Ian Chappell

The bowler-friendly wickets were among the things the series had going in its favour © Getty Images

The entertaining and competitive Test series between India and England provided much good cricket and plenty of food for thought. In addition to two evenly matched teams, good pitches and the swinging ball played their part in providing entertaining cricket.

There has been a tendency to produce flat pitches in limited-overs cricket and this may well have spilled over into the Test arena. However, the three English groundsmen for this series provided ample proof that a good cricket wicket, which allows the bowlers to compete on even terms, is the best ingredient for an entertaining match.

The coverage of grass on the Lord's pitch was beautifully even and provided a good surface for both batsmen and bowlers. In recent times grass has become a five-letter swear word to some players. Curators, too, need to be encouraged to restrict their shaving to what they do in front of the mirror in the morning. The part pitches play in maintaining the critical balance between bat and ball should never be overlooked.

Swing bowlers and wrist spinners are two of the most important attacking weapons in the game of cricket and both need to be encouraged. Mammoth first-innings totals lead to lop-sided contests but the swinging ball usually eradicates any such blights on the game.

Bouncy pitches are appreciated by every good player, but I'm also all for allowing bowlers one method of assisting the ball to swing, and making that method legal while outlawing every other form of ball-tampering. The teams could provide a list of their preferred methods of assisting the ball to swing and then the ICC would decide on the one to be legalised.

Ever since Adam Gilchrist hit the Test arena and international bowlers like a tornado, other teams have been trying to replicate his style of middle-order mayhem. England in particular have eschewed picking the best wicketkeepers in an attempt to get more runs from the lower order, and in doing so the selectors have ignored a couple of important factors.

Firstly, Gilchrist was always a wicketkeeper who just happened to also be a very destructive batsman. Secondly, an average of 40 runs from the wicketkeeper doesn't compensate for dropping catches off players of the calibre of Sachin Tendulkar and VVS Laxman.

The excuse that Matthew Prior, like everyone else, is entitled to a bad game overlooks a basic flaw in his game: his footwork is negligible and the practice drills he uses don't address this issue, making it highly unlikely there'll be any great improvement in his glove work. Once a keeper starts to cost a team in the field he should lose his Test place, and Prior has reached that point.

If England played four bowlers and used Paul Collingwood, Michael Vaughan and Kevin Pietersen to occasionally rest them they could bat Andrew Flintoff at No. 7 and then lower-order runs wouldn't be an issue. Good selection is about getting the right combination and England won't unearth that team while they continue to play poor wicketkeepers.

India did well to beat England 1-0, however they could easily have won the Oval Test if they'd enforced the follow-on. India were without a head coach on the tour but there was no shortage of advisors when it came time for the captain to decide on the follow-on. Captaincy by committee never works, because the responsibility for a poor decision falls squarely on the skipper's shoulders anyway.

The only question Rahul Dravid needed to ask at The Oval was: "Any injuries among the bowlers?" If there were no injuries then he should have enforced the follow-on, especially if he'd left the decision to the moment the tenth English first-innings wicket fell. By then it would have been obvious the overcast conditions favoured bowling. If England had followed-on, the game would have been all but over by the fourth evening.

However, being captain of India isn't as straightforward as leading, say, Australia. If Ricky Ponting makes a poor judgment, as he did during the 2005 Ashes series, his effigy isn't burned in the streets or his family threatened. This is why an Australian captain is able to challenge his team to become better, which gives him a considerable advantage over his Indian counterpart.

By the time the two teams meet in Australia later this year, India will have appointed a new coach, meaning there'll be an extra advisor adding to the long list already in Dravid's ear. This will make India's job of trying to beat Australia at home even more difficult - an extremely unpalatable thought for such a demanding cricket nation.

Aakash Chopra

A major reason for Prior's falling apart could be a lack of belief in his skills and an inability to handle being exposed under pressure © Getty Images

The man who scored a ton on his debut at Lord's earlier this summer wouldn't have dreamed that people would be baying for his blood by the end of that same summer. Every move Matt Prior makes now is closely monitored or, in this case, every move he doesn't make. He has dropped a few crucial catches, conceded a few byes too many (some of them were ridiculously wide and out of reach) and, unfortunately, things haven't been too rosy even in front of the stumps. He has also been advised to keep his trap shut and concentrate on the job, something that probably wouldn't have been said if he hadn't messed up.

