I didn't watch the first innings at all, but around 200 all out doesn't seem to be a very good score on that pitch. And England were still ahead of the game by 96 runs (so the game wasn't exactly evenly balanced even at that point). At almost every stage England was ahead of the game and India were playing catch-up. I think we should stop listening to Harsha Bhogle and company - they are overoptimistic at best about India's batting.
Really? That's funny seeing that no team crossed 300 in this game, which should be evidence enough that the pitch wasn't the blinder for batting that it was expected to be. England were not ahead at every stage of the game, if you're going by expected gain. Sure, they never trailed in this match, but if you followed the game (which I'm not sure you did live, because you already have claimed that you are bored of live cricket) through the days, you'd notice that the advantage continued to shift session to session. England looked good for 450+ and the Indians bowled very well to restrict them to less than 300. We got off to an ordinary start but at stumps on Day 2 we were placed reasonably well. England didn't get off to a good start in the second innings, losing both their openers for not too many and it took a blinder of an innings from Pietersen to put this game strongly in their favor.
Anyway, I think this is exactly the reason why Indian cricket remains at a mediocre level: because we fans are too forgiving of our past performances.
No, I think the main reason Indian continues to remain in a mediocre level is because fans expect too much. India are not anywhere close to being the best in the world and to expect that they are isn't going to help their cause. I recognized that both teams played good cricket and I really stand by the opinion that Pietersen is what separated the two teams. If Pietersen had scored his average (around 55), then India would have been chasing 300 for victory. Doesn't sound that hard, now, does it?
Against this English attack, we should have got over 400 in the first innings. If Dinesh Kartik and Dhoni could score on that pitch by applying themselves, surely one of the famed Indian batting line up (Tendulkar, Dravid, Ganguly and Laxman) could have scