Exit the cool

When Yuvraj Singh lorded that six, first ball, 102m into the Compton Stand, just to the right of a sizeable upper-crust paunch, that was it. The game had turned - India were on their way to the semi-finals and destiny.

But what is this? England stick to their plan, rediscover their nerve, and the win is theirs, by three runs. India are out. Goodbye, golden boys, we will miss you; it's been good to have a bit of glamour in our lives for a couple of weeks

And before you go, just when did Indian cricketers get so cool? There was Sachin Tendulkar rocking the Indian balcony and the Lord's pavilion in a designer shirt and shades. Down below, his compatriots were straight from central casting. Yusuf Pathan, a dead ringer for OJ Simpson, only has to narrow his eyes and he'd be sloping around in a rap video. MS Dhoni, a teen idol with come-to-bed eyes; Ishant Sharma, an extraordinary mullet and a multitude of necklaces, who has obviously taken style tips from Jason Gillespie; Yuvraj, a lethal combination of batting style, swagger and hairy chest. And Harbhajan Singh who wears nonchalance on his sleeve.

Much has changed in the 23 years since the Indian side I first remember visited England. The 1986 crew were many things, but not cool - Ravi Shastri apart. Perhaps that is unfair on Kapil Dev, but he just looked too much like my dad to be anything but middle-aged. I'd suspect Kapil and Shastri would have been pretty mean Twenty20 players too.

The crowd at Lord's were amazing - what a roar. They were mad for India, the tricolour was everywhere, and the camera kept panning to all the beautiful British-Indian women and their manes of hair. I can't think England would have played many home game in which the majority of the crowd were rooting for the other side before. Paul Collingwood told a tale of England being booed when they walked off the nursery ground after practice - possibly a tactical error by the Indian supporters.

And how wonderful that such a great match was played at tea time on a Sunday so all the kids could lump in front of an evening's telly and be gripped. Oh, except they couldn't, or at least the poorer ones couldn't, because it wasn't on terrestrial television. It makes the ECB and the BBC look like fools. If England win three more games, they win a World Cup, and yet only just over a third of households have Sky. I know football is mostly on satellite, but it has a critical mass of supporters that cricket doesn't have. It's been said hundreds of time before, I know, it's just a shame.

James Foster was first picked by Duncan Fletcher for the 2001 tour of India. He was just a bairn, picked too early, and was soon returned to county cricket to learn his trade. He has since been overlooked and overlooked again, and must have thought his chance had gone. But he was brought in for this tournament and his keeping has been wonderful - his stumping of Yuvraj probably won England the game. But there is still something I don't understand. Why if it makes sense to play your best keeper in Twenty20 cricket doesn't it make sense to play him in Test matches?