Ian Bell's Hundred Can't Mask England's Flawed Thinking

As England's players sat in the visitors' dressing room at Bellerive Oval in the dying hours of Friday night, they might have looked around at one another, puzzled and frustrated, with one overriding thought.

"What do we have to do to beat these guys?"

Ian Bell had crunched a fine 141, the eighth highest one-day international score by an Englishman and the fourth highest away from home. Along with Moeen Ali, he had steered England to their first 100-run opening partnership in 48 innings. 

Additionally, their 69 runs in the opening powerplay was the nation's third highest 10-over score against Australia in the last 14 years. In setting a total of 303, England became just the third team ever to post 300-plus in the first innings of an ODI at Hobart, too.

It should have been enough. Such numbers should translate into victory.

However, it wasn't, and they didn't.

England lost to Australia (for the seventh time in their last eight tries) by three wickets—an Australian side missing David Warner, Michael Clarke, George Bailey, Shane Watson and Mitchell Johnson. 

"What do we have to do to beat these guys?"

Robert Cianflone/Getty Images

England captain Eoin Morgan figured the issue was their final 10 overs with the bat, a period in which the tourists lost six wickets for just 59 runs after such a fine start. 

"[It] wasn't a bad day in general. We played good cricket in stages. Ian Bell was magnificent but the last 10 overs let us down a little bit," Morgan said, per ESPN Cricinfo. 

"I think 300 was about par. If they hadn't bowled that well at the death we would have got 340-350, a match-winning score."

Morgan's words should concern those connected with England, for such a stance suggests the captain believes the problem was simply execution.

The truth is, it's much more than that. Execution is only a small part of the issue. 

England's problem in one-day cricket—an issue so blatantly obvious again on Friday in Hobart—is their thinking. 

They've often lost well before it comes to execution. 

Gareth Copley/Getty Images

When Moeen was dismissed in the 18th over for 46, England were ideally placed at 113-1. As starts go, it was a brisk one. A captain's dream. The perfect platform. 

Cruising at almost six-and-a-half runs per over, England had the chance to torch Australia, to ravage them. The wicket was flat, the ball wasn't moving, the boundaries were short and nine wickets were still in the shed. 

Then James Taylor walked in.

Their opponents on the ropes, England sent out a player with a 50-over strike rate of 74.70 at No. 3. He chewed up 14 balls for just five runs and then tamely chipped Moises Henriques to mid-off. 

The equally unspectacular Joe Root came next at four.

Australia had been let off the hook. 

Gareth Copley/Getty Images

Root did compile a nice 69 alongside Bell, but he needed 39 balls for his first 30. After the blistering platform that had been set, it was too conservative. Too routine. 

Behind Taylor and Root was the strength of England's lineup in Morgan, Ravi Bopara and Jos Buttler—all specialists in this format. However, not one of them got a chance to land a punch on a retreating Australia until the 42nd over.

By then, all momentum had been lost. What looked like being 350 quickly became 300. 

It was reflective of England's flawed thinking; their dated approach. After the sort of platform set by Bell and Moeen, the world's elite sides—Australia, India and South Africa—would have hit the accelerator harder.

From 113-1 inside 18 overs, anything would have been possible for the world's finest in this format. From such a position, 350 would be little more than par for Australia, India and South Africa. 

Instead, England had a pair of steady accumulators nudge it around. 

By doing so, they came up 50 short of where they should have been, and they lost. 

"What do we have to do to beat these guys?"

Embracing their mentality would be a good place to start. 

Follow @TimDCollins