Apparently, while keeping, Prior does a little shimmy of sorts before making his final movement towards the ball, and experts think that that could be the reason for his poor footwork. I'm no expert on keeping and perhaps whatever everyone has said or written about Prior's skills or the lack of them is correct, but I know one thing for sure - what Prior must be feeling at the moment. Though I'm thrilled about India's rare and special feat, one can't, sitting here in England and reading and watching the English media, but feel a bit for Prior.

Ideally you should be oblivious to what is being written and said about you, especially when the chips are down. Ideally you should back the skills that have brought you so far, and if there's something to be improved, it should be done in the off-season or during a break. But does it work that way? Ask anyone who has been out there in the middle and knows what it's like to be in the doghouse and the answer will an overwhelming "No".

When you play international cricket, you're exposed to a world where every move is watched, every achievement appreciated, and every weakness exposed. A lot of experts and ex-cricketers are always around, waiting to spot flaws, writing and speaking about them, dissecting each one in gory detail, though they're only doing their jobs and, to give them credit, they're also generally willing to help you iron out those chinks.

Still, you end up with too much information and a limited span of time in which to act on those recommendations. You need to first assess if it's worth taking that information on board - you need to consider if it fits in with your game, since many of these people who are offering advice will not have watched your career develop and grow over the years, and one man's medicine could be another's poison. Second, even if you do decide to change things, there's hardly any time between Test matches, or even series, to do so. You desperately want to improve, impress and perform, and when things aren't going well it does seem that the entire world is against you. It's only human to try and change something in your technique if you think that could have a positive influence on your performance. But by doing so you tend to forget the task at hand.

In Prior's case, when something has gone wrong, when he has conceded a bye or dropped a catch or messed up a chance for someone else by trying too hard (like when he dived in front of Andrew Strauss during this Test, attempting to take what would have been a sitter for first slip), it's quite natural to think about that little shimmy.

After having myself gone through the process of trying to change things in next to no time and failing, I can say for sure that Prior isn't as bad as he is being made out to be. He must have, in the past, kept better than he is keeping now; a major reason for his falling apart could be a lack of belief in his skills and an inability to handle being exposed under pressure.

Excessive criticism can lead to self-doubt and I can assure you that when you are just starting out on an international career, it is natural to doubt yourself. At least the first time around. It requires tremendous character, lots of confidence, and a strong belief in your skills to turn a blind eye to everything that's being written and said about you. During this time you desperately need someone, someone you admire and respect, to put an arm around your shoulder and tell you to chill a bit, focus on doing the things that brought you this far, and give yourself time to get your act together. I hope someone's chatting to Prior.

Sambit Bal

England v India was Test cricket as it ought to be: tough, hard-fought, and full of spark © Getty Images

In the end the margin of 1-0, it could be argued, was a fair way for the series to end. England were the superior side at Lord's and India dominated the last two Tests. Speculation is futile, but if it hadn't been a draw at Lord's, the Oval Test would possibly have yielded a result, most likely in India's favour. But draws aren't necessarily dull, and this was an enthralling series. More importantly it was Test cricket as it ought to be: tough, challenging, skilful, full of crackle and contest, and bends and surprises.

In many ways this was a most un-Indian victory. It wasn't achieved through a burst of brilliance or glittering individual performances, and there was nothing freakish about it. It was built painstakingly and collectively by a team united in their desire to secure their place in history. The best innings of the series came from Englishmen - Kevin Pietersen's punchy, counterattacking hundred at Lord's and Michael Vaughan's poetic, utterly enchanting century at Trent Bridge - but eventually the sum of India's parts turned out to be greater.

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.

Siddhartha Vaidyanathan

Rahul Dravid's knock was reminiscent of his one-day innings in the late nineties, when batting became an almighty struggle © Getty Images

Dravid must have churned, memories of lost opportunities whizzing past. Bridgetown 1997, when a batting collapse cost the series, Cape Town 2006, when another opportunity was squandered. Had he just blown his biggest game? His innings was nervy: 12 balls to get off the mark, 35 balls to get off 2. He was beaten by swing, struck on the body by pace. This was exactly like some of his one-day innings in the late nineties, when batting became an almighty struggle. The crowd booed, he floundered. No boundary till his 91st ball, five balls later he was gone.

