Nothing was easily achieved. The English summer took a while to arrive and the ball swung, wobbled and fizzed about. Batsmen had to summon some old-fashioned skills to survive and score runs. The Oval presented the easiest batting surface in the series, but only relatively. India's mammoth total was built on hard work and technical proficiency. The top order made batting look easier than it was, because the pitch gave assistance to bowlers who put in the effort. Sachin Tendulkar's stodgy resistance against a determined bodyline strategy on the first afternoon didn't make him look pretty, but it denied England the breach they were desperately seeking, and that was vital in the context of the match and the series.

That the talk during the final days boiled down to whether India had done enough to push for a 2-0 margin captures how dramatically the script had changed since the last day at Lord's. But if you look carefully, the story of the series actually started taking shape from the last hour of the first day of that first Test. From 252 for 2 England went hurtling to 298 all out, and from that point onwards the Indian bowlers kept the English batsmen tentative.

The second half of the story was completed by India's batsmen. Sure it was rain that saved them at Lord's, but it was a battling performance - they batted 96 overs under testing circumstances - that kept them alive till the rain came. The rest of the series followed the same pattern.

India's batsmen put on two massive scores, but those were achieved with grit and bloody-mindedness rather than the dazzle and pomp normally associated with Indian batting. The last day may have felt mildly deflating for it was a Test they had dominated for the first three days, and a 2-0 win would have elevated them to the No. 2 position in the Test rankings, but their desperation to win the series surpassed their desperation to win the Test, and 1-0 is a scoreline they would have gladly taken at the start of the series.

The cricket wasn't scintillating in the way the modern fan has come to understand it. The runs didn't flow. But those who appreciate the essence of the game were rewarded with some absorbing individual contests. The luckless Ryan Sidebottom v Sachin Tendulkar, Zaheer Khan v the English openers, Anil Kumble v Kevin Pietersen.

That last was potentially the most interesting because Pietersen finds it easy to dominate spin, and has been England's most successful batsman against the greatest spinners of the age, Shane Warne and Muttiah Muralitharan. This particular contest could be said to have ended in Pietersen's favour, but only marginally. Kumble never got Pietersen out, and Pietersen got to his hundred at Lord's with a six and two fours in one Kumble over, but Kumble troubled him over long periods. And he beat Pietersen to the Man-of-the-Match award at The Oval - more for sentimental reasons than ones to do with performance alone, we suspect. More cruelly, Pietersen was denied the England Man-of-the-Series award. James Anderson bowled some wonderful spells and some great deliveries but he only took 14 wickets at over 35. Pietersen's hundred at Lord's was almost match-winning, and his century at The Oval was match-saving. Perhaps he rubs too many people the wrong way.

The most refreshing aspect of the series was the performance of he left-arm medium-pace bowlers. The "wickets" column - which showed a mere eight - does scant justice to Sidebottom's efforts through the series. Anderson took the big wickets, but Sidebottom was England's most consistent, and most threatening, bowler. He swung it both ways, hit the right length, and managed bounce. He would be an even better bowler if he can manage to bowl round the wicket.

That is something Zaheer Khan has learned to do consummately well in this the second half of his career, adding a new dimension to his bowling. Having served his sentence for a poor attitude and a poorer work ethic, he has returned a man transformed and willing to take on the responsibility of leading an inexperienced pace attack. RP Singh, the other left-armer, had a far less distinguished series, but at Trent Bridge he produced the ball of the series, which accounted for Kevin Pietersen, and he followed it up with another corker to clean up Matt Prior.

The victory cry doesn't sit well on Rahul Dravid, who is naturally given to a restrained smile, but it has becoming a familiar sight. This was India's second series win outside the subcontinent under his leadership, and given the turmoil in Indian cricket over the last 12 months, has come as a pleasant surprise. Dravid will return stronger and more in control of the team than he has been.

For Michael Vaughan, who has tasted defeat for the first time in a home series, sterner challenges lie ahead. A new cycle has begun with Vaughan as the common link. Only four members from the Ashes-winning 2005 team (leaving out Paul Collingwood whose participation in 2005 was nominal) played against India. Andrew Flintoff is scheduled to return, as is Matthew Hoggard. But Steve Harmison remains a reluctant tourist and a blow-hot-and-cold bowler, and it looks unlikely that England's bowling will regain the potency of that season in near future. And to compete with Sri Lanka, a team bubbling with confidence and who are formidable at home, their batsmen will have to adapt.

