England's blunder

[Guest Hiten.]

England committed a blunder during the course of setting a target. England actually tried to set a target of 'number of sessions' to dismiss India rather than setting a numeric value for India to chase. They were pathetic post lunch session (day 4) when they managed to score only 57 runs with a loss of 6 wickets. Not to discredit ZK and Ishant's nagging line and length. They bowled miserly and made sure England had to earn each and every single run.

[Predator_05]

I thought their fields in the tea session were too defensive. Too spread out, singles came easily and the spinners were bowling into the rough outside Tendulkar's leg stump (ala Bangalore test 2001) instead of tempting him to drive in an effort to get him out. They were trying to contain, and that was futile because India were well ahead of the required run rate I wouldn't blame their batsmen. 387 is unassailable 99% of the time and this was an outrageous, near miraculous chase by the best batting lineup in the world.

[Ram]

It's harsh to criticize them. A near 400 target, with 120 overs to bowl, on a day 5 pitch is almost like a fortress guarantee. The important thing to note is, our 4th innings total was the highest total of the match and thats very rare and indicative of how well we played.

[h4te]

england's blunder was their body language. they were negative when they batted post-lunch on Day 4. If England were positive and got quick runs and gotten to 387 lead before tea and declared....India may not have been in 'all out win' mode. England were negative, and we sniffed a chance.

[Guest Hiten.]

It's harsh to criticize them. A near 400 target, with 120 overs to bowl, on a day 5 pitch is almost like a fortress guarantee. The important thing to note is, our 4th innings total was the highest total of the match and thats very rare and indicative of how well we played.

Marirs, its not about how miraculous the chase was. My point is, England had a golden opportunity of setting us a target of at least 450 runs. They should have looked to accelerate once Collingwood and Strauss took them safely towards the lunch session. England should have been sensible enough to understand that the amount of time left in the match meant two things: either India win or lose. Draw was not a possibility because had India batted the all the sessions (which we did) we would have chased it. Imagine if England had scored about 120 runs post lunch session. India surely would have been chasing something around 450 and the game might have changed given the humongous target.

[Ram]

Marirs, its not about how miraculous the chase was. My point is, England had a golden opportunity of setting us a target of at least 450 runs. They should have looked to accelerate once Collingwood and Strauss took them safely towards the lunch session. England should have been sensible enough to understand that the amount of time left in the match meant two things: either India win or lose. Draw was not a possibility because had India batted the all the sessions (which we did) we would have chased it. Imagine if England had scored about 120 runs post lunch session. India surely would have been chasing something around 450 and the game might have changed given the humongous target.

Anything over 350 on a days late 4 + all of day 5 is itself generally insurmountable. Of course, one can always point a finger and said they could have scored a little bit more, but in truth, this was just one big effin performance from us, rather than flawed strategy/implementation from England. Poor English, they were ahead of the 8-ball for 3 and a half days. They probably didnt reckon on the Viru blitz. That, as Dhoni said, was the game changer. But for that innings, we would certainly been on the defensive in our innings.

[Guest Hiten.]

Anything over 350 on a days late 4 + all of day 5 is itself generally insurmountable. Of course, one can always point a finger and said they could have scored a little bit more, but in truth, this was just one big effin performance from us, rather than flawed strategy/implementation from England. Poor English, they were ahead of the 8-ball for 3 and a half days. They probably didnt reckon on the Viru blitz. That, as Dhoni said, was the game changer. But for that innings, we would certainly been on the defensive in our innings.

You are missing the plot here marirs. England let India score those single far too easily. Sure the Viru blitzkrieg was unexpected but England never had a damage control plan. Besides UV, none of our batsmen looked aggressive (after veeru) and yet manage to score freely. England were far too defensive post lunch session. They never really attacked us to choke the singles that we got freely.

[Sachinism]

As earlier pointed out, leaving out Shah was one blunder Another was the way they went about their batting on the 4th day was weird, they had wickets in hand and they didn't score. We could say it was due to good bowling, but there was no intent to score runs quickly In the field as the commentators constantly mentioned, Pietersen had the field set for really bad bowling, like backward point Monty bowled crap, on a pitch like this, I feel the spinners should be looking to drag the batsmen forward and hope the ball kicks out of some rough, rather than bowling a crappy defensive line which the batsmen will kick away Another downer for them, which is not really a blunder, but a matter of not having the skills. Apart from Flintoff the bowling attack looked pretty poor, I feel Broad should play next game

[Guest Hiten.]

As earlier pointed out, leaving out Shah was one blunder Another was the way they went about their batting on the 4th day was weird, they had wickets in hand and they didn't score. We could say it was due to good bowling, but there was no intent to score runs quickly In the field as the commentators constantly mentioned, Pietersen had the field set for really bad bowling, like backward point Monty bowled crap, on a pitch like this, I feel the spinners should be looking to drag the batsmen forward and hope the ball kicks out of some rough, rather than bowling a crappy defensive line which the batsmen will kick away Another downer for them, which is not really a blunder, but a matter of not having the skills. Apart from Flintoff the bowling attack looked pretty poor, I feel Broad should play next game

It was astonishing to see harmisson was picked over broad . Harmisson is getting captain's backing too often and wrongly too. He has been toothless ever since he 'came back'.

