all that was required.

  • Comment number 12.

    I think comparing the two LOI series played at England and in India and labeling it as a 5-3 victory for India would be hiding a lot of cracks. We can safely say that a full strength English side were defeated by a weak second string Indian side, whereas England beat a moderately strong second string Indian team in England. And we would love to see groundsmen preparing pitches which don't suit the host country. There is general tendency of non-Asian nations looking down at spinners and spinner-friendly tracks. The efforts made by Asian countries to encourage fast bowlers and fast pitches outstrip the efforts made by other countries in encouraging spinners, and we can see the results: we have seen probably 4 world-class spinners from outside the subcontinent in the past 15 years[warne, vettori, mcgill, and now swann. however, this list isn't exhaustive, but i hope you catch my drift], but many more outstanding fast/medium fast/medium pacers bowlers from the subcontinent[zaheer khan, lasith malinga, vaas, akhtar, srinath, etc. and i am not including the young pakistanis who keep getting embroiled in one controversy after another].
    England and India are both good sides. However, as all teams in all sports, they are better at home than abroad. However, i don't think i would be lying when i say that England struggle more in India than India does at England. Final verdict: two full strength sides meeting together should present a clearer picture.

  • Comment number 13.

    Well, a reality check for England - that's what this was. England could bring back Boycott, Lamb, Gooch, Gatting but by god, they would still lose 5-0 to the same Indian team (lacking Sachin, Sehwag, Zaheer, et al) or as I say India "C" not just in ODIs but Test matches as well, here in India.
    You got supremely lucky in the summer with our players tired of the meaningless cricket. The 4-0, 3-0 was what they needed to wake up and THANK YOU guys for doing that.
    You thought you became number 1 by winning one series - I tell you, the only thing they are # 1 at right now is in talking and sledging but no other aspect of cricket.

  • Comment number 14.

    When Cookie said, "our Test side is on a slightly different journey than this one-day side", let's hope, after this abject performance, he doesn't mean "slightly".

  • Comment number 15.

    I find it almost impossible to believe that we are such a good test team but useless at 50 over cricket and have been for quite some time.It is true that the wickets between here and the Sub-Continent are literally worlds apart but I have to agree with a previous blogger if we are truly to be known as a great team we have to win in all parts of the world on all types of wickets.

  • Comment number 16.

    I thought there seemed to be lots of tension between England players particularly in the field. Of course this tends to happen when you are being thrashed but I thought the England team spirit collapsed and they resorted to sledging their opponents, treating the umpires with contempt and arguing amongst themselves over misfields.
    Losing to the world champions isn't a disgrace but losing 10wickets for 47runs is embarrasing. I agree with David Lloyds point yesterday that England made part time spin bowlers look like world beaters and they just were rooted to their crease seemingly scared stiff. There is lots of work to do.

  • Comment number 17.

    Test cricket is seen as more important than limited over cricket in England, and long may it continue to be so. I'm not at all worried by this performance. Most are wondering why we were even there, including the players. England's successful Test players shouldn't be anywhere near the one-day squad, especially Cook and Trott; they should be wrapped in cotton wool and only allowed to play f-c cricket. A player's standing in the history of the game is still judged on Test match performance.
    On a side note, India saw something of what it will be like in the post-Tendulkar era with crowds significantly down.

  • Comment number 18.

    The selectors failed to notice that India was already improving in England. They also did not find out solution to Dhoni’s hitting and bowlers seem to be clueless and ball wide and ball into to be hit. I saw Kumar bowling on the leg of Patel when he saw the weakness. When the bowler has no confidence he cannot ball well. Also it was foolishness for the selectors to have persisted with Dernbach and Bairstow. Too much criticism made Trott to bat unusual and fail. Also Bairstow never played his natural game due to pressure. Fielding was another problem. But the England show their team spirit as ususal Collapse together?? The 5th game reminded me of the 4th test in England in 1961? They should have played with experienced players and then after winning one or two given chance to the youngsters. I wonder whether the food also played a part. Did they get beef in India? If not they should have gone for Eggs and Bengal grams or Green peas [round] which are better than chicken

  • Comment number 19.

    The low turnouts in the stands was not because Tendulkar & co. weren't playing. The empty stands were because of Diwali, which is a pretty big festival for Indians-celebrating the victory of good over evil, et cetera. And its today, so most of the people were either at home, or shopping. I really don't think we have to worry about the post-Tendulkar era for at least 4 more years. Dhoni is as big a crowd-puller, if not bigger.

  • Comment number 20.

    This wasnt a surprise. The ODI thrashing in Australia followed by a dismal WC showed how weak we are in this format. This coaching team set their sights on becoming the #1 test side and achieved that. Only recently have set their sights on ODI and the 2015 WC. Theres no other meaningful contests in ODI cricket other than the WC so they have 4 years to do with the ODI side what they managed with the test side.

    The ODI side is about 3 years behind the test side, if they follow the same trajectory they should be about ready for 2015 which is all we need them to be!

  • Comment number 21.

    5-0 !!! what a thrashing!

    Superb Diwali gift from Dhoni and the boys to Indian fans :-)

    The margins of victory say it all really. In England, India were gave a real fight in all the ODI's and nearly won them too, but for the rain.

    In India, apart from 1 ODI, England were thoroughly obliterated! Complete lack of skill (bat/bowl/field) and temperament from the English team.

    Indian team definitely much better in all conditions (that too with a "B" team).

    For those bleating about test cricket.. England have not yet defended their credentials.. they will go 6 months without playing it! (nice way to stay top of rankings :-)... see what happens when you play Pakistan!

    India have shown why they are the Cricket World Champions!!!

  • Comment number 22.

    Absolutely loved to see Ian Botham and Bumble's face after the whitewash :-)

    Where is Nasser Hussain?.. he was going on about the great English fielding (and batting.. and bowling for "all conditions")... what happened?!

    Bumble pie!!

  • Comment number 23.

    I don't understand why no one has mentioned the performance of Ravi Bopara. Batting average of 16 strike rate of 63. Bowling 14 overs no wickets for 87. Hes proved he cant bat in the top 3 as he isnt good enough, hes proved he cant handle the pressure batting in the middle order, hes proved his bowling isnt good enough as a 5th or 6th option, can someone remind me why he is there? 95% of knowledeable cricket fans know Ian Bell is a far better player, he averages 41 against India in odi's, proved he is one of the best players in the world in tests, and his treatment has been terrible.