It was the batsmen who failed England more than their bowlers. All through the series the batsmen either failed to come to terms with India's swing bowlers or - as in both innings at The Oval - most got in before throwing it away. To their good fortune Matt Prior hung on to make the match safe. Otherwise Vaughan, Pietersen and Ian Bell - whose fatal paddle-sweep in the final hour was the most shockingly inappropriate stroke of them all - would have ended up looking silly. In contrast, most of India's top-order wickets had to be earned.

Admittedly India had luck with the weather, and the two tosses Dravid won were crucial. But the story of the series was this: the Indians made much better use of the English conditions than the English, and their victory was richly deserved.

Firstly as always, a very insightful and fair article (which is rare, as with an Indian victory, the media always goes overboard with accolades.) The victory no doubt, was not the usual one man show of brilliance but that of team effort, (however the second test can be attributed to Zaheer's brilliance) but still we must not forget that England did not have their "core" bowlers and were missing Freddy Flintoff; in which case things would have been different. So they were lucky with regards to the English bench strength.

it was "un-indian" victory for sure.
no individual brilliance and sad ending, but boring old team work and happy ending. let's have more of the same. we've seen enough of individual brilliance - from the likes of sachin and azza, even away from home, and yet managed to lose. remember that sesion in south africa, when azza and sachin were on song. a lot of people call it test cricket's best session and we lost. i think.
it's no coincidence that a relatively "boring" batting performance by India has led to victory and a "boring" player like Dravid has been responsible for some famous overseas victories.

this series win in england reflects the change in sachin. till some time back, i was thinking, when will we see the old sachin. what's wrong with him? but now i just love to watch him bat. it's marvelous to watch an old warrior, a legend, now stripped of his weapons, ready to fight the unglamourous way.
he used to be chief of the army and now he's ready to be a foot soldier. he has no option, sure, something in his mind has clicked the wrong way and he's just not getting that old touch/confidence back. it has nothing to do with age or body - it's all mental. but how does he get his zone back?
that's why i can't help but admire his grit. he's ready to grind it out. rookies are getting him out bowled. but he comes back and fights humbly. i like the way he has separated the superstar from the player, in his own head. sure he feels the pressure and crumbles in the 2nd innings. but he makes valuable knocks nonetheless at other times, whenever he can. He is still a contributor – a Collingwood, not a Pietersen.
he is no star now. he is just a team member. another wasim jaffer or gambhir.
he tries. he just practices, puts in the hard work. the brilliance isn't there, but for me, there is brilliance in his will power and humility. pure grit.
his run a ball 130s and 140s couldn't get us victory and now his 200 ball 50 or 60 will get us more victories. he will not be man of the match many times, but he could end up on the winning side more often. and he and we, will gladly take that. he deserves all the luck. you go, sach.

and about ganguly, i think chappel deserves credit for prolonging his career. ganguly was getting a little big headed and complacent when he was captain and the straight talking chappel did indian cricket a lot of good by calling a spade a spade. but credit should be given to ganguly for fighting back. in terms of mental strength you can see that he is a notch above anyone else in the team in terms of handling pressure. it's a most remarkable comeback. unforseen.
harbhajan and sehwag should take a leaf out of ganguly's book. it's a lesson for life really - ganguly has turned an obstacle into a stepping stone.

dravid does seem a little mentally tired/worried now. captaincy/media issues. Nature of the job. maybe this victory may rejuvenate him.
i wouldn't mind if they make ganguly captain again. he is naturally adventurous and he has learnt his lesson quite well. that's obvious. And we need the old wall back.

and i do agree with dravid about delaying the declartion. hey, when you have been starved for as long as we have, it's no time for false bravado. congrats to all - team and supporters - for the victory.
luck did play a part. the rain at lords was so superb in its timing! But hey, we can only take what we get. and we deserve whatever we get!

Great Article. India deserved to win this series. They had some luck along the way. But as the saying goes luck favours the brave. Who can forget luck of Pakistan in 1992 world cup when their match against England was washed out after they were bowled out for 72 or luck of Australia when India were chasing 200 runs in Chennai and match was washed out. Australia went on to win the series 2-1. This win is more important as it comes at the back of disappointing World Cup India had. Also now they have far more superior record in terms of abroad win in the last 5 years. Sri Lanka and Pakistan team need to take lessons from this series win and prove that sub-continent teams can win more matches abroad.

Some very important points - India was not at full strength with the bowling, I'm not sure if Harmison would actually have been better than Tremlett, he may have been worse. Flintoff perhaps would have been the ideal bowler for these pitches (except Oval), so with the injuries, England has been quite lucky, I would say. Tosses can be crucial, and I have gone on about them in the past, even suggesting that there is just one toss for the series, and that it alternates from then on, however under the current rules, that is what happens. I didn't see a lot of people complaining about the toss when India was in tricky situations after losing the toss, so I think we are making too much of the toss now.

India's performance in this series was completely unexpected, while I was expecting a battling performance, at no stage did I expect India to outbowl England. After all, when other teams tour India, we can quite find a spinner from domestic cricket who is still a handful! Some of the bowling in this series was sublime - Peiterson and Prior are 2 wickets that are as good as any, but also the way Zaheer worked out Vaughan was special. Kumble was a disappointment though, however Tendulkar was a revelation as a bowler, I hope this prompts the Indian management to develop his bowling further, he can be quite a handful if he develops some more control.

If India needed, they could have pressed harder for a victory in the third Test, a 2-1 result was by all means a very reflective result.

a good read, as usual..thanks sambit. just to add, while India had the luck with the weather. But we were adversely and far disproportionately affected by the poor umpiring decisions, not to say that it was by design. We lost important wickets at crucial moments to shocking decisions..

Firstly, well done India - a deserved win for some excellent 'hard' cricket. India need to learn how grind out a win or a draw from these types of situations.

The draw in the first test was a little fortunate but the second test was a complete reversal with England being comfortably beaten. The final test saw India dominate but lacking the ability to finish off the opposition on a relatively flat track.

The umpiring was very poor and I can't see how things even out over the the three match series when key Indian players suffered horrendous decisions to be evened out by a reprieve for a No.10 or a No.11. Something needs to be done about Umpiring in general.

Finally, England lacking first string bowlers ... well India can only play against the eleven put infront of them. The English bowlers have considerable experience of 'English' copnditions their counterparts did not and were equally new the Test scene.

India won the series but 90% is due to the luck.if england would have won the first match then theer is no doubt in my mind that they could have won the series.actually india had won the series against england'a'.Without harmisson,hogard,s jones,flintoff,trescothick(batsman) ther was no match for 'mighty' indian batsmen.i could bet that if they had played india would have lost the series 3-0.

This is a rare indian victory which purely occured by chance. They escaped from the defeat in the first test just because of the bad weather. England underestimated them and allowed them to regroup and come up. England selected the wrong team. Without Harmison, Hoggard, Flintoff, Simon Jones, Trescothik...etc England looked weaker than Bangladesh. So this Indian victory against an incomplete English outfit with the blessings of mother nature, is worthless and occured purely by chance.

I think this victory had more of South Africa about it than India.

The flair, brilliance and enchantment was nowhere. However, the bull-headedness, ugly but effective cricket and finally getting the right result were what mattered.

Well done, Dravid and Team.

Masood and Miandad, cry your hearts out. Remember, the teanm that beat the smithereens out of you last summer, 3-0 to be precise, lacked Vaughan and Flintoff. I can understand your pain, dudes.

After all, your side couldn't win in West Indies, unlike India and carry the dubious distinction of being obliterated three-nothing by two major sides in international cricket, a shameful record shared by no other team.

I have been watching cricket now almost for 20 years and it has been so far a pattern that Indians are jittery test starters. Imagine how many times we had lost because of rain(WI series?) and though other people claim it as luck but i see that the team is focussed enough to play positive cricket and come out winning all the way. Few of the times, we saw poor umpiring as well which went against India!
The series shows how sum of parts are greater than individual brilliance. People might claim it as luck India has won. You need to have little bit of it but just luck alone cannot help you win matches.
It has been always a story of batting clicks and bowling fails or bowling clicks and batting fails. This is the one series that both have clicked. And that's the reason that has attributed to thumping series win. There are however few weaklings and if ironed out would stand further series wins against Australia , Pakistan.
India did not have good bowler to support other end to Zaheer whereas England did have James anderson to support Sidebottom. At parts RP and Sreesanth bowled really good but then not very attacking.
It is disappointing to see both Dravid and laxman perform below par and it so seems to me laxman plays good only against Australia but not against any other team in occupying the crease. Should India strengthen its first change of bowler and as well 4th down batsman they stand to climb even greater heights. The big question is WOuld India raise its standard?

well, iam here seeing some negative comments abt indias victory. a victory is an victory.

may be some pakistanis are feeling the heat here. right now both pak and srilanka need to learn frm india..

have u won any series there? if luck is the factor what abt pak winning the 92 world cup..

dont be jealous.. appreciate the efforts. if and buts wud be there always in cricket.

pak lost to ireland with inzy. whats he answer

I Think its a big effort by the Indians, they won because they wanted it more than England. This showed in the Lords test where Dhoni changed his attacking normal game to a defensive match saving one. Then in the Second Test where England were batting well, and Zaheer khan by the scruff of his neck (as Dravid said) got the wicket of vaughan in a perculiar way (where Vaughan flicked it into his wickets), but a wicket is a wicket, and then zaheer khan stole the show with 9 wickets in the game . . . Then finally the Last test match once again the Indians wanted it more, and didnt choose to make england follow on, merely because they wanted the series win.

Yes you could say that england were missing the likes of Harmison, Hoggard and Flintoff. And if they were playing i believe it would of been a different series, as India struggle with the bounce - which Harmi and Freddy would of produced. But then again with the detemination of the Indians to win the series i think India would still held out to win the series.

no point in saying harminson, hoggard , flintoff , simon jones , trescothick didnt play and thats why india won. because those guys wouldnt have done much anyways.

harminson - he wouldve just gave the umpires some extra workout with the wides and no balls he balls.

hoggard- he averages somethin like 30 in tests with ball and even more gainst india, the guys who played wre way better than him anyways.

flintoff- all he wouldve done was go and drink all night after the lords test and disturb the team.

simon jones- i dont think he can really afford to have another leg injury because thats all he seems to be doing.

trescothick- he isnt retired yet? lol

India deserved it thoroughly..Though they were extremely lucky with the weather at Lord's,they still deserve every bit of this sweet moment for their resilience and the way they came back...Its really fitting that this most "un-indian" of victories has come on the eve of India's 60th Independence day...and lets hope that they dont fritter away this psychological advantage in the forthcoming ODI series...

First of all you must remember that England had plenty of decisions go their way at crucial times but the Indian team fought through those patches without complaint and got the job done. At lords England won the toss and had the better of those conditions which is fair enough. Had England won the toss and won the last two matches you would only here about how well they played and how magnificent a team they are. The fact remains India outplayed England throughout the last two matches luck can only take you so far and England had their fair share too.Yes they were missing crucial players but Harmison and Hoggard haven't performed well as of late and Flintoff is now becoming prone to regular injury,Simon Jones a fantastic bowler may never play test cricket again so this attack is Englands future and I think we will see alot more of them in recent times. But that is cricket teams have major injuries at crucial times and not everyone uses it as an excuse they usually just get on with it...

The armchair critics (the term has been made even more popular by Dravid), will continue to talk and discuss and speak about how luck played a part blah blah. Look, the decisions that went against Ganguly (twice) and Sachin and the ones that India were denied could've made a huge impact. But a good team brushes such things away and marches on, and that is precisely what India did. The English media made a big hue and cry about how luckless Sidebottom was, but he comes across as steady rather than sensational. No test match victory comes easy. But then thats something that those in armchairs will never be able to grasp.

It is hard to be critical of this Indian cricket team given the recent Test series victory. But is everything hunky dory? Definitely not.

The only batsman to score a century was Anil Kumble. If that is not a slap in the face of our famed middle-order, I don't know what is. To see Tendulkar leading the post-victory celebrations was disgusting! The bowlers deserve credit for this victory.

we deserve it.There have been so many oaccasions that india deserved to win but did not.You need Luck.Had SRT not been given out to a blatant no ball of Ian bishop in that heart stopping defeat in WI in 96,we would not have come to bat second!
Had SRT got the same luck as Lara got in his 153,then chennai loss against pak would not have hurt us so much.had parthiv patel held on some of the catches we would have drawn the aussie series,but won it...Luck is needed and when it comes take it , do not argue over it!!!!

I think India wanted it more than England. That was shown by the value the Indians put on their wickets. It was good to see them work for a win, instead of relying on individual brilliance to get it for them. Well done India.
It also helped that Prior gave away so many freebees (byes)

Sure, we had luck on our side in the first test match. But even there we managed to bat out for 96 overs in the fourth innings, which is commendable. Re: the luck- hey we have had our share of bad luck as well for instance in 2006 in the first test match in the Caribbean. We had the West Indies chasing 392 runs and before the close of play of the fifth day the West Indies score card read: 298-9...now is that not bad luck for us?

