Why India Lost, in short
by Devanshu Mehta
It’s not because of lack of passion.
It’s not because of the IPL.
It’s not because they were undercooked.
It’s not because of an underperforming spinner.
It’s not because Bell was re-called.
It’s not because of Erasmus’ umpiring.
It’s not because India missed Sehwag.
It is because they were outplayed. England played better cricket.
Anyone who says otherwise is trying to evade the truth. Trying to avoid accepting reality. The reality that, at the moment, England are the better team.
DBP (i.e., Deep Backward Point), I’m afraid I don’t entirely agree with your, er, haiku. Poem? Villanelle? On the one hand, the English are displaying some superior traits — the deep batting, for instance; the attacking wicketkeeper-batsman; a solid middle order. Their bowling also seems infused with mission, while the Indians look like they have four bowlers each playing to their own ends.
But on the other hand, you are indulging in a bit of question-begging in your post. That is, someone asks, “Why did the English win?” Someone answers, “Because they are the better team.” Yes, but why are they a better team? Could it be better preparation? Could it be that their players don’t look like they’re still trying to figure out what continent they’re on? Could it be they’re playing in their own backyard?
Because the thing is, I really do believe that if Zaheer played at Lord’s, India would have drawn the Test. I also do believe if he played at Trent Bridge, with Gambhir and Sehwag at the top to protect the middle order, India would have put up a better fight. Maybe I have too much faith?
Sometimes a better team is just a better team. I think pointing at preparation, etc helps us avoid that fact. For example, how much preparation would it take for West Indies to beat India? It’s an invalid question, because India is inherently the better team. No amount of prep can change that. Also, I agree the Lord’s test could have been saved but even with Sehwag/Gambhir, I don’t think the result would have been different at Trent Bridge.
England were the better team and on both occasions I felt a full strength Indian team would’ve performed well i.e. better than what they’ve been doing.
Personal opinion and stats suggest that, of the times India have performed exceptionally well their Openers performed well. To discount the impact of Sehwag and gambhir at the top would be cruel.
My intent was not to discount their impact. My feeling is that even if we had both of them (and Zaheer), England is still the better team. I’ll be happy to be proved wrong!