I have to disagree with the suggestion that Yardy shouln't bat at 4. I felt that today Englands batting line-up looked the best it had been in a while (taking into account Trescothick's absence) as it was balanced. Strauss and Bell at the top is acceptable in my opinion and the best way to get Bell into the team. Flintoff at three is a positive move and will benefit Flintoff's stroke play in the long-term. Breaking up Freddie and KP is important as those two going in quick succession is the worst case scenario for England. Dalrymple and Collingwood are excellent finishers to an innings so for them to bat at 6 and 7 makes sense to me. So your left with a space at 4 and that is where Yardy should bat as he's proved himself in county cricket as a more than capable batsman and his bowling is crucial as there is no doubting that he's a difficult bowler to dominate. As Pietersen's shown a textbook technique is not essential if you are to be successful, especially in one-day cricket, so Yardy to come in at 4 provides England with the greatest balance of batsmen and a good foil for the power hitters around him. I believe that England's batsmen will come good at some point in this tournament-Yardy batting at 4 included.

I agree with your analysis. Although easy to say with the benefit of hindsight, rearranging the batting order in the fashion which Fletcher did was never going to work. Flintoff coming in at number three was, for me, an attempt to justify playing him as a batsman alone, which is fine when he comes in lower down the order to strike the old ball, but not when you are risking exposing him to the new ball if we lose an early wicket like we did today. Nick Knight made a good point early in the commentary when he suggested Kevin Pieterson would be a better attacking option for the number three position. As we've seen many times in the past, when Flintoff fails with either bat or ball, he usually makes up for it with the other, as I'm sure he will again come the Ashes, but not having that opportunity today he looked a frustrated figure only being able to make amends with his captaincy in the field, which I thought was pretty good.
England's test performances are a million miles from their one day form, so I'll console myself with that thought this week, while expecting a hammering off Australia next Saturday. All that matters is when the 'real' cricket starts down-under in November!

Good points here Tim. After years of asnine bleatings about "searching for the right balance" this latest ODI side bears no relation to the one that played less than 6 weeks ago in England and actually won quite convincingly a couple of times. How can that be right ?

In fact over the last seven years England seem to have spent so long searching for this elusive "balance" that they really can't see the wood from the trees.

In tests Duncan Fletcher seems to know who his best squad are, and generally picks an eleven from that number that most people agree with.

In ODI's - if you've got a UK passport - you could just be picked. Somewhere on this very site is the number of ODI players that England have used over recent years. It's an embarrasing comparison.

So lets look at it ...

Mahmood and Harmison are not ODI bowlers. They are attacking bowlers, Mahmood is more an old ball specialist - almost redundant in a 50 over limit, Harmison does not have the tight lines needed for ODI cricket, and his hangdog expression after one ball today seemed to be saying "I'd rather not be here"

Bell and Strauss opening...Ideal, if you want a steady 40 off the first 20 powerplay overs. Today they tried to improvise before they were in. It was patently obvious they were not comfortable doing it.

Freddie at 3 - Great, get him in against the new swinging/seaming ball Why ? He's not Englands best batsman - but could score hundreds coming in at over No 20....

Yardie..I'm a kind man so will say nothing. Fans of Mal Loye or Vikram Solanki must wonder which side up the "magic 8 ball" fell for Mr Fletcher the morning he came up with that one.

Collingwood Good, well done Fletch.
Suprised you didn't ask Fred to have him field at fine leg though, he spoils an almost perfectly unfathomable England approach by being the right man in the right place.

Pietersen - Now Fred bats 3 (?) (cause we need a hitter or something) so Kev bats after Mr Yardy..at 5 ? No I don't get it.

Read. Way to instill a sense of confidence then people. Pick a guy, and for the first time since its inception don't give a central contract to a keeper. Advice for Fletch - Use a waterbottle to keep a seat warm, not someones career !

Dalrymple..Oh ok, he could be the new Colly, so that's fine.

Anderson...The first over !?!?!? The guy hasn't bowled more than a couple of dozen overs in months. Probably should be in the squad though, nice to see him back.

I think it comes down to this. Test matches are very rarely horses for courses. Maybe for 2 tests a year England call up Lewis in the same way the Aussies call up McGill.
Sometimes they play, often they don't.

ODI's are very much "horses for courses though", but the trick is - you need to know who and what your extrended options are before you go into major tournaments.
The rest of the world seems to know this, picking from say 14 or 16 core players per team dependant on conditions.

But England .....

Hold on the phone's ringing - now where's my pads.