The truth is that whoever understands and appreciates test cricket for what it is- will realise that ‘luck’ (in the form of bad weather) is an integral part of the game. Moreover, England had 96 overs to dismiss us in the first test match- which they should have done given the overcast conditions and the swing that the likes of Sidebottom, Anderson and Tremlett are capable of.

This may have been an England side depleted of a significant proportion of its top players...but then most of these players were involved in defeating the West Indies 3-0 in the first half of the summer and were expected to defeat us, but they couldn’t. The simple reason being that we fought performed well. No one should take that away from us.

Reading some of the comments above, all I can say is that a lot of people don’t understand the intricacies involved within sport and cricket in particular. What makes a sporting side such as the Australian cricket team or AC Milan special? The answer to all those naive people is that, they can put out any 11 capable of defeating any other side, irrespective of injuries. Well done team India!

It is cruel to say that India just rode their luck. I think it was a comprehensive Indian win and I must say they used the conditions better than the home country did. It was great to see each and every team member contribute to the win. It has happened far too often that in a series Indian batsman top the averages, play the best innings, etc but still as a team India loses. Nothing hurts more than that. And hence it was a sweet to see the best innings played by MV/KP but still India winning the series. Although I must say that even though they weren't centuries, the innings SG and ST played were awesome.

Nice Article. India deserved to be the winner and they did it. Weather helped India in the first test, Zahir's brilliance made second for India and final test, Dravid should have taken chances and it would be 2-0 for India.

after many years, one saw every indian chip in, that was so un-indian indeed. but in true indian fashion, a section of the media is trying to create a controversy regarding dravid's decision not to enforce the follow on. they forget that england had only 130 runs to get in the 4th innings when play ended. should dravid have declared earlier, or had england been made to follow on, wasn't there a faint risk to take? why criticise him for the acumen of safety?

No grit No Glory. Team INDIA showed if it gets UNITED, it can beat any team in the world anywhere. We have done that in 2003-04 in Australia, 2007 in South Africa, 2004 in Pakistan. But never won those series. It was a collective will of the 'Golden Boys' Sachin-Saurav-Dravid-Kumble. It was great swing bowling skills of Jaheer Khan and Co. which lead India to a series win in 21 years. It was an amazing display of determined batting by Sachin and Co. who never wanted to leave England without winning this series.

Hats off to Indian team for giving us such a sweet victory.

Vande Matram!!!!

The draw at Lords involved luck.But the way the players played tofegther like a team in the remaining two test matches showed that there was only one worthy winner and it was India all the way.Kudos to Rahul and the team.A very sweet series win just before our 60th independence,will be remembered for years to come.

Spectators come to see a match to get entertained.
Business fund media to improve viewership inturn to earn money. They dont care much about sport anyways.
Media, funded by business, comes to a match to ensure viewership so when a sport fails to entertain they try to balance it with exotic stories ….so as a backup plan they keep searching for a story or investing in creating one so that they continue flow of funds from businesses.
It is sportsman's responsibility to put best performance, however ugly, to win which is entertaining in itself even if you dont win. On the other hand, performances motivated by entertainment do neither necessarily produce best sport nor necessarily win you matches. It is the mental aspect of the game (However ugly) is more entertaining in long run than short spell of skill-magic. Mental game is an education for those who are playing and those who are viewing!

Well done tendulkar, ganguly and laxman!

Inidians as Vaughan said played better than England in the last 2 test matches so they deserved to win.
Infact, they were more unlucky with the umpiring decisions.
People who dont support India can say what they like but what matters is that it is a series victory for India.

its simply hard to imagine that a bunch of sportsmen enter in an arena not to win but to draw a match...yes they might have won the series but they reteraited the point that Indians always play it safe in life and lack that aggressive killer instinct that many other sportspersons (especially aussies) possess.

its simply hard to imagine that a bunch of sportsmen enter in an arena not to win but to draw a match...yes they might have won the series but they reteraited the point that Indians always play it safe in life and lack that aggressive killer instinct that many other sportspersons (especially aussies) possess.

its simply hard to imagine that a bunch of sportsmen enter in an arena not to win but to draw a match...yes they might have won the series but they reteraited the point that Indians always play it safe in life and lack that aggressive killer instinct that many other sportspersons (especially aussies) possess.

Champions create their own luck. By that yardstick luck played a role. Well done, India.

India would have won even if hoggard,jones,flintoff or harminson would have been there.these bowlers became famous because of the ashes win in 2005.on that occassion,they were the ones riding their luck.it was a close win for england.