He was dwarfed by Sourav Ganguly's brilliance, contributing just five in a 65-run partnership. Like a high-schooler who'd blanked out in an important exam, Dravid groped nervously. He concentrated all his energies on survival, half-hearted drives going straight to fielders. His initial doggedness was understandable but it was soon apparent that he'd cornered himself not to play a stroke. At some level the decision appeared to have got to him.

The decision will be dissected threadbare if England bat out the final day. At that point, though, it wasn't without its merits: India's bowlers would get a rest (it was learnt later in the day that Zaheer Khan was suffering from a thigh strain). Additionally Anil Kumble would get final use of the pitch, on a ground where England had never batted more than 105.1 overs in the final innings.

Fifty years from now Rahul Dravid will not be remembered as a captain who didn't enforce the follow-on in a game India could afford to draw

Sambit Bal

Wide of the mark: Ian Howell had a dreadful time at Trent Bridge, and has made plenty of mistakes at The Oval as well © Getty Images

It is a pity that matters outside bat and ball should continue to spoil what has so far been wonderful advertisement for Test cricket. The first Test was decided by the weather, and the second, which was won by a skilful and determined performance by the Indians, was overshadowed by jelly beans, player behaviour and inconsistent umpiring. And it will be a tragedy if umpiring becomes a decisive factor in this Test.

Umpires deserve plenty of sympathy. Theirs is a thankless vocation and they are noticed only for their mistakes. Their actions are judged and damned by experts, journalists, and millions of viewers who now have the benefit of hugely sophisticated cameras and technologies such as Snickometer and Hotspot. But still, it's not that difficult to tell when an umpire is not up to it.

Simon Taufel, who invited the wrath of Indian supporters for denying Sachin Tendulkar and Sourav Ganguly well-earned hundreds at Trent Bridge, is a good umpire who had an ordinary match. But it is difficult to say the same about his colleague in that Test. Ian Howell had a dreadful match at Trent Bridge, and it has only got worse at The Oval. It can be considered poor taste to pun on someone's name, but given the number of howlers he has made in the last two Tests, Howell has brought it upon himself.

The ICC has a system in place to assess every decision an umpire make during a match, and it is often trotted out that umpires get over 90% of the decisions right. It will surely be interesting to read Howell's report card for this series. To anybody who has followed his finger, he has got more decisions wrong than right.

Few things can be worse for cricketers, batsmen and bowlers alike, than to play in the knowledge that their fate hangs in the hand of an adjudicator who is consistently inconsistent. There are not-outers, none more famous than the legendary Dickie Bird, there are those who are trigger happy - Dave Orchard springs to mind - there are those who are conservative about front-foot lbws and there are ones who are spinner-friendly. In many instances, umpires go by the pitch, and are likely to adjudge lbws on the basis of bounce. At Perth, for instance, batsmen can leave the ball on its length, safe in the knowledge that it will sail over the stumps.

But how safe can a batsman feel when faced with Howell? Apart from his obvious tendency to give wrong decisions, it has been impossible to detect a pattern with Howell. May be it lies in his approach to tailenders. This morning he was happy to give Monty Panesar on the forward stretch against Anil Kumble. Panesar had no reason to quibble; he was dead in front. But on what account did he spare Paul Collingwood on the third day? Collingwood's front foot was perhaps a few inches ahead, but as Ian Chappell remarked on television, if that wasn't out, they might as well remove lbw as a mode of dismissal. And when he did give Collingwood out, the ball looked, irrespective of what you saw on Hawk-Eye, to be sliding past the leg stump.

At Trent Bridge, he denied Panesar two lbws in his first two overs in India's first innings. They were vital decisions, for they allowed Dinesh Karthik and Wasim Jaffer to swell the first-wicket partnership to 147, but he was happy to send back RP Singh and Sreesanth in quick succession: Singh looked out, but Sreesanth deserved the benefit of doubt.

It's futile labouring the point, but the lbw that he handed out to Ganguly has perhaps been the shocker of the series. Admittedly, the ball has been swinging exaggeratedly, sometimes changing path after passing the batsman. But this was a deviation palpably off the bat. If he didn't hear the nick, he should have seen it. Was he late in looking up? If he was, it was a schoolboy error from an international umpire.

