Monty Panesar says England’s approach of going on an all-out attack led to their downfall barring Root, as they didn’t have another batter that could play 50 overs.Probably the strategy. They didn’t prepare a proper second spinner to support Adil Rashid and they just went with fast bowlers. They thought having four or five 90-plus miles fast bowlers would help them win games, but that didn’t help on pitches in Pakistan.We have seen England succeed with an all-attacking approach from 2015-19 in ODI cricket but in the last few years, it has not given good results. What do you think has changed?Yeah, because they had batsmen who could bat for longer periods and now they relied just on (Joe) Root. They could have possibly had another batsman there, like maybe Harry Brook, thinking right, these are the two batsmen who are going to bat longer period while the others can attack a bit more. They were just missing another batsman. Root came into the team because he can anchor the innings but then yesterday, all Root needed was a batsman to bat with him and they probably would have beaten Afghanistan. That didn’t happen and from that point of view, they were missing one batter to support Root because all the other batsmen are quite attacking. Eoin Morgan’s team just had batters who could bat time. I think here, they have batters who have impact but they don’t look to bat time. Joe Root’s century went in vain as England were knocked out by Afghanistan’s thrilling Champions Trophy win in Lahore. (Reuters)What do you mean by batting time and Morgan? They too have posted some very big totals in their time and played many innings of impact.Yeah, but then the roles were a bit more clear as well. Look at someone like Jason Roy, he did really well. Jonny Bairstow did good as well. There were two key batters. There were two or three batters who could actually just hit the ball and bat time. But now they only have one, Root, who actually had to come in because they didn’t have a batsman who could bat the whole 50 overs because they all just sort of hit the ball and played more T20-style cricket. So I think what they should have done was set the innings up for the 35th or the 40th over, have wickets in hand, and then tell the guys to go hard. And that’s what Morgan’s team used to do. They would bat until 35 overs and then they’d go hard. Now, they’re just going hard from ball one. And I don’t think that strategy has worked for their batting.India changed their approach in white-ball cricket after they lost to England in the 2022 World Cup semifinal in Adelaide. Rohit Sharma has led from the front but India continue to get the tempo right in ODI cricket. What do you think they are doing right?Story continues below this adYeah, I suppose, when you’ve got Rohit Sharma and Virat Kohli, you have probably one of the two best batsmen India’s produced in ODI cricket. And they’re playing together and they’re in good form. It helps the rest of the guys. Shubman Gill is another one. He’s world-class, he’s the world’s best batsman. So India has batters who can attack but also these three batters, they can bat for long periods and they can keep the tempo going. India has more batsmen similar to Root’s style. And England need a couple of batters like that. Rohit, Kohli and Gill are three batters who bat through the innings. And that allows someone like Hardik Pandya to come in and just play impact innings. He can whack it out of the ground. And then, you know, it allows Axar Patel to come in and whack it as well. So they’ve got a lot more all-rounders but they’ve got good, proper batters who can just bat long periods. And I think that’s the difference.Who are the good players from current England domestic cricket who can bat well in ODI cricket?It’s just a mind-shift at the moment. There are young batters who are coming through like Jacob Bethell and they talk a lot about him. But he’s still young, learning his game. There isn’t really any batsman coming through at the moment that you think, yeah, this guy can bat long periods. I think because of the Hundred, a lot of the batters tend to sort of focus on T20 cricket back home. And you’re getting a lot of batters now who are declining county contracts and actually want to just play franchise cricket around the world because it can earn more money. They’ll end up moving to Dubai as their home and a few players are starting to do that. It is something that is a bit of a concern for England that in the future you may just see more players not playing county cricket, moving to Dubai and playing these franchise cricket leagues because they can earn more money. And England could end up producing T20 batters and not batters for ODI cricket. And that could be a danger for England in the future.What do you think is the right approach to win? Is it having a philosophy and picking your team accordingly or setting the style of play with the players available?Story continues below this adThat style of old, let’s say traditional England style of batting where you just bat slightly longer, you set the game up. Afghanistan did it perfectly. You look at Australia, they obviously, do it really well. They’ve got Steve Smith there. So, it’s just about actually setting the innings up rather than going in and thinking, right, let’s keep creating impact. In ODI, it’s a slightly longer format of the game. So, if we have wickets in hand by 35 overs, let’s say seven or six wickets in hand by 35 overs, then you can accelerate. Afghanistan did that. They got to the 40th over. They were, like in a really good position and they accelerated.And the last 10, they got 100. England got it wrong where they could have just said, right, let’s keep, you know, let’s only be three or four down by 35 to 40th over. Then, in the last 10 overs, we go hard. Or the last 15 overs, we play T20 cricket. Let’s just bat until the 35th. That would have been a better strategy. But they just kept on going, they kept on attacking hard. I think it wasn’t the right option.