I feel it was an oustanding performance by the Indian Team after the dissapointment show put by them in the World Cup. I would by no means call it a luck factor as the recent Indian triumphs does not suggest so. It has been an allround team effort where individual performance was given a backstage. The gritty innings of Anil Kumble in the first Innings of the final Test suggested so.
There was a cause,a positive vibe and a hunger in their performance and approach. They fought out every ball with
the same vigour and commitement which was not to be seen in the earlier touring teams. Self Belief was seen at its peak amongst the Indians. Agression and fighting fire with fire attitude were one of the main characteristics of this Indian Team. Frankly speaking this effort was beyond our wild imaginations,but our boys turned it into a reality. First match of the Series was decided in favour of Indians by the rain God but how many times were we on the receiving end? Indians outclassed English in all the departments
and they deserve to be recognised for their feats
but not to be belittled by bringing in the luck factor into the equation. They always say luck favours the brave and Indians deserved that.

Yes, India made better use of the conditions and had a couple of lucky breaks with the toss, but also copped the wrong end of some rum umpiring decisions in a generally poor series for umpiring.

Crucially, every Indian player played their part in a team performance. Most surprising was an all-round contribution from Ganguly. The man who has never been renowned as a team man made contributions with the bat in every game despite being sawn off twice, took top order wickets, and bowled a very tight spell at Trent Bridge which effectively took the game away from England's batsmen. Crucially there did not appear to be any of the machinations going on in the background which bedevilled his captaincy and split the team: I believe he appears better suited to the role of senior pro now than Tendulkar.

England need to seriously review the balance of the side or the team batting approach - or both - in Trescothick's continuing absence. Strauss clearly is not the man to take new ball attacks apart - on the basis of his current form he'd be better partnering Pietersen in the middle order if he makes the side at all. Perhaps restoring Vaughan to an opening berth will give both aggression and a left-right opening combination.

Prior has to go. Why England continue to choose glovemen who can allegedly bat but haemorrage runs in the field is a mystery. Chris Read must be restored to the side and given an extended run - he is comfortably the best keeper in the country and the runs will eventually come. He may also benefit from Andy Flower in the back office whereas Prior's relationship is more with Moores.

With or without Flintoff someone else in the top six must be able to contribute 15 or 20 overs in an innings. If Vaughan has given up bowling that man is going to be Collingwood and the keeper must be capable of standing up to him, which Prior is patently not.

come now saif and javed.....did you see harmison bowling against west indies...if he was playing india would have probably won the series 2-0...as for flintoff,he's no longer the ol freddie of 2005 and so applies for hoggard and treso...both are not at their prime.......it was a hard fought series between evenly matched teams and no expert said india had the advantage what with their galacticos at their end....being critical is one thing but a true sports fan appreciates a good series when he sees one

The author of the article above has got it spot on. The difference between the two teams was that India's batsmen were prepared to get stuck in and grind out runs whilst England's tended to throw their wickets away going for something a bit too clever and inappropriate in the circumstances.

I would have said that conditions were more typical of an English May and I would have thought the Indian batsmen (never a big fans of playing the moving ball) would have succumbed to simple accurate swing bowling, meaning that England would win the series quite comfortably. However Zaheer and Singh turned from being shine removers to potent weapons with the conditions aiding them and the English batsmen (excluding Vaughan and Pietersen) being unable to reply.

It would be interesting to replay this series in bright sunshine and more batting favourable conditions to see what would happen then. I think India's next target should be an away win in New Zealand where conditions are similar to the UK.

Were India lucky? Winning the toss at Trent Bridge meant that they got the best of the conditions, but they still had to take advantage of them. They made the most of the breaks they got and as a unit took advantage wherever they could, even if it was just a tiny thing. They were professional, and England could

To all the people attributing India's series victory to a depleted England side, India did not have the services of Munaf, Sehwag and Harbhajan. So, stop complaining and suck it up!!

India has played better cricket, everyone has to agree with this. If one says India is lucky in the first test coz Rain turned the match into a draw, they also need to agree that they were unlucky with the umpiring decisions too. If umpiring decisions were right, who knows Imdia could have won the series 2-1, assuming that they lost the first test(had there been no rain)...
So guys lets Cheer up Indian Team for its marvelous series victory.....

Its certainly lucky, to start with. But India made sure they make best of this lucky combination of weather and well-depleted English team. Congrats team India.

On the top of everything, Indians deserve the series victory which they did.