[fineleg]

Regarding selection: 1. Owais Shah: He was in excellent touch after ODIs and he is a good stroke player. Eng were stupid to omit him. 2. Stuart Broad should have been picked (was he hurt?) 3. They are really missing Ryan Sidebottom - he'd have given the support for Flintoff, and a left arm seamer always useful. They will miss him in Mohali also. The good thing they did is pick Graeme Swann - they trusted this guy, and he is a very sharp and useful bowler.

[Rajan]

Regarding selection: 1. Owais Shah: He was in excellent touch after ODIs and he is a good stroke player. Eng were stupid to omit him. they could not drop collingwood. Bell was ok in SA series. besides 1 day form and test performance are different. may be they have to drop Bell and get Shah in for mohali. 2. Stuart Broad should have been picked (was he hurt?) he hurt his hamstring in the 5th one day. but recovered now. will play at mohali. can also bat well lower down the order. 3. They are really missing Ryan Sidebottom - he'd have given the support for Flintoff, and a left arm seamer always useful. They will miss him in Mohali also. yes, but panesar will be dropped and another seamer anderson/harmison will be dropped to accommodate Broad. may be a new seamer in Panesar's place to exploit the fastest /bounciest /seamer friendly track in india. The good thing they did is pick Graeme Swann - they trusted this guy, and he is a very sharp and useful bowler. my not be of great effect at Mohali. we can sort him there.

:--D

[Fontaine]

Speaking of blunders: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/england/3124455/Englands-Andrew-Flintoff-and-Steve-Harmison-can-blow-away-Indias-fading-greats-Cricket.html England's Andrew Flintoff and Steve Harmison can blow away India's fading greats By Geoffrey Boycott Last Updated: 12:08AM BST 03 Oct 2008 Awesome alliance: England's quick bowlers, led by Andrew Flintoff and Steve Harmison can take advantage of India's ageing battle line-up Photo: AP Yet I believe it would be a mistake for England to go out there next month with the aim of scrapping their way to a draw. This Indian team are in flux. They can be beaten if you go hard at them. And this is as good a time as any to try. India’s new chairman of selectors, Kris Srikkanth, faces a huge quandary. The great Indian batsmen are long in the tooth and approaching the end of their careers. Some of them are desperate to prolong their international lifespans, not just because they love the game but probably because of the endorsement deals available. But none of them are the force they once were. Think of that period in the early part of this decade when Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, VVS Laxman and Sourav Ganguly reached their peak together. Shane Warne went to India three times and averaged over 40. They just batted him out of the game. Which is very different to what we saw this summer, when the Sri Lankan spinners, Muttiah Muralitharan and Ajantha Mendis, got on top of the Indian batsmen. That series, which Sri Lanka won 2-1, will have had a major effect on their confidence. There is much debate and soul-searching in India over who should play in the series against Australia, which starts next week. It is easy to say that the time has come for youth. But is anyone sure that the youngsters are good enough to take over? Or do the 'big four’ have one last hurrah left in them? Tendulkar has so many miles on the clock that he picks up injuries all the time. Dravid, Ganguly and Laxman have been left out of the one-dayers for over a year now. It’s the natural progression of life: one-day cricket is a young man’s game. But if you look at the replacements, they’re not that special. Gautam Gambhir and Wasim Jaffer are probably the best of the next generation. Yuvraj Singh has been tried so often and found wanting in Test cricket. One possible scenario is that the experienced players are given a final chance in this series, only to be cast into outer darkness if they fail. And that could play into England’s hands. Kevin Pietersen must tell his quick bowlers to go after Virender Sehwag, who so often gets India off to a flier. Sehwag scores fast and lifts the whole spirit of the team when he is firing. England have to get up his nose. Don’t try to bounce him out, because Indian pitches give batsmen more time to play the hook shot, but get the ball into his ribs. Get him tucked up and in a tangle. The key is to deny him the room to play shots. The pace of Andrew Flintoff and Steve Harmison will be England’s biggest weapon, because the senior batsmen should all be vulnerable early on to quality fast bowling. OK, the pitches won’t give you much, so you have to be precise and accurate. But the way England have been playing since Pietersen became captain, they’ve got to think positive and believe that they can bowl India out. The new ball is the key for Pietersen. England must make early inroads because their spin attack won’t be able to match Harbhajan Singh and Anil Kumble. Those guys are a real handful, match-winners on a turning surface. But if England can pull off a series win in India — something they haven’t managed since the mid-1980s – it will put a real marker down for next summer’s Ashes. LMMFAO!!!

[cochise]

Boycs has been clean bowled!!!

[Rajan]

i still like this england team. boycott was talking BS just like Allan Border and so many australian pundits did before their series here. but Boycott was completely against the england team coming back after terror attack. when he wrote that money was the main criterion for KP & Co to come back, Sunny and Angus replied in CNN-IBN that " when it comes to money, no one knows it as well as Boycs"!

[Show_stopper]

Boycott was always pretty biased.Acts like he knows the game inside out but the sad truth the game has moved on.His ideas are obsolete.I wish people stopped asking for his opinions.