Which raises the next question. Should Howell have been standing in the series in the first place? Of course, the ICC cannot be blamed for not anticipating the errors, but Howell is not part of the elite panel, and since no other international cricket is on at the moment, those appointing umpires had a full list to choose from. Were none of them available?

It is sad that umpires rarely get the credit for a job well done. In that, they are like wicketkeepers. Matt Prior has become the object of ridicule after two bad matches; it's only fair that the heat is now turned on Howell.

Ian Chappell

Gift of the gab: Prior can talk the talk, but he hasn't quite walked the walk © Getty Images

I'm no Sherlock Holmes but I think I've cracked the great jelly bean mystery. However, in keeping with the conventions of thrillers, you'll have to read to the end to find the guilty party.

Judging by the evidence so far, England now believe international wicketkeepers are there to be heard and not seen. This adds another misleading myth to the many that abound about wicketkeepers, including the most erroneous one of all about batting being the first consideration when choosing a keeper.

Instead of admonishing Matthew Prior for his poor footwork, England coach Peter Moores defended his gabby gloveman by asking that the stump microphone volume be lowered so that less of his inane chatter is heard on television. As a former wicketkeeper Moores should be telling Prior to lower his personal chat volume and raise his standards.

It's true that a wicketkeeper needs to ensure the fielding is lively, but he should do so by setting a good example and contributing to the team thought process, rather than talking a lot of drivel. The fact that a constant stream of inanities is now seen as "part of the game" is an indictment of the numerous sheriffs who supposedly control the game, as well as those who indulge in this practice.

The more talk that is allowed on the field the more likely it is that something personal will be said. If a player is verbally accosted at the wrong moment there is the likelihood of fisticuffs on the field and in the current emotionally charged atmosphere, with a decider looming at The Oval it would be better if Moores told Prior; "You are here to be seen and not heard."

It is an indictment of Prior's footwork that he has already allowed more than three times as many byes as his predecessor Chris Read in two fewer innings. If you think this comparison is unfair, then Mahendra Singh Dhoni, who isn't exactly twinkle toes behind the stumps, has only allowed 27 more byes than Prior in three times as many innings. At least Dhoni is smart enough to keep relatively quiet behind the stumps.

The India versus England series has been exciting, with loads of good bowling, a wonderful mixture of aggressive and determined batting, and no shortage of drama. It has been extremely watchable because the two curators so far have provided pitches that have given every player a chance to display his skill. Too often a pitch favours either batsman or bowler but this time the balance has been perfect, which has complemented the skills of two pretty evenly matched sides.

What would happen if the non-striking batsman started chatting to the bowler as he was about to commence his run-up? There would be a hell of a fuss and it would quickly put an end to on-field chatter being a one-way street

It is not "part of the game". Batsmen are entitled to a bit of peace and quiet when they are out in the middle. What would happen if the non-striking batsman started chatting to the bowler as he was about to commence his run-up? There would be a hell of a fuss, and on-field chatter would quickly cease to be a one-way street. I don't understand why batsmen haven't resorted to this ploy already.

England is hardly the only team that indulges in this irritating tactic but by suggesting the microphone volume be lowered, Moores is adding his name to the list of people who condone on-field chatter. The fact that Prior has succeeded an equally gabby gloveman, Paul Nixon, means mindless chatter is now entrenched as an English tactic.

So far this enthralling series hasn't been spoiled by any on-field shenanigans. Hopefully that will remain the case and the great jelly bean saga will prove to have been nothing more sinister than the England players throwing sweets at their wicketkeeper in an effort to shut him up.

Nobody, not even the bowler himself, knows which Sreesanth is going to take the field on any given day of a match © Getty Images

Siddhartha Vaidyanathan

A small Indian contingent waited outside the dressing room for several hours after India had sealed the second Test at Trent Bridge. As the cricketers celebrated with beer and bhangra indoors, the fans frolicked with drums, flags and posters outside. Glimpses of their heroes were met with loud cheers; anyone within earshot was mobbed.

Amid the frenzy, Sreesanth emerged. Almost no one took the initial step of greeting him; one young man even sniggered, "Don't approach that fellow, he might hit you." It took a pleasant smile from Sreesanth to break the ice, following which he obliged with autographs and photos. He was so charming that one young girl asked, "Sreesanth, are you nice only when you wear your glasses?"