Paul Clarke

Absoulate rubbish Tests and one day games are like comparing dogs with cats. There both completely different games and obviously England will have a different line up for the tests. There won't be any Yardy or Dalrymple for starters. For the players that play both forms of the game they won't have the added pressure of having to score quickly and the bowlers will have some attacking fields and won't feel like there main goal is to keep the runs down.If they get flogged badly in the Champions Trophy (which they probably will) their confiedence might be shot by the time the VB series in Australia gets underway but it shouldn't have an effect on the ashes. I think they bullied Agarkar in the game against India more like Andy Caddick then Gillespie

These matches are a concern for England, weve seen Australia inflict doubt into opposition sides like this before the real matches even start. England need to turn their one day form around and get some time at the crease and get some confidence about the team especialy with sucha short time between now and the ashes. I dont think Fletcher has a great one day plan for his team and it could run them off their rails before november 23.

I find Tim's comments quite fascinating... they are good works of fiction and always manage to crack me up. His best comment would have to be " Whether all the England players want to stay in (champions trophy) is doubtful" takes the cake. Now if England get the living daylights knocked out of them by Aussies, Tim can always write an article on how this was a plan by the English players to conserve themselves for the Ashes.
Face the facts Timmy, the Enlish victory (ashes) was a fluke, and the Aussies are just going to destroy the enlish line up this time around. No matter how much you rant about how Brett Lee should bewith his family, it just goes to highlight one thing... the english players themselves know that their victory had more to do with luck than with their own talent... and they really dread to face the mighty Aussies in their own den.

Of course it matters....and it's not like this flop just happened over night....it began right after the ashes. This is an extended period of poor cricket in both forms of the game and there's no hiding from that fact - the only wins of note came against a Pakistan side sporting a Pakistan D bowling line-up, if there was such a thing. English media is all too ready to make excuses for their own team, legitimate or not, without recognising the issues that their opposition face.

Remember. leading into the 2005 ashes series England had a settled line-up that won or were at least very competitive in just about every game they played, test and one dayers. This time around they have been woeful in both forms of the game for 12 months, have an unsettled line-up and their key players are well short of match practice and fitness. Yet there is this expectation from the english media and supporters that come November 23 they will simply be able to revert back to the form that saw them win the 4th test. I admire the optimism...but it does seem highly delusional. One thing that has remained a constant is that their batsmen are still good enough to mount big totals against bowling attacks that miss their most potent weapon….Pollock, Ahktar, McGrath etc. That will be the key – whether Australia’s bowlers stay fit. If they do, it will be a doddle, even if England miraculously improve on their 2005 form.

I'm really tired of Strauss and his "we've always said that on our day we can beat anyone in the world" - well duh! There isn't a team in world cricket that can't say the same thing. If I were an english supporter, i'd be absolutely filthy that when England’s day does come around, they then bask in their smugness for the next 2-3 series before that day comes around again. The fact is, the better teams in world cricket are still good enough to win when it is not their day.

Oh and that's a bit rich making excuses for the poms possibly not making the finals because they've got a worse draw than Australia - Australia just belted the Indians a couple of weeks ago, a couple of times over in sub-continental conditions using a second string team.... and Australia also have to play India in a week, likewise the poms play the windies. Didn’t the windies recently beat India to a finals birth in Malaysia? Don't Australia play on Wednesday then have to back things up on Saturday? Don't England get the best part of a week off to prepare? I don’t quite get your point?

The Jaipur game showed a complete lack of sensible strategy from England. What was Michael Yardy doing comming in at number four? If he was sent in to unsettle the new bowl attack of Patel and Pathan, it backfired completely as Yardy was the one looking unsettled with his constant shuffling across the crease. What was worse was that England batted for a 240 plus total whereas a 190 odd total would have been enough. It looks like they went in with a fixed gameplan and refused to change it midway according to the pitch requirements and that's where they really lost the game.

It dies not matter in the slightest. This tournament is a totally irrelevant cash cow for the ICC and means nothing. The Ashes are only 38 days away and THATS WHAT COUNTS !!!!!!!

England showed in one area that they are "still" world class, as their fielding & catching was breathtaking.

England's one day fortunes will change only when everyone - the players, the administrators and, more importantly, the public - realize that the Ashes is not the only competition worth winning. That is the kind of attitude that will ensure that the English team of 2005 will never go down in history as a great team. Its too bad because the potential is defineatly there.

"With Lewis to take the new ball, and Monty Panesar to come on second-change, England could just have won this match."

sure...and if india had sreesanth to take the new ball, and anil kumble to come on second-change, England could just have been 27 all out.

Agree entirely with your point re Fletcher's tinkering. What still surprises me is the obsession with quick runs above keeping wickets in hand. It's pretty clear that being 25-0 after 10 overs is better than 50-3, beacuse to score at 5-6 runs per over in the middle 20, then 7-10 in the last 10, is only possible when you've got batters to play with.