  • Comment number 24.

    It shouldn't be forgotten that India are world champions in this format and it is never easy to play them in their own backyard.

    That said, England were atrocious in this series even allowing for the absence of Morgan, Broad and Anderson - all key cogs in England's one day line-up. Only Trott, Patel and Finn leave with their reputations either justified or enhanced as our marks out of then for the series show: India v England ODI series: England marks out of 10 http://bit.ly/sPb0gg


    The biggest worry was the ill-discipline in the field and the negative body language -England's strength under Andy Flower has been the fact that they play together as a unit. Here in India, the squad didn't look like happy campers - is that down to it being a series too far after a long summer, the weakness of Cook as a leader, Swann's ill-timed autobiography or a combination of the three.

    Let's hope that the spirit of the side is fully restored come the upcoming series with Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

  • Comment number 25.

    Well this doesn't matter one jot on Test Rankings, england have a proven track record there with being undefeated in two and a half years. Yes they have to play more games to keep their ranking but they didn't magically appear there just by beating India like some fans seam to think.

    Lets also remember the entire India tour was a shock, most England fans including myself were predicting a closely fought series possibly with India just edging it. If you told me we'd win the ODI's 3-0 I'd have laughed in your face and then tried to have you committed. England can't seam to get their head around the format so some reason we've got T20 down to a tee (our present status as world champions and no.1 confirms is proof of that) and Test's we know what we are doing.

    So yeah this isn't hugely surprising if you actually look at recent history of ODI's beyond the India series in England just look at the World Cup...

    I said before the series I didn't see what England had to gain by going to India for 5 game series and a T20 yet to be played. I still stand by that thinking the next world cup is not in sub-continent conditions and while I have no problem with players learning those conditions before or just after a Test series we aren't there for one of those! We've just come off the English season the player should be enjoying a nice rest between that and the Winter tours of Sri Lanka and 'Pakistan' not filling the coffers of the BCCI, ECB and ICC.

  • Comment number 26.

    No denying it was a poor effort from England.
    Cook is a new captain and it takes confidence and experience to make fast, instinctive decisions that MS Dhoni is lauded for. Maybe in time Cook will gain that and emulate Dhoni?
    The critisism of Swann again is fair, but lest we forget Shane Warne never dominated in India and was often out shone by the Indian 3rd choice spinner or even Australians 2nd or 3rd!
    I think although the England team dont go out with the intention to lose a ODI they dont prepare as well for a series of ODI's alone, had there been a test series at stake I think we may have seen a better effort. The win over India in England came after England had crushed them in the test series, they were a broken team already, Im sure few people ever thought England were a better ODI team than India after that? Just as Indians dont now think one ODI series has made them a great side again?

    Will England improve for the world cup? probably, but not enough to win.

  • Comment number 27.

    @redaragorns it is odd that Sanjay Manjrekar never mentioned Diwali as an explanation for the low crowds in his Sky commentary. He thought it was due to too much one-day cricket, especially T20. I thought the absence of Tendulkar, Sehwag, Zaheer didn't help.

  • Comment number 28.

    England were outplayed just as India were outplayed in England in Tests. However, the sad part is that England were very rude on the field: to their opponents, to the umpires and even to themselves. In my mind, for this churlish poor loser attitude, England are several notches below their current ranking and just a spot above the perennial sore losers - Australia. I hope that England realize that winning and losing are part of every sport. It is how a team reacts to these highs and lows that will determine whether they are a champion side or not. If England must emulate a team in this respect, they would do better to examine how the mighty West Indies with Greenidge, et al ar even the Indians of today handle these ups and downs. Humility IS true greatness - not bragadoccio!

  • Comment number 29.

    There's a lot of tosh being posted here - mainly by those who would look to redeem India's poor performance this summer. The simple facts are that India are a better fifty-over side than England - and by some distance.

    England's test-ranking however has come about not just because they beat India in the Summer but by a complex ranking system that measures performance over years. They may not stay there for long(!) but they are currently number one in the most meaningful form of the game. Get over it.

  • Comment number 30.

    You would probably expect India to outbat and outbowl England in home conditions, although the margins were a bit disappointing. That England were comprehensively outfielded, and at times shown up in their attitude is worse.

    Also, while I would agree Dhoni is a very special cricketer, it's a bit worrying that after bowling at him so much England failed to find a way even of slowing him down, let alone stopping him. All that analysis that we hear about doesn't seem to be finding its way into practice.

    I suppose now is not the time for knee jerk reactions. Cook is still inexperienced, and may improve tactically. Kieswetter is a worry, but England's 20 year policy of constant rotation hasn't worked, so I'd support him for now, providing he can make some Prior-like keeping improvements over the next year. There is talent in this squad, though some of it looks jaded, and some was plainly too experienced to deal with being so comprehensively outplayed.

    At any rate, this wasn't entirely a 0-5 self inflicted defeat, it was a hugely impressive 5-0 win for the Indians, who deserve all the plaudits.

  • Comment number 31.

    Too much was made of the victory over India at home conditions. Vaughan, Nasser et al were even making comparisons with the great West Indian and Australian teams. Vaughan was even talking about winning the world cup, yes winning the world cup!! The team was led into a sense of illusion and Cook was talking about starting as favourites and Bopara saying this is the core of what would be a world cup winning team!

    Its good they were brought down from their pedestals so humbly so that they can retrospect and reflect on the reality. Man for man, Australia and SA have much better talent and India would be up there as well when they get Sehwag, Yuvraj and Zaheer back not to mention Tendulkar.

    For all the talk of England test team being world beaters and number one and all that, other than the Ashes in Oz, they havent beaten a strong side away from home. Like the saying goes, its easier to become number one but tough to stay there. India got there on the back of being very strong at home and reasonably ok away.

    England's test has only begun and time will tell if they will ever be able to beat the likes of SA, India and Srilanka away.

  • Comment number 32.

    "You thought you became number 1 by winning one series - I tell you, the only thing they are # 1 at right now is in talking and sledging but no other aspect of cricket."

    No we became number 1 by beating India, Australia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, West Indies and drawing with South Africa. We are a more credible Test number 1 than India were, though obviously we still have more to prove this winter.

  • Comment number 33.