And therein lies the single biggest paradox in the Indian team at the moment - Sreesanth's normalcy off the field compared to his maniacal instincts on it. Nobody, not even the bowler himself, knows which Sreesanth is going to take the field on any given day. Very rarely has India seen match-winning potential and extreme buffoonery combine so explosively. When it comes off, like at the Wanderers last year, it makes for gripping theatre; other times, like at Trent Bridge, it's slapstick.

Sreesanth baffles. Before the start of the fourth day of this second Test, he spent 15 minutes asking the groundsman to clear up the footholds at the Pavilion end. When play began, he was running in from the Radcliffe Road end. A high-velocity beamer, a huge front-foot no-ball and a shoulder-barge capped a wretchedly erratic spell. But he still conjured up gems amid the rubbish. When least expected, a perfectly pitched away-swinger would beat the bat; another would hustle the batsman. Like some random number generator, one ball in ten would surprise.

What Sreesanth could have done with was some introspection. Here was an ideal chance to play second fiddle, an opportunity to sustain the pressure at one end while Zaheer Khan got aggressive at the other. Had Sreesanth made the batsmen play more often, it was he who had the better chance of taking wickets, what with them trying to see out Zaheer at the other end. Instead he turned showman, waiting for the cameras to focus on him, and responding to a few sledges from the crowd. "I think he has a great example in Zaheer," said Rahul Dravid at the end of the match. "Zaheer has been as aggressive as anyone, without going over the top - just performing and getting wickets."

Nobody is asking Sreesanth to mellow down - in fact he needs all the aggression he can summon - but more channelising, and less Bollywood, will be the way to go

Coming from a state that's a cricketing backwater, Sreesanth was bound to be overawed by all the attention. Three years back he was a first-change bowler for Kerala in the second division of the Ranji Trophy; now he's expected to win Test matches. It's a gigantic leap and one that few 24-year-olds can achieve seamlessly. There's a lesson for Sreesanth to learn from Tinu Yohannan, his predecessor from Kerala who managed just three Tests, unable to cope with the expectations. India cannot afford to lose another talented youngster as they did the likes of Laxman Sivaramakrishnan, Sadanand Viswanath, Maninder Singh and Vinod Kambli.

So how does the team get the best out of him? A rap on the knuckles is an easy short-term solution but here is a young lad who needs careful handling. Greg Chappell, it is learned, knew how to deal with him - coaxing and admonishing in equal measure.

Team-mates have in the past been exasperated with Sreesanth's "naatak" (theatrics) but acknowledge that he is a vital member of the side. The good thing is, he has been talking to India's bowling coach Venkatesh Prasad, who rarely bowled a ball in anger during his playing days - except once, when taunted by Aamer Sohail in a high-pressure World Cup quarter-final. "It's a concern," said Prasad when asked about Sreesanth's on-field antics, "but we're trying to tell him not to cross the line. We need to respect the game and the rules. He needs to focus on his cricket rather than the other stuff."

Dinesh Karthik, one of Sreesanth's closest friends in the team, will no doubt understand his situation, having struggled to come to terms with international cricket when he was first picked, before returning far more assured. A chat with Mahendra Singh Dhoni, another superstar from a traditionally non-cricketing state, could help. Seeking out an elder statesman like Anil Kumble, a highly aggressive yet unassuming bowler, wouldn't be out of place either. Nobody is asking Sreesanth to mellow down - in fact he needs all the aggression he can summon - but more channelising, and less Bollywood, will be the way to go.

Mahendra Singh Dhoni acquitted himself well despite his technical difficulties against the moving ball © Getty Images

Sambit Bal

Did India really deserve to save the Test? You could say their bowlers did, for after a shocking opening session when they were affected as much by nerves as by lack of practical knowledge about overcoming and using the unique slope at Lord's, they exceeded expectations. You could also hand it to Dinesh Karthik, a young man thrust into a difficult job, who showed both skill and heart, and Mahendra Singh Dhoni, who rose above his technical difficulties against the moving ball to hang in there. India owes this draw to these unlikely saviours and the benevolence of the weather.