When you a team was playing a match for winning , it should show up with the best players it had. Do you guys feel that England thought that they will not win this series as they were missing so-called great batsmens flintoff treskothik bowlers harmison , hoggard? and who knows even if they were in the team they would be in good form? the most inconsistent team in this world is england next to the west indies thats for sure. they hardly win any series... they were upto the mark only in the ashes series which was not the latest...

Coming to indian team.., can any body dare to say that this guy hasnt contributed at all in this series victory? no one can do that as they cannot support that in any way. and on the top of that i can say non except england captain and KP with anderson in bowling side has contributed at all.... not even 10%. its not at all a team effort. And, india were playing without sehwag,patan,harbhajan singh.. ofcourse they were out of poor form... who knows if they were in team and sehwag scoring 300+ and pathan taking a hatrick in each match... So, dont say that players are missing in the team as reason to support the lose.. when u are eleven playing for a series who should give the best of you which england failed to do...

and talking about luck!!!!! can u give me any other instance where india benefitted by rain???? So thats also the part the game thats all...

India completely deserve the victory.... Well Done India......

One Day series is yet to come and will get to see the fires of YUVI as well... who can save england hahahaha

India were definitely worthy winners and Dravid's reluctance to enforce the follow-on was also perfectly justifiable because of the rarity of an Indian win abroad against significant opposition such as England.

But, to me, there is a big commitment problem in the Indian team, otherwise how could one explain continued failures of the Indian team despite having a galaxy of "stars"? The Indian team traditionally lacks in commitment, hard work, giving ther 100% on the field and off the field, willingness to learn, etc. etc. They are more interested in clinging to their positions in the team that they can continue to reap the riches.

I am not at all surprised with the outcome in England because nothing less than a series win in England would pacify the fans back home and prevent the Board from axing the stars from the team, following the World Cup debacle.

I would be surprised if the "starss" sudenly start to fade once they know that their positions are safe in the Indian team. And, then they will slup a number of times before furore is raised again. And, they will come up with a life-saving win somewhere. This cycle will continue and that is the Indian team for you.

So much is being made out about how aged teh Indian stars are getting and how difficult it is to maintain fielding standards, etc. etc. Look at the Australians and players such as Jack Kallis, Sanath Jayasuriya, etc. etc. who are as aged as or more aged than the Indian stars. Why is it that thhey are able to maintain their fielding standards or at least play with minimum fuss? That is what I call commitment.

In essence, it is high time the Indain cricket team stopped fooling the fans, the Cricket Board, and all others and startd performing consistently well.

Yes, with so many facts listed in your article India surely deserves to celebrate the victory. But I will tell you why India fails to create moments like this often...It is because of the decisions like not enforcing the follow-on on an almost dead England Team which was staring at 319 run deficit. How in world will you justify that? A statement from your article states that the desire to win the series far surpassed the desire to win the test. Are we not forgetting that we are playing every game to win? Ricky Ponting might just laugh at a strategy like that. How often have we seen him declare Aussie innings at a stage where he makes the opposition feel that they might be in with a chance to win, where he too surely had safer options? Thats a sportsman's spirit. Agressive and Positive.

I would probably not be as wrong as the decision itself, may be/may be not, to state that it is that negative approach by the Indians that led to the resurgent fightback from the British in the Fourth Innings at the Oval.

Good we have won, but we might not do this consistently becuase we still have the Negative approach very much in the system. God...How I wished we would have ENGLAND ON THE MAT AGAIN!

But MR.Dravid perhaps has other thoughts...
"What if we could not have ____________________". Anthing that fits in the blank is crap. We should have played to WIN. All I can do unfortunately is "SAY"(Sadly).

India were definitely the worthy winners in England. Dravid's reluctance to enforce the follow-on was also perfectly justifiable because of the rarity of an Indian win abroad against a significant opposition such as England.

But, to me, there is a big commitment problem in the Indian team, otherwise how could one explain continued failures of the Indian team over the years despite having a galaxy of "stars"? The Indian team traditionally lacks in commitment, hard work, willingless to give their 100% on the field and off the field, willingness to learn, etc. etc. They are more interested in clinging to their positions in the team so that they can continue to reap the riches.

And, now that the team has performed once, the Board will also start relenting on the tab on advertising deals and other restrictions imposed on the team. Another eye-wash.

I am not at all surprised with the outcome in England because nothing less than a series win there would have pacified the fans back home and prevent the Board from axing the stars from the team, following the World Cup debacle.