    Well, here is my view. England is a good team, but India is just better. I see so many people saying that India won only at home and they can't play outside. Contrary to that belief, India have been awesome abroad until this English tour. Remember we won against the Aussies, played some really tough cricket even though we lost to SA, won against NZ, WI in their home turf and of course dominated in other Sub continent countries. As for the series vs Eng in Eng, India just had so many bad things going for them. Right from the first day when Zak got injured to the last day of the trip, so many frequent injuries, so many mismanagements, not enough practise for the players and so on. Sure the administration messed up and it is our responsibility to accept it. But nonetheless India played really well in the ODI in England too and they lost three out of five matches due to rain.
    T20 is a format that anybody could beat any team on any day and on the International stage, T20 is not given enough importance and not played enough to determine who is good or bad over longer term. I think over these past three years, T20 has become so very important and it requires more skill and technique than the ODI's. People first thought of it as a Wham-Bham game, but that's not true anymore. Now T20 needs more patience, skill, talent and technique and if England cannot accept it, then they are not fit to play cricket at all.

  • Comment number 34.

    Cricket is no longer about TESTs, you either play all formats or quit it completely, stop whinning which is the real game. They are all equally important and wonderful. And I see so many English players saying that England is good at Tests and that's what matters. Just because you are not good at one format, you cannot ditch that format, but instead try to work hard and get better in it too. Even in Tests, remember barring the Ashes victory in Aussie, against a team that was undergoing a transformation, England haven't done anything of significance outside England, while India have fared better. If there had been Test matches in Ind, England would have lost that too. If you can't play 20-25 overs of spin, you are not going to be able to play 60-70 overs of spin. England are just not good enough against spin. I agree with many posters here who say that each team seems good at home and who is really good cannot be determined. I think they should play in a neutral venue or shift between home and away in alternative games spread over three months, so that both teams won't get too comfortable so easily and they would need constant adapting. The better the team is in adapting, the better they would fare, giving a better view of who is better.
    Sorry to say but I don't see England remaining No.1 in any format. England they don't seem like even coming close. In T20, one or two games lost by England or one or two games won by some other team would push them down easily. I hear that if India win the T20 game on Saturday they would go to No.2 from No.5. That's the state of T20, so England or any other team cannot be considered good, unless they take it seriously and play more fixtures, giving it as much importance as Test and ODI.
    As for the Tests, Australia have been playing wonderfully and India are not bad themselves, when they are completely fit, abroad or home. South Africa are just too powerful to remain behind England and Sri Lanka are going through a rough patch, but we all know what they are capable of. So I don't think England is going to remain that long in No.1 position as the Aussies or the Indians have done.

  • Comment number 35.

    I think England were well on top of a VERY TIRED India side that arrive here in the summer, too boot England had some momentum by way of good series win v Sri Lanka. India had to travel from the Windies to England and that after a long World Cup tournament. I have not read all the posts yet. I am not saying England were lucky but to a degree it was a bit lopsided. The England players were home from that same WC tournament - but did not make it as far as India, had HOME tests and India had to travel. All adds up to a BIG advantage, but that is the life of a cricketer these days, you are either travelling for months or you are at home for months. To boot India also had a few injuries to key players.
    Now India have had the chance to recharge the batteries, and it is England who have a few injury worries. Too much cricket, too much travelling??? All adds up to take its toll on the body at some point.
    India will always be a force in their own backyard, ALWAYS! England's big test now is to see how good they really are when South Africa tour here next year, if both sides have all players 100% fit it is going to be a humdinger of a series but can see SA winning 2-1. Cant wait.

  • Comment number 36.

    Also I see so many people considering WI and Aus of the past as Champion teams, but not Ind over the past two years, just because we did not have good seamers. A team without great seamers achieving Number 1 and remaining there for two years is a much greater achievement than a perfect team remaining for five or ten years.
    About the DRS, don't even get me started. BCCI do a lot of wrong things, the world knows that, but their stance in DRS is perfect. We all saw how the Aussies and SL found the DRS problematic in their series against each other. We all saw how many wrong decisions have been made in the Ind vs Eng series. Humans with 60 percent accuracy are way better than Technology with 90 percent accuracy. If we are going to trust Tech, make them 100 percent perfect. We don't want to mistrust the umpire, then go for Tech and then find the decision of the Tech to be wrong. Trusting humans is more important. I do believe there will be a time when there will be no on field umpires and everything will be seen using Tech by one umpire in his room, before his computer. But that is still a long way and only possible if the tech is 100 percent perfect. Just because much of the Technology was created by the English, the world can't accept them. Either make it good for everyone to follow, or don't bother putting it forward.
    Reasons why England can’t be the most powerful team in the world is as follows. They are not good players of spin, they can’t play anything outside England, they do not have big hitters towards the end (KP and Morgan are the only two guys who can be considered smashers, but both are inconsistent). They have not yet found a proper keeper who can be consistent, a big hitter and also who can stay long. Matt Prior is slow in Tests, and inconsistent in ODI, Kieswetter can play big shots, but also plays a lot of dots and highly inconsistent. Bairstow was claimed a wonder, but hasn’t done anything so far (but I hope and believe he will be great over time). Lots of domestic keepers are in contention, but have to see who can be consistent and a big hitter too. Their seamers are good, Steve Finn is awesome, Bresnan is a good player, but needs to be groomed well. Anderson only good at places where there is some swing and so cannot be relied upon outside England or Australia. Broad is improving and a wonderful player, but have to see him give a worthy performance outside England.

  • Comment number 37.

    @Kris Well they drew against SA away which was pretty impressive in their unbeaten run (the only series they haven't won). They play Sri Lanka and Pakistan next in Test series so that will go a bit further to understanding where they are. Do remember even if they loose a series it's not the end both the Windies and Oz great teams lost now and again, the real question is how long will hold onto No.1? Five seconds like SA, a year and a half like India, a ranking period of 2 years where only recent series count full point or the full 3-4 period where all games played in counts for the points. Nobody honestly knows England have made a good show in all conditions so far but have yet to come across decent opposition in the sub-continent in the current full points ranks period so that's what counts next. However its not about the results of that series even if they loose but whether they keep their number 1 status and then the series after that. In the future they won't be remembered for the series' they lost unless they loose their ranking fairly early on in their period as number 1.

  • Comment number 38.

    @24.

    Excellent post IMO.

  • Comment number 39.

