The other aspect I wanted to comment on was the four bowler strategy. To me it is clear that India are not going to win any games with their bowling (whether we have 4 or 5 bowlers) and I don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t go with the 7 batsman strategy – after all they wouldn’t have won without Uthappa in this game.

The counter argument could be that India wouldn’t have conceded all those extra runs if they had a fifth bowler. But if you look at the runs conceded until that eventful 50th over, the “fifth” bowler had given away only 74 runs in 12 overs. Not bad, if you ask me.

I do agree that there is a “bowling” all rounder slot waiting to be taken in the Indian team – and it has been around for quite a while.

My theory is that Ajit Agarkar actually has a twin brother who switches place with him occasionally. How else can you explain him bowling brilliantly at times and being quite pathetic during most other times?

(This theory also explains how he ended up getting a hundred at Lords a few years ago)