I would not be surprised if the "stars" suddenly start to fade once they know that their positions are safe in the Indian team. And, then they will go back to their familiar losing frame of mind for some time. And then the fans, media, etc. will go after their blood… And, the team will come up with a life-saving win somewhere. This cycle will continue and that is the Indian cricket for you.

Another interesting tale: so much is being made out of how aged the Indian stars are getting and how difficult it is to maintain fielding standards, etc. etc. Look at the Australians and players such as Jack Kallis, Sanath Jayasuriya, etc. etc. who are as aged as or more aged than the Indian stars. Why is it that they are able to maintain their fielding standards or at least play with minimum fuss? That is what I call commitment and hard work.

In essence, it is high time the Indian cricket team stopped fooling the fans, the Cricket Board, and all others and started performing consistently well.

Worthy winners? The only reason India didn't lose the 1st test was because of rain.Winning the toss for tests 2 & 3 meant victory in the 2nd and first use of a featherbed in the third.Oh,and let's not forget,ALL England's first choice seamers - Hoggard,Harmison,Flintoff - missed the whole series.So India were 'worthy winners' against a second choice seam attack and had considerable help from the weather.

frank jones,

Quite right you should be complaining. I'm assuming you are English.

Of course, you'd have forgotten the 2005 Ashes turnaround began when a little known Aussie bowler put his foot on a cricket ball and twisted his ankle on the morning of the 2nd test match. Suddenly a bunch of Pea-shooting English batsmen roared like lions.

We were more than deserving. In saving the first Test and winning the second Test, we utilised opportunities which we most famously had lost at Kingston in 2002 (when ten minutes more batting would have ensured a drawn series, and we failed to utilise the toss like we did at Trent Bridge).

Most important was the statement we made on the first day at Oval, with the series to be decided, we rattled more than 100 runs in the first session, and 300 on the day. We should have ideally enforced the follow-on, but as Dravid said, it is easier to decide from the living room.

India were clearly the better side - England can have as many excuses as they want with their bowling strength but mind you the same Indian middle order scored this many runs against a strong Aussie attack in Australia a few years back ; so one cant say that a full strength English bowling attack would have blown away the decorated Indian batting line up

Does anyone remember any of the current english players playing for a while without an injury.
flintoff was the only name that came to my mind but now even he is injured.
For indian tour 3-4 went back.
vaughan sat out of ashes 8 months before it started.
the only time they could pull up a regular 'n fit team was when they won the ashes, or maybe its the other way round ,just because they won the ashes that is the best bowling team.
hey whose fault is it that they dont want to play.
they are pretty fit for counties for contracts but not for a test series.
just list out the number of matches each of the english players played in last 3-4 yrs compared to players from india,australia or ...(except zimbabwe).
maybe even ganguly has played more matches after his break.lol.

frank jones,

Give credit to the way our tail enders batted in the Lords' test and fought for a draw. Weather definitely helped us, but weather didn't turn bad momentarily, the English team knew it was going to deteriorate, but couldn’t take that crucial tenth wicket. So, it is the Englishmen's inability to finish the game coupled with the way the Indian team fought that brought the result. We were lucky there, but you were lucky on numerous occasions in the series when the substandard umpires gave wrong verdict against our batsmen.
The second and third tests were essentially an object lesson for the English in terms of what the awesome Indian batting can do if the Indians really puts their heads down. Alas, it happens only once in a blue moon. But when it happens, no one can stop us - not even the mighty Australians.
You are wrong about the Sidebotton and Co being second string - they bowled very well, but the Indian batting was simply too good.
What do you say about sledging that your team resorted to? The English team tried to use sledging as a weapon and it back fired because of two reasons – one, the Indians were up to the challenge and second, unlike the Australians who had the game to back it up, while you didn’t have that. Didn’t Matt Prior prove that if you do just sledging without even getting the cricketing basics right, you become a subject of public wrath? Do I need to say more?

Well, admittedly, India definitely played better in the last two Tests. As of the luck, in the first Test, one can say that luck favoured the brave. They hung in there in those testing conditions, which are well known to English bowlers, and denying them what was Englishmen's, i.e the victory, they showed that they got something in their shield.
Not overlooking theE nglish performance, they played well, but wasn't enough to match Indians.
RP Singh must win the supporting bowler award, along with Kumble, who with is turning to be more difficult in handling.
Hats off to you guys.

Without doubt the better team won. Indian team was better balanced and played to their potential than England. I see no reason why we can not beat Australia in Australia for the first time. May be the first round exit from the World Cup was the best thing to have happened and it has woken up the sleeping lion.
All the very best to the team.