    The problems for Indians, while many youngsters are given chance in ODI and are fully ready to play when and where they are required, not enough players are rotated in Tests, due to the presence of seniors in the team. It is understandable that the three or four seniors are just too good to be replaced, but I think India should start rotating players and allow not more than two seniors to play in a single game and replace two others with youngsters, so that when the seniors retire in a year or two, we would have a proper younger replacement and also the four seniors’ career can be prolonged as they play lesser games. So when Sachin and Laxman play, Dravid, Shewag must be left out and when Dravid and Shewag play, Sachin and Laxman should be left out. Guys like Kohli, Rohit, Mukund, Pujara, Vijay, Badrinath, Rahane, Yuvi must all be given more chances to play.
    And then finally for the growing rivalry between fans, I was disappointed seeing Cook booed by the Indian crowd during the presentation. We have to accept that the English players are gentlemen, even though some of them can cross the line now and again. When they play here, they are our guests and should be treated properly and given respect. The English also booed India when they thought that Bell won’t return during that controversial run out, even though it was perfectly legal. But we should try to act better than what we did. MS Dhoni is a perfect example and role model as to how we Indians must be. He took it all in his stride and took the defeat in England with grace and also took the 5-0 victory against them with humility. The English are wonderful people and cricket should only build a proper bond between the two nations and a healthy rivalry, not enmity. At the end of the day, they are our brothers. We should learn to appreciate good cricket. Was also sad with the stadium going silent when Finn bowled that good spell or when Trott hit those 98 and Patel 70 runs. When you see good cricket, you have to appreciate it, even if it means it is from the opposition. That is one thing we must learn from the English. Good luck to both teams and fans. Hope we get more interesting, intense series...

  • Comment number 40.

    @ Prashant most of what you said is your usual drivel ignoring the actual results

    "India are great away but lost to SA but England are terrible away but drew againt SA" Is more or less what you did said.

    Also England aren't ignoring ODI's they've stated a goal to be number 1 at that as well. This series just proves they've got ALOT of work to do. however what's annoying alot of England fans including myself is somehow it seams Indian fans think an ODI series whitewash takes away from England's Test success in recent years in fact they seam to think that England haven't performed at all in Test's in recent years like what you said. When this is far from the truth.

  • Comment number 41.

    England like to give the impression that they really care about one day cricket, but the choice of captain suggests otherwise. Don't get me wrong Cook is a class player, but he wasn't close to being in the ODI side before he was made captain. This was allegedly done to help 'mould him for the test role' when Strauss retires. If we really want to win the world cup surely we have to appoint a captain best suited to this role - perhaps bell?

    Having both cook and trott in the team affects the balance of the side, and they haven't exactly shored up the batting - how many collapses is that now? Trott has the better record and it's harsh on him because cook won't be dropped as he's the captain.

    Another problem is our bowling, particularly to Dhoni. We can't seem to work out a strategy of how to bowl to him, every time he batted he hurt us, but we still bowled the same. The example of kumar on Patel has been mentioned, the bowler finding a weakness and exploiting it. England need some sort of plan of how to bowl to the world's top players to neutralise them as best they can. Admittedly, with these players, weaknesses are pretty hard to find!

    But credit to India. They were utterly ruthless, knew the conditions and were simply way stronger in every department. And this was their 'B' team. This side with the likes of tendulkar, Sehwag and zaheer khan are going to be nigh unbeatable in India.

  • Comment number 42.

    I think, India's record abroad is way better than not just England but most of the teams.

    1. Don't forget that India won its first world cup in England (1983)

    If you take past 5 yrs

    1. India has won 2 ODI series in West Indies
    2. India has won Common Wealth Series in Australia
    3. India won ODI series in New Zealand
    4. India won T20 world cup in South Africa
    5. India also drew Test matches in Australia and England.

    When did England win a series abroad? let alone world cup.

  • Comment number 43.

    Watching England collapse against spin yesterday was just as ugly as watching Indian batsmen looking shoddy on bouncy English tracks.

    No one's denying England deserve the number one test ranking. But I'll say this, if there was four-match test series to be played now between the teams in the subcontinent, there's a more than reasonable chance India would return the hammering they got in the summer.

  • Comment number 44.

    "@ 5 if the game was so irrelevance, how comes India moved upto 3rd in the ODI rankings and England slipped fourth? As You got such a trashing with the 5-0 whitewash thats why you do not care"

    Sadly for you, the truth is we do care a lot less about limited over cricket. It was nice to win the World T20, but it wasn't that much of a big deal. And it would have been nice to do better in these ODIs, but the majority aren't all that bothered.

  • Comment number 45.

    #13 sachinit
    "You thought you became number 1 by winning one series."
    No. We know we're the number 1 test side by winning most of our series.
    "I'll tell you the only thing you are #1 at right now is in talking and sledging and no other aspect of cricket."
    You are wrong again.
    http://icc-cricket.yahoo.net/
    Perhaps you would like to study the test rankings.
    #1 England
    #3 India
    LOL.

  • Comment number 46.

    @40 ncurd- India had actually drawn the Test series with SA in SA, but lost the ODI 3-2, but took the lead initially, but lost the final two games, even though both teams played really well and both were close finishes, unline the Ind vs Eng series where the margins were huge. Also England's good test results have all come in England, not outside of it, did you not read it fully?

  • Comment number 47.

    no doubt after this poor tour, england must make some decisions on several players regarding thier odi future, players such as bell, bopara, kieswetter, patel,cook,trott may find thier odi days numbered to make way for the promising young talents such as hales, buttler, borthwick, stokes and others in order to give them a variety of experiences in international cricket and real pressure situations against top players so they are properly prepared for the next 50 over world cup. in my opinion this team is just a stop gap and wont be together long after listening to andy flower speak yesterday, I personally would be bold and write off a few odi careers and build a 4 year plan with the younger generation.

  • Comment number 48.

    Prashant - you're exactly the type of poster that I refer to in my previous post (#29). It is simply a fact that England are the number 1 Test side and T20 World Champions. They may not stay there for long but that is where they are. India are a great side and I love watching them play - but they are currently below England in both forms but above England in the 50-over format and deservedly so.

    As for the arrogance and bad behaviour of the England team, I can remember plenty of instances in England this Summer when Indian players were hardly saints.

    More interesting, in my point of view, is the attitude and behaviour of fans. I recall Trott's 50 (yup the only England score of the tour!) being greeted with absolute silence by the paying public. The difference between cricket fans and those that are simply nationalistic - ?

  • Comment number 49.