But there is a story within a story. India's three fifties in this Test came from the weakest links: Wasim Jaffer, who came to this Test on the back of three failures; Karthik, who is not a opener; and Dhoni, who had batted like a tailender in the first innings. In the end, to hold out for 96 overs was creditable because it was always going to rain. In fact, it was a surprise that it didn't rain sooner than it did on day five. But what of the men who were expected to deliver for India?

India's mighty middle order came up against England's most enfeebled pace attack in a home Test since 1993 and managed only 192 runs. That's an average of 24. James Anderson cannot be denied credit. He bowled with intelligence and control but the conditions, while challenging, were never impossible. The first-innings score of 201 was probably 150 short of what was achievable.

Is it too early to make a reassessment of India's batting strength? Wasn't it a similar story in 2002, when the Indian middle order collapsed twice to lose them the Test at Lord's, only to reveal its full splendour in the matches that followed? That series, in fact, heralded a golden run for India lasting about 18 months. Now that they have the breathing space of a draw behind them, can they not be expected to flower again?

They well may, for far more unlikely things have happened in cricket. If you're a betting man, though, don't put your money on it yet. This is a batting order that has long lived on reputation; three years, to be precise. Not since the tour of Pakistan in early 2004 has India's middle order earned the right to be termed mighty.

Let's dispense with the numbers first. In Test matches since that series, Sachin Tendulkar averages 45.67, Sourav Ganguly 36.24 and VVS Laxman 33.70. But even these numbers hide the reality for none them has failed to cash in on weak opponents. Three of Tendulkar's last four hundreds - including a career-best 248 - have come against Bangladesh, Ganguly has scored hundreds against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, his only centuries since a stirring 144 against Australia at Brisbane in 2003, and Laxman has got a hundred against Zimbabwe. Remove these runs and the story is dire. Tendulkar's average dips to 31.19, Ganguly's to 29.40 and Laxman's to 32.19.

Increasingly it looks likely that this is what India's once-glittering middle order is capable of providing in demanding conditions: battling thirties and the odd half-century. That's what Tendulkar, Laxman and Ganguly provided at Lord's and that's what they did against Australia, Pakistan and South Africa in 2004-05, and against South Africa earlier this year. More than 20 Tests in the space of three years is a long enough sample period to present a pattern and, despite what the rest of this series might bring, it's about time to bury the myth about India's middle order.

India's batting in recent years has been about two men. One of them isn't here. Despite his failure in South Africa, Virender Sehwag averages 46.89 in Tests since May 2004 and, incredibly, his average goes a couple of points higher if you remove his Tests against Zimbabwe.

The other is Rahul Dravid, who averages nearly 50 without his runs against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. India missed a big innings from him in South Africa. It was the first time since 2000 that he'd gone through a series without a half-century and it perhaps cost India the series. In both innings at Lord's he was dismissed without getting in, which is not something that can be said about Tendulkar, Laxman and Ganguly.

Batsmen who get into the 30s can't be described as out of form. But the failure to push on from there must point to something. Has the process of survival become so onerous that it is draining away the mental resources needed to construct more substantial innings? Can the body no longer endure the rigour? Is it a combination of both?

Indian cricket would be living in denial if it fails to acknowledge the decline. Cherish their golden years but don't expect them to light up a wet summer.

Anderson, Sidebottom and Tremlett sound more likely to draw up a man's will than to threaten his wicket © Getty Images

Cricket holds fewer mysteries than it used to, for several reasons. The commentators and their gizmos do a fine job of explaining it. One team can study another on their laptops. And they all meet more often than they once did. But some mysteries remain. Why does Geoffrey Boycott
keep telling you that what he is telling you is something he told you earlier? Why does no country pick a different team for the different game of Twenty20? And why do the Indian galacticos keep getting out to English greenhorns?

At Lord's, three of the big four fell in the first innings to Jimmy Anderson and one to Ryan Sidebottom. In the second, Rahul Dravid fell cheaply to Chris Tremlett (albeit unluckily, as the commentators and their gizmos soon showed), Sachin Tendulkar managed only one great shot,
and although Sourav Ganguly and VVS Laxman played their part in The Great Escape, neither was exactly MS Dhoni. England were missing their four first-choice seamers, yet India were bowled out for 201 in the first innings by the makeshift firm of Sidebottom, Anderson, and Tremlett, who sound more likely to draw up a man's will than to threaten his wicket.

