FACT. England are the most annoying side in the world.

Clearly we should all hate the English. They don’t have much going for them: bad food, bad teeth and now a successful Ian Bell.

The ultimate insult to the world.

Today, the legacy of the phrase “a Paul Collingwood-type” player has been secured for good. Ian Bell has become a Paul Collingwood-type player. He’s not as good as Collingwood, though, obviously he’s much better which makes Bell all the worse.

All-out attacking cricket may be glamorous, but saving a match from certain defeat should also be an achievement worthy of celebration.

I have long criticised Collingwood. He looks ugly and can cock-up at times. But who amongst us can honestly deny that they too are unsightly incompetents? But, for some reason, he keeps coming up with the goods. He's hard. And increasingly, England are becoming hard like him.

England can now justifiably categorise themselves as a side that is Hard To Beat. It doesn’t matter that South African are the better side, and should be 2-1 up in this series, England are a bunch of hard cases that will take a severe battering before they’ll yield.

But still, as an England fan, it’s hard to know how to view you team. It was tempting to scream around the office once the draw was drawn, but surely it’s within our rights to hate them for inflicting an entire day or stress and worry upon us?

Best to pick and choose. Hate KP. Love Strauss. Hate James Anderson. Love Graham Swann. Have a love/hate relationship with Ian Bell.

Or just stick to hating the Australians?

Ian Bell: will the mouse roar?

I doubt it.

Ian Bell has been various described as the “most talented batsman in the country”, “Atherton-esque” and “complete shit”. And his test match record raised more questions than Aunties.

The general consensus in the mono-glot press is that Bell only does well on milkruns. Much has been made of his centuries at six – all coming when more responsible players grafted 100s above him.

This may be right, and I have generally shared the view that Ian Bell looks most at home when he is at home.

The problem is that there really isn’t anyone of the same authority in the English game who can replace Kevin Pietersen. Bell’s extended and underperforming run at three crowded out any other player, and blocked the emergence of potential county stars. Where would we be had Ravi Bopara been giving a long run a year ago?

But we are where we are, and there is, at this moment, quite honestly no alternative to the rat-faced bimbo.

At the moment, the line-up is looking decidedly Atherton-esque alright. Strauss, Cook, Bopara, Bell, Paul Collingwood, and Pratty Prior. It’s a wonder that they didn’t bring John Crawley and Simon Jones out of retirement (and/or death).

Although, Australia’s attack also finds itself competing against England’s former stars. Could Peter Siddle out-bowl Gavin Hamilton? Could Mitchell Johnson out-long-hop Chris Schofield?

Such questions might give England’s tart at number four new hope.

Wisden’s Famous Five

Regular readers of AYALAC will know me to be a quiet, retiring sort of chap, who is loathed to give his opinion on many matters. Today, I will break that vow of polite reticence and give forth upon Wisden’s five bested cricketers of yesteryear went.

1. Ian Bell
How this he-goblin sneaked into the final five, the deranged and possibly power-mad new editor of Wisden alone knows. Perhaps it reflects the desperate dearth of batting talent in our nation side? Perhaps it’s an arrangement with a bookie?

2. Zaheer Kahn The only thing you need to know about Zaheer Khan is that he isn’t Anil Kumble. And even that is too much. Stupid left-arm seamers. They aren’t spinners. We wants spinners! Spinners that can captain and be resplendent. Zaheer Khan satisfies very few of these demands. I’ll put him down as another bookie boy.

3. Shiverine Chanderpaul This first of the Wisden Five to hold my approval. Bowling against Chanders is like playing Scrabble against Mr Memory from The 39 Steps – the only way to triumph is by shooting him. Unfortunately, the usually creative Michael Vaughan did not attempt this timeworn tactic.

4. Otis Gibson This was a left-field choice. Could me another bookie boy, but I doubt it. It smacks more of blackmail than corruption. Sure, the part-time kids’ show presenter had a great 2007, but so did Foot And Mouth Disease, and we don’t want to replicate that. Of course, he managed ten in an innings once, but so did the Indian captain, which again, underlines Otis the Aardvark's problem: he’s not Anil Kumble.

5. Ryan Hairybottom
Now then. Here we go. A real heavyweight. He is now, more or less, England’s only bowler. He made Steve “Cheap at half the price” Harmison looked daft. More so. And the Hoggard for Captain crew are unusually hushed. Siders has emerged from the county scene like a school bully graduating into the world of office management. He is perfectly placed scoff at the accountants for another year yet.

Team England beat Indian galacticos

England strangled India by 42 runs in Edgbaston last night. (Edgbaston is the posh bit of Birmingham, in case you didn’t know.)

Ian Bell top-scored for England again for England – third time in a row. A lot of people have been muttering about the England clique, that the same people are selected despite strong performers at the county level. Bell’s recent success is surely due to the selectors backing his ability over the long term. Long live the exclusive England club!

Anyway, England won principally because they were the stronger team. Bell aside, England’s batsmen contributed small, punchy innings in a selfless contribution to the England effort. Moreover, their reasonably high score was only enabled through having batters well down the order – look at Chris Tremlett’s 19 off 9.

India lacked the same cohesion. England took this attitude onto the field, bowling and fielding as a tightly organised unit. Monty Panesar stunned us all with another run out, without even looking.

Sourav Ganguly (72) and Rahul Dravid (56) looked especially dangerous. And Yuvraj Singh (45 off 35) looked ominous towards the end of the Indian innings. But no one else chipped in. Although there were flashes of individual brilliance, it seemed the Indians struggled with the sharp England fielding and the restrictive formations that surrounded them.

Dougie Brown on TMS made an interesting comment. In his opinion England’s superior fielding earned them 30-40 run difference between the two sides. More or less the difference in runs. A genuine case of fielding winning the match?

India’s efforts on the field still look shoddy, but they also missed many run opportunities of turning singles into twos. It seems as though India lack the commitment.

However, in the true Ayalac spirit of taking negatives out of victory, there are still apparent weaknesses in the England set-up. They still lack the ability for sustained slogging. Both at the start and death of the innings, the 8-, 9-, or 10-run overs were wanting. England are still using the “playing is slow” tactic that was such a failure at the World Cup. Bell is building an innings, which is fine, but you need a few biffers around him.

West Indies bowl moderately better

Whenever England go out to get, I have this feeling that Paul “Colly” Collingwood is a game away from being dropped. Somehow, he stays in. That’s the magic of Collingwood: the Adhesive Ginger. But yesterday he, and the rest of the middle order, became unstuck.

Ian “Belly” Bell did well to rescue the side from a potentially disastrous collapse. He was still there at the end of the day’s play, with 77. He put on 98 for the fifth wicket with Matt “Priory” Prior, the skinhead wicket keeper contributing 40.

There’s something of the flat-track bully about Prior. Most county attacks have more venom than these Windies, and the South African born Sussex man with two legs has taken every opportunity to strike. It will be interesting to see how well he does against sides with quality attacks, like Glamorgan.

His downfall may have been his partner’s fault. In a period of studied strike-farming, Prior faced only six balls in the seven preceding overs prior to his demise. After scoring a four, he attempted a daft shot and was caught in the deep. Was this because of self-inflicted pressure? Did Bello not rotate the strike? No one cares. All we want to see is another Belly century at number six.

Do I have anything else to say? No.

Nothing else.