    Well what do you say,one month nothing can beat England and now this. There are clearly problems still in the fifty over format.Also selection problems .On field,the bowling was less than average at times,the fielding well below what should be expected at top level, and the batting was generally poor and inconsistent.When in game four Swann was dropped Sir Ian Botham wondered if there was more to this than we were seeing (something to do with comments in his new book maybe). How often when England are losing a series does Petersen suddenly have an injury and can't play.At times Englands on field attitude was poor, and Finn's behaviour at snatching his cap from the umpire deserved a bigger rap than 7.5% of his match fee being fined from him. We must though give credit to India, they played well,especially after the tour here,and thoughrully deserved their convincing win in this series.England were simply outclassed and thrashed in this series, brought down heavily by a vastly superior team.Woeful England, congratulations to the Indian squad !

  • Comment number 50.

    #43 I agree that India would be favourites at home in a Test series. Not sure it would be a hammering, because there is now a confidence about our Test team, which isn't there in the ODI team.

  • Comment number 51.

    Sore losers.

    What excuse are England going to offer if you lose against Pakistan and Srilanka......

    Perhaps.... we only concentrate on T20, turning wickets, absence of key players and so on

    You can only improve if you accept your defeat, analyse the true reasons behind it and improve upon that.

    Instead of commenting on Aus and Ind look at yourselves in the mirror

  • Comment number 52.

    I was also curious as to why KP never got to bowl in this series. Sure he bowls some dross but when 2nd tier spinners were bowling some surprises I'd have thought we'd at least given a go to everyone that could bowl some spin.

  • Comment number 53.

    just saw the title of this article and nearly fell off my chair! are we really giving this odi series that sort of significance? i presume you just had to write something. i don't think england's position has changed at all. nobody has said england are that marvellous at the odis. they beat india at home and lost away, that's about what you would expect.

    obviously, the thing that actually matters is that england are in a contest with south africa to establish who the best test side (the best cricket team in other words) is. the fact that england are ranked 4 or 5 in odis is no more important than the fact that they are apparently ranked no.1 in 20/20. it's nice to win odis, but it's still a sideshow.

    If anyone doubts this, look at australia. they are ranked no.1 in odis, are they thrilled with the state of australian cricket- no, they've just had a review, because they know the main aim is the ashes and test series. equally when england got smashed in 2007, they won the odi thing, didn't make anyone particularly happy did it? I'd be so disappointed if we started hero worshipping sloggers who can whack spinners on flat tracks, rather than batsmen with touch, timing and judgement who can play a fast bowler on a competitive wicket.

  • Comment number 54.

    @50 In all fairness, England looked clueless against spin. And the likes of Broad and Anderson would struggle on slow subcontinent pitches. So yeah, a test whitewash would have been a good possibility.

  • Comment number 55.

    "Also England's good test results have all come in England, not outside of it, did you not read it fully?"

    Prahsant, You've probably got some misplaced logic for not counting the recent thrashing of Australia then.

    And you mentioned some rubbish about Prior being slow in Test cricket?! Last time I checked, he has a career strike rate of just under 67, although this year it's 89.32. Slow??

  • Comment number 56.

    India thrash England in India. Shock horror! I'm just really glad we're done with playing India now, I'm so so bored of reading the comments from a number of blinkard Indian fans who boast and gloat and bang on about sachin every 2 minutes. It's not banter, it's just incredibly irritating. This of course does not apply to everyone, but I'm sure you all know what I'm referring to.

    There's too much cricket. 5 ODI's for what? We just played each other, and aren't England in India next winter for a full tour? The balance of international cricket is all wrong. I'm glad the crowds were poor for the recent series, hopefully the administrators can see the diminishing appetite thanks to pointless games being rammed down the fans throats.

    Thoroughly underwhelmed.

  • Comment number 57.

    @Shinydemon
    well, to be honest, the current crop of cricket commentators are pure rubbish, especially the Indians. ex-players, some of them very successful, who think that their past success on the cricket pitch somehow makes them very interesting and delightful the moment they step into the commentary box. manjarekar happens to be one of the better ones, but is still pretty sad. sure, the cricketing schedule has been rather packed, but the festival of Diwali is definitely the single-most important reason for the low turnouts.

  • Comment number 58.

    @ ncurd. Completely agree with you

    Some people (mostly Indians I have to say) claim eng can't be test number 1 because we haven't done anything away. I'm sorry but this is just bitterness and a sign of sore losers.

    We thrashed oz in oz, drew with SA. People say we haven't won in the sub-continent, this team hasn't lost there either - they haven't played there. Results this winter will be interesting. England are the best test team in the world. Get over it.

  • Comment number 59.

    #51. How exactly are we sore losers? We were rubbish, we know this. We're also finding it hard to care.

  • Comment number 60.

    I'm hoping this will be the ODI moment that the defeat in the WI a few years back was to the test side.

    I think there are better options than Bopara and Patel, but the selectors seem to be the only ones unable go see that.

    We definitely missed Broad, not only for his bowling, but his ability to bat with the lower order, and to a lesser extent Anderson, if only for his experience.

  • Comment number 61.

    Why was Finn the best of the youngsters picked? Because he has the most experience of bowling and playing in different conditions, as opposed to Bairstow, Patel, Borthwick, Meaker and Dernbach.

    I hope that the disappointment in the ODIs won't lead to more chopping and changing.

    The selectors seem to have already identified a group of younger players who they feel have potential in the ODI game. I would stick with them. I think if you add Morgan, Broad and Anderson to what we took out there, we have a pretty decent ODI team, regardless of this Indian humiliation.

    However, I do think Cook is not ready for the captaincy of any England side.

  • Comment number 62.

    I really do laugh at the "Indias team in the summer was a second string side" line, erm, they only had 1 player missing (Sahwag).. We destroyed them in the summer, and they didn't go off like this, no, they went and licked the wounds and came back stronger. Whereas we are analyzing just about everything that went wrong.

    I'm glad we had some aggression in the field, Finn's outburst after getting rid of Raina was brilliant, at last we have a team who show passion and we mock them for it. Typical and pathetic England supporters who don't like it when we show some passion, we want to be gentleman, oh please. Its the reason we never win anything at football.

  • Comment number 63.

    You don't become a bad team in just one series. Same goes the India's 4-0 loss in England. They performed consistently over 2 and a half years to become world No.1, They did not lose IN Aus,SA,SL, won at other places. Except SA they beat every other team at home. Thats why India became No.1, not simply by playing at home.