Admittedly, the ball swung, and the bowlers controlled it well, in a way that Andrew Flintoff could have done with when he was trying to stop the flood of Aussie runs last winter. And you can't read too much into one match: the big names may well lord it in the next Test. But there is a pattern here. England have now done the same thing in four series running against India.

They have needed to, because every time they have been missing key bowlers. In 2001-02, Darren Gough and Andy Caddick both declined to tour for different reasons; they never did remotely resemble one another. Poor old Nasser Hussain was left with a new-ball attack of
Matthew Hoggard (playing his third Test) and the young Flintoff (looking for his eighth wicket), backed up by Craig White (as much a batsman as a bowler in India) and, for one match,
Jimmy Ormond (talented, but never given time to show it). Somehow Hussain made something out of this motley crew, and although England lost the first Test, they held their own in the other
two.

In 2002, Hussain was again missing Gough for the whole series, and Caddick for the first two Tests. The new ball was again taken by Hoggard and Flintoff, supported by White and a brand-new fourth seamer: Simon Jones, who showed some raw promise (partly with the bat).
This ragbag, plus Ashley Giles, somehow bowled India out for 221 on a flat Lord's pitch. England, awash with hundreds, set India 568 to win and bowled them out for 397. Ajit Agarkar made a hundred; the big four - or five, if you count Virender Sehwag - didn't.

For the rest of that series, the superstars reassserted themselves. Dravid made an immense hundred at Headingley, Tendulkar and Ganguly emulated him, Sehwag merrily blasted the shine off the new ball, only Laxman struggled, and India fought back to 1-1.

Back in India, this trend might have been expected to continue, although this time England's injuries were mainly to batsmen - their captain and vice-captain, Michael Vaughan and Marcus Trescothick.

Flintoff took over, and he began with a decent hand of seamers - Hoggard, Harmison and himself, but no Jones. With Hoggard putting his hand up, as the players say, the galacticos mostly flopped: India were kept in the first Test only by runs from Wasim Jaffer, Mohammad Kaif and Anil Kumble, with Dravid helping secure the draw in the second innings. A match of no hundreds at Mohali was won by two bowlers, Kumble and Munaf Patel - who showed that Englishmen too could be susceptible to a debutant.

The series was India's for the taking at Mumbai, even when England made 400. Flintoff was once again forced to take the new ball with Hoggard because Harmison was now injured. Anderson was drafted in as third seamer, and did so well (4 for 40) that he opened the bowling in the
second innings, when an unexpected combination of Flintoff, Anderson, Shaun Udal and the late Johnny Cash shot India out for 100.

Hoggard finished the series with 13 wickets at 17. Tendulkar averaged 20, Sehwag 19, and Laxman, who played one Test, didn't get off the mark. Ganguly was out of favour and only Dravid, who averaged 61, was himself.

It's not just England who get away with pitting understudies against these titans. The bowlers who have done best against India this decade include half-forgotten names like Daryl Tuffey (21
wickets at 16) and Cameron Cuffy (28 at 28). Nor is it just seamers. Besides Udal, Michael Vaughan has flourished against India, taking 4 for 120, while managing 2 for 417 against everyone else. In 2001-02, Richard Dawson managed a Test four-for at Mohali. And once Michael Clarke of Australia took six-for with his occasional slow left-arm.

The Indian stars are sometimes accused of being grand, but in Tests against England it is only Ashley Giles (11 wickets at 50) who has incurred their disdain. With the exception of Dravid, they seem unable to dominate. It's as if they know they are Goliaths, so they freeze when any little David comes into view. Anderson, a pie-thrower against Australia, was transformed into a world-beater at Lord's.

In their last 11 Tests against India, England have fielded 13 front-line seamers, with only Hoggard and Flintoff making more than five appearances. In the first innings at Lord's, India's big names were not just unsuccessful but tentative. With the ball moving around corners, the game was there to be won by one attacking partnership. They couldn't produce it; Kevin Pietersen and Matt Prior did.

Individually, they have good-looking records against England since 2001. Dravid averages 65, Tendulkar 52, Ganguly 48, Sehwag and Laxman 32, so together they average 47. But given their class, and the bowlers' lack of it, that figure should be 57. Shane Warne never bothered these guys, but show them a journeyman county seamer and the galaxy falls to earth.