And it was only a couple of years back that Harmison was bowling very dangerously as a first or even second change bowler in one-dayers. OK, so Fred's not bowling now, but why not open with Mahmood and Anderson?

I so wish I could disagree.

The Positives from this match is that the bowling and fielding (bar the first over) were very good from England.

Who would Monty replace? Yardy I suppose. Still I think the order is about right bar Yardy at 4 and the aussies will have a surprise come saturday.

England are bad at one-day cricket largely because Fletcher plays favourites. He has selected a string of people he likes without seeing that there are other options. Similarly in tests it is questionable that a 2-1 series win after 7 succesive losses is no vote of confidence considering the mediocre performances in England this year particularly against Sri Lanka. If England can maintain a consistent wicket-taking attack,(which could prove difficult with the loss of Jones , a half hearted Harmison and no Duke Ball) a top order that can make hundreds (particularly with Bell,Collingwood, KP and cook playing well)is fine but winning tests boils down to taking twenty wickets. What worries me is that with so many English players have written books about last years series so has Fletcher it seems that psycologically the mission is accomplished. Your contention that Fletcher is a great coach at Test level rings hollow. He might have taken England from a laughing stock to ashes winners however if England are to be the best team in the world they have to win everywhere and in the past 30 years the West Indies of the late 70's and early 80's are the only team that could manage that regularly.

England have always been bad at one day cricket. England, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh are the three countries not to win the World Cup. However in April 2005, before they went on to take the Ashes they were rated 7th in the ICC rankings and now they are 8th.

England's one day form has never been a measure of their determination to beat the Aussies this winter.

It would be nice though if they could play one day cricket like adults with a sense of responsibility!!

Given the primary focus on the Ashes, surely in upcoming Aussie match, England should be looking to "smash Glenn McGrath into retirement" as I read somewhere...

If you're going to do this, you open with KP.

Haha, you English are a funny lot aren't you? Win one ashes in 25 years and suddenly thats the only series/tournament that matters? Maybe once you guys lose it again you can start taking all the other cricket a little more seriously, and perhaps become a decent side.

From Tim's comments, it looks like England never wanted to be playing the Champion's Trophy in the first place.
In that case, wouldn't it be better to have sent the England second eleven instead of risking injuries (physical and mental) so close to the Ashes? The ECB could have asked all the top players to pull out Marcus Trescothick did.
Because regardless of what Tim says, if the Aussies crush England on Saturday - and if England play like they did against India, they most definitely will - and end up winning the Trophy, the advantage lies with them when the Ashes starts.

The poms have a problem in that the only batsman with proven credentials in Australia is injured, (Vaughan). KP having come from Sth Africa may adapt well. None of this has anything to do with what happens on a flat low bouncing sub-continent pitch.... or does it.
England beat Australia in the Champ Trophy prior to the ashes, then stuck it to Australia in the ODI part of the Ashes summer.
Summary - England need to compete with Australia here in India or face losing some ground. From a technique point of view it won't matter one iota as conditions down under will be a completly alien experience (batsmen mainly). Panesar is the key. Fast bowlers need to keep pressure on for Panesar & batsmen need to aclimatise.
ps: Won't matter cos the aussies will hammer the poms 5 - 0 - Pidgeon says so!!!

It seems to me that the England ODI side are getting there and I find it hard to disagree with the 14 out in India (make that 13 of them as I don't think Clarke should be there). Fred should have batted at 6 with KP at 3. I'm fine with Yardy at 4, though if Tres comes back into the team, then Bell drops to 4 and Yardy goes. If Yardy's slow left arm is required, then Mahmood is dropped, retaining Lewis and Anderson as the opening bowlers (my only change to the side would be Lewis for Harmison). That leaves you with a current starting XI of Strauss, Bell, KP, Yardy, Colly, Fred, Dalrymple, Read, Mahmood, Lewis, Anderson and the potential of adding Tres in relatively easy if required. For all of Fletcher's ODI failings, he may just yet get it right come the World Cup.

England's long standing problem in ODI's is the batting.Trescothick shouldnt be taken in either test or oneday.He is a person who likes to sit in the warmth of his sofa in his living room.Perhaps he thinks by touring India he will have a sunstroke knowing that all the matches are day and night.Fredie should come at 5.The batsmen has to understand that the pitches in INdia are not for driving a ferrari but nudge short singles

"Australia, who have already been favoured by the fixture list – they begin with a nice gentle game against West Indies, who are a cut below all the other teams apart from England."

Got that one absolutely spot on, Tim!!

David - New Zealand has not won the cricket World Cup either...