    Alright ENG have been doing well in Tests, but they are YET to win series in the subcontinent, especially in India. Even the dominant AUS team admitted that series win in India was their final frontier. Just like how teams used to consider winning against WI in WI. If you want to be the dominant force in cricket, be the No.1 team in the world, you have the obligation to beat India in India, simply because Spin bowling and batting is as important as fast bowling. You just can't say No.1 because you can win on surfaces good for fast bowling. Please do remember that ENG have beaten probably the worst AUS team of the decade and the injury-ridden and badly-prepared team of India. Let them beat SA,win in India. then I would put my hand up and say They are the No.1 team.

    In ODIs, I can not remember when ENG played like being a top team in the last few years, except couple of home series. They simply do not have the team YET to be good in ODIs. No coach needs to tell the team that rotating the strike is important, it is integral part of the game, but they could not do even that. That is skills-side of the game, NOT about conditions,home-advantage or anything else.


    The distasteful thing was, not just the euphoria about Eng's win against Ind. It is the kind of talks and comments made by the so-called experts and some of the behaviour of the players.

    Until ENG becamse No.1 officially, everyone England said the rankings are useless. Now thats the bench mark. Now the ODIs are not that important, I wish England play just test matches from now on and see if they can even survive in the world of cricket. Of course ODIs would have been very important had they won the World Cup or even this series.

    I think they need to stay on the ground and do a reality check and accept their true potential and ability..

  • Comment number 64.

    Prashant, when's your book coming out?
    Note to editor: not too many pics please

  • Comment number 65.

    several comments here that england would necessarily lose a test series in india. based on them losing a odi series! that obviously doesn't follow. india would be slight favourites, but a whitewash would be extremely unlikely. being unable to score at 6 runs an over against spin, doesn't translate to an inability to survive it in a test match.

    but really indian fans should not let this paper over the cracks, india have never won a series in australia or south africa, and they're about to lose a lot of senior players. If india are to be more competitive in the sort of conditions you find outside of the subcontinent, then they need to start playing on more competitive wickets at home and produce some quality fast bowlers.

    as for the no.1 business. the recent australian and west indian teams will be remembered as no.1 for the quality and dominance of their cricket. the recent indian team that was ranked no.1 will not be remembered in that way at all, they had a brief ranking high, but they weren't in the same league as those teams and it's absurd to compare them. england aren't either, but england are improving and they have started to dominate test series and they have an emerging group of quality fast bowlers.

  • Comment number 66.

    i am genuinely surprised when people start asking if the series was even important. let me see. its not as if England was playing Zimbabwe/Kenya/Bangladesh[no offense, but even after taking recent results into account, people would agree that these three are generally not taken as seriously as they should be]. England had sent a strongish squad, had arrived 10 days in advance to prepare for the 5 ''irrelevant'' ODIs, and now that they have been absolutely hammered in 4 out of the 5, test matched have gained the sort of significance that would exist in the pre-1971 era, when test cricket was the only format. its very nice to say that test cricket is the format that matters as it shows that the public still cares about cricketing tradition and the testing conditions of the 5-day game, but it would be plain stupid to say that its the only format worth paying attention to. Irrespective of your ranking in the longer format of the game, ODI ranikngs/performance also has to be kept in mind. The two formats-now three-exist simultaneously.

  • Comment number 67.

    63.At 10:39 26th Oct 2011, Shan wrote:
    You don't become a bad team in just one series. Same goes the India's 4-0 loss in England. They performed consistently over 2 and a half years to become world No.1, They did not lose IN Aus,SA,SL, won at other places. Except SA they beat every other team at home. Thats why India became No.1, not simply by playing at home.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shan, before this series in India I saw everyone with England loyalties whose opinion means something saying exactly that. (I'm not talking about gloating posters on here)

    But you also seem to be confusing talk about the Test team with the ODI team.

    After the World Cup I don't think anyone in England was claiming that we were the best ODI team, and the home series win against India was just seen as signs as positive improvement in the 50 over game.

    As far as the success of the summer here against India goes, can I ask why England fans shouldn't celebrate their success?

  • Comment number 68.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 69.

    The headline says it all - "Heroes to Zeros" - That is the British press at their normal bi-polar selves. The England cricket team, like the England Rugby team and the England Football team are in the eyes of the press either "brilliant" or "rubbish". The truth is that all those sides are among the best in the world, not the best and definitely not the worst. They are, on their day , capable of beating any side in each of those sports. They are also capable of losing to another of the top sides. So come on BBC, let's have some honest reporting for a change instead of the sensationalising of the England teams

  • Comment number 70.

    60# this is what im hoping for. we have a very good core of a team. trott, morgan, cook for the batting and then the bowling attack looks very good, Anderson (bowl most of his overs beginning of the innings), broad, finn and swann. Its the same old questions the keeper, 5th bowler and an opening bat.

    Patel did ok this series with the bat, but he doesnt solve the 5th bowling option. Kieswetter is not good enough a keeper or opening bat, he makes the 70mph of kumar look good, i hate to see what would happen against someone with any pace.

    I believe woakes can solve the 5th bowling option, and hes a very good bat. He stands out in county cricket. I believe bell should be given a chance to open and if he fails then hes had plenty of chances and it will be time to cut him loose.

    We need to get away from continuing the same mistakes, ie the keeper opening averagng less than 30, and these rubbish all rounders who do half a job like (luke wright, yardy, blackwell, patel, bopara)

  • Comment number 71.

    @shan, it's all very well saying aus had their worst team of the decade, but that's largely based on their defeat to england. they won in south africa and, contrary to what you claimed, beat india last time india visited in 2008.

    i don't think most people in england are claiming that the rankings are everything, most people have said that england have a lot to prove, particularly next year against south africa. equally no one is saying that england should never play an odi, just that the odis are not as important. if other teams want to treat odis as the most important thing, that's fine, that's their business. but the australians, who you said (rather contradicting yourself) are the worst australian team of the decade, are no.1 in odis and are plainly not happy with the state of things and have just held a review.

  • Comment number 72.

    "Let them beat SA,win in India. then I would put my hand up and say They are the No.1 team."

    You seem to be setting higher standards for England being number 1, than India being number 1. This team has beaten everybody it's played in recent times, apart from South Africa away. India "did not lose IN Aus,SA,SL"..... so we've got to beat everybody, but it's ok for India just to 'not lose'.

    We are deserved number one in Tests, there is no doubt. To become a dominant side we have to win in Asia, obviously, but we're a long way from that.

  • Comment number 73.

    @glosterpowder
    inferiority complex and colonial past? really? what would you do if you didn't win a single competitive game on a tour, and given the chance to put things right, take it with both hands? you call it arrogance, i call it sheer exuberance and relief, along with a hint of youthful character. times have changed in India. a lot of the current crop of cricketers couldn't care less about Lord Mountbatten. Its time that people stopped bringing up the whole colonial past thing now.

  • Comment number 74.

    Slightly off-topic, but there have been some posting that this ODI series was pointless (including myself): why on earth are Australia SA only playing 2 tests against each other in their series? Two fairly well-matched teams, and only two tests! It's all wrong I tell you..

  • Comment number 75.

    @glosterpowder: I think we all know who really needs to get over their past :-))

    Happy Diwali!

  • Comment number 76.

    England were outplayed in 4 out of the 5 games and lost by huge margins. In comparison all of the three one day's won by England in England were either by very narrow margins or by the help of D/L method. No one can dispute these arguments.

    Yes India were pathetic in the tests and their performance became worse after every test and nobody in India defended the team saying that conditions were alien or it was too cold or whatever. The Indian team has been performing well abroad and in the recent past has won series, both test and one-day's while travelling. Just in 2007 only England had lost in their favorite format viz. Tests to India.

    If one were to ask who was worse? India in England or England in India...I would definitely go with the latter!!!

  • Comment number 77.

    #74 That is pretty tragic. You'd expect at least a minimum of 3, to have some proper back and forth.

  • Comment number 78.

    England did not adapt or change the nature of their side to meet the conditions.

    1. Batting & opening - we missed Morgan sometimes you need KP to open
    2. Bowling - we need a 'new' Collingwood plus Broad back
    3. Fielding - expectations & standards are high hence the grief players get for mistakes

    4. Keeping - there will be conditions that I think Davies/Bairstow is a better keeper/batsman option.

    Maybe we would've been better picking players who had acclimatised in the Somerset Champions League team?

    The England team is not flexible enough YET give Flowers time

  • Comment number 79.

    The English side was largely experimental, young players being 'blooded', we need to introduce our young players into the realities of world cricket.
    They now need to learn how different it is.
    I was suprised at the batsmen, who are more experienced. They must learn you do not give your wicket away. Look at Dhoni, undismissed in 5 games, thats what you learn from! and bowlers, on subcontinent you bowl just short of a length, not block hole death bowling which was Dernbach's and Meaker's approach, which works in England in limited overs. Just inexperience, You must try harder and learn quickly.

  • Comment number 80.

    Where do you start with the overreactions? This series just confirms what we already knew. It's clear that

    1. India are better than England in ODI's. With a full strength side they would have pushed England in England in that format.

    2. England are better than India in tests. It's disappointing that this tour won't include any - it would have made for a great series given India have home advantage.

    3. Home advantage is important to both teams. (The world number one ranking is really about who is more likely to win away series.)

    Don't bother saying England don't care about this series. They might not be at full strength, but only Anderson is missing from those who are fit. Cook and a young side have plenty to prove, with a number of players playing for their place in the team. I'm sure they care (even if most supporters don't.)

    Don't start inferring that England would lose in tests because they've been destroyed in ODI's. England's test team includes 5 players who weren't in this ODI squad (and Bell who only played one match). The mentality is different - English players should be much more confident against spin when they don't need to attack. This squad is full of players still finding their feet, while the test side is much more experienced. And in their success away from home recently the resilience that that breeds has been key.

    In the test series in Sri Lanka we'll see the real test - and if they're at full strength, I'ld expect a wounded England side to win.

  • Comment number 81.

    #80 Good post

  • Comment number 82.

    .
    HERE WE GO AGAIN !!

    I never watch this silly game anyway; its like staring as the paint dry.

    Its the headline that caught my attention. ENGLAND LOST AGAIN !! In NZ they got turned over even by "smaller nations". In soccer they're just as useless.

    Will they ever learn? Sucker for punishment, aren't they??

  • Comment number 83.

    Incidentally here is my ODI team going forwards

    1) Cook (cp) - I'd actually prefer Strauss or Trott but that's not going to happen.
    2) Bell
    3) Pietersen
    4) Morgan
    5) Buttler (wk)
    6) Patel/Bopara(Bopara would be further up the order)
    7) Bresnen
    8) Swann
    9) Broad
    10) Anderson
    11) Finn

    Don't see why we need so man bits and parts players and I think that's our biggest failing in ODI's the concept works great for T20 incase a bowler get some tap but they only have to bowl 4 overs. In ODI's you need 10 overs and I'd rather treat the bowling like a Test team rather than a T20 team. Class bowlers will come back from being knocked about most other won't. One is useful but we seam to want to play a lot and insist our wk must be an opener.

  • Comment number 84.

    @rohan "If one were to ask who was worse? India in England or England in India...I would definitely go with the latter!!!"

    your case is built on odis, so if i concede that england are worse in odis in india, than india are in england. would you concede india are worse in tests? given that england drew 1 out of 2 tests they played in india last time, and were competitive in the other one, whereas india got stuffed by "huge margins" in all 4 of their recent tests in england.

  • Comment number 85.

    So, what now?

    I'd say Trott underlined how important he is to this side, KP showed some sort of form, Finn was very good and Patel did OK.

    All the rest were dreadful. Bell IS NOT the answer, and it's time for him and Bopara to make way.

    I'd probably stick with Kieswetter and Cook, as chopping and changing doesn't solve anything. The return of Morgan and Broad strengthens the team considerably.

  • Comment number 86.

    #83 All well and good, but Morgan and Broad have been injured, so what happens then? That's what the selectors have had to deal with this time round. Plus, Anderson got spanked all over the place in the WC; I'm not convinced he should be in the team. What about Bairstow? Chopping and changing after a few bad performances got England into a mess in the past - why should we do it now?

    All in all, not much point listing your team going forward. It's an exercise in futility. And it doesn't even consider form. Or the conditions. Or the pitch.

  • Comment number 87.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 88.

    @ncurd
    i don't know, but i don't really find cook to be much of a captain. what does the general English public think of him as a captain?

  • Comment number 89.

    @82, "In NZ they got turned over even by "smaller nations". In soccer they're just as useless"
    in nz they lost only to france, in the "soccer" they were put out by germany, and in cricket they've just lost to india (having recently beaten them). i think you'll find that they are all "larger nations".

  • Comment number 90.

    #83. You would have the same problem as we do now, and you are missing our best player in Trott. We have the most fragile middle order, the tail starts at 5 when bopara bats there. Yes try out the buttlers, bairstows, but they need solid players around them, and thats why morgan should be our finisher at 5 or 6, and Trott at 3. As we have found out the 20s, 30s, 40s dont get you anywhere, and thats all Pieterson is delivering at the moment, and all that bopara is capable of at a slow strike rate.

    Bresnan deserves his place in the squad, but he isnt a number 7 and his bowling needs to improve.

  • Comment number 91.

    82: That's a bit unfair Matt seeing as we're there or there about in a lot of sports.

    As a few posters have commented we are a few years behind ODI compared with Tests but I do have to question whether there is the same level of interest in the two formats with the English public. Most people I know see Test cricket as 'cricket'.

  • Comment number 92.

    Does anyone care about one-day games in India ? I mean really care? Its test matches abroad or particularly against the Aussies and matches at home. The rest might as well be considered practice matches and we should blood players.

  • Comment number 93.

    Silk- Bell deserves one more chance in the top 3. He was dropped because he didnt consolidate his 50s into hundreds, he has 19. But dont go and drop him for someone who cant get to 50. He has improved and deserves a chance in his best position instead of being messed around batting at 5,6, which is a position he admits he is not suited to.

  • Comment number 94.

    Have to say even though England didn't play very well I'm not too concerned. With their lowly ranking and record in ODIs compared to India's this result was always a possibility. I'm surprised that the tour took place at all without tests - England had very little chance in this form of the game and have been concentrating on test cricket. Play against spin was a worry but doesn't mean they would necessarily lose a test series in India - too many dot balls would not be a problem for a start. Roll on England vs SA. Can't help but care a lot more about that series.

  • Comment number 95.

    I think it probably refelects that although England won teh one day series at home versus India we were fairly fortunate at time both to be facing a India side completely demoralised by the test series trashing, but also missing key men and really getting the luck of the weather saving us in a couple of games we probably would have lost.

    It probably raised expectations that our one day side has progressed rather further than was realistic and we are relly at early stages with the team and it was missing a few key players.

    Against that at home looking to avenge there humiliation India and Dhoni have really stepped it up and played good cricket and being honest who didn't think they were a better one day side than us given 8 months ago they became world champs?

    I think its probably fair to say at present the English test team is the best about alongside SA but one day wise we are a little short. Conversely India have a great 1 day and 20/20 side but have found some of the players coming through aren't really yet adapted to the test arena and it is causing them issues?

    It could just be coming from the different focuses the boards, managements and teams place on the merits of test v short form cricket is reflecting in how each is performing?

    Lets not get acarried away though not many otehr teams would relish playing either at present!

  • Comment number 96.

    I think neither touring side brought their best players for the ODIs, maybe in order to test some newer players out for the forthcoming World Cup. However, for England, I don't think Cook should have been captain for the ODIs: looking at MSD's successful tenure as skipper for both Tests and ODIs, maybe we do need Strauss as skipper for both sorts of cricket. Possibly it's too early for Cook to be captain. After all, he has had no previous captaincy experience.
    Another worry is the wicket keeper. Good to see that Bairstow was in the side for the experience - but I'd have liked to see him behind the stumps for at least one match. Kieswetter isn't doing what Prior did. At least Prior learnt to improve his keeping skills, while maintaining his batting skills. I haven't seen any signs that Kieswetter's doing that yet.
    We didn't take the right second spinner - or if we did (Borthwick?) we didn't play him. I'd have rather seen Panesar in India. Samit Patel is possibly the only ray of hope from this side! I'd also have left Bopara at home - he hasn't shown any signs of being the match-winning all-rounder we need in the side. Pity Woakes was injured before getting his chance, I think he's more the all-rounder we need.

    As for India, in England they decided to stick with the tried and tested players who were too long in the tooth and playing a farewell tour. We saw in the Champions League T20 matches earlier in the year some interesting and capable younger players, who were left at home or out of the England series. These players were brought into the side in India and made a lot of difference. If they'd have been brought to England the 5-0 might have been different.

    So in conclusion, I don't see that these two series actually taught anyone anything going forwards. I'm a cricket addict, but even I can see that these two series were a waste of time.

  • Comment number 97.

    Did anyone expect England to go to India and do anything other than lose?....

    Yes maybe we expected more of a fight but why???......

    It was only 7/8 months ago we got embarrassed in India at the World Cup.......

    And that was with a full choice experienced England line up. We went out this time with some youngsters who are looking to gain that experience that we were lacking with no Broad or Anderson or Morgan.

    Don't let the English summer fool anyone.. England are not a very good one day team. That India team were tired after what had been a very hard 18 months on them physically and mentally. And yes England certainly are a better test team than them on home turf but we are not a better one day team than them whatever we are beginning to think.

  • Comment number 98.

    # 83. ncurd, it's the old debate, but I don't see how you you can have Bell in over Trott. I can understand some saying that Bell should be in the team (though I don't agree), but to have him and not Trott seems bizarre. Bell's record is that he scores slower than Trott, in whatever position he plays, and that he obviously scores a lot less. He might do better if given a consistent position in the team for a long time, but you don't sacrifice your most successful ODI batsman for a 'might'.

  • Comment number 99.

    #86 Nothing against Baistow he shouldn't of had a chance ahead of Buttler only on high score does Bairstow win out against Buttler on List A stats.

    Morgan you replace with Trott simple choice it does mean shifting around the order.
    Broad is more difficult I'd liked Jade Dernbach until this tour and we certainly shouldn't drop him completely. Onions is also a choice.

    #90 Trott is a great player and I;d have him over Cook but I had to be realistic that Cook is being groomed for Test captaincy and just couldn't drop him. I disagree about the 'long' tail the problem is Batsman apart from Trott aren't abtting through but all those player have the potential to do so they just need to learn not to go wham bam thank you mam in the middle overs. Something I've seen the like of Buttler do when there been a batting order collapse just look at the CB40 final. Actually that's one of bigger griefs is we don't we don't play 50 overs at County level it makes NO SENSE!

  • Comment number 100.

    Lol at the indians hopping up and down over this. I wish in Australia for indias tour and ever since i have disliked them. Their antics and attitude stink, so much so that the Aussies are more likely to hate them than England!

 

Page 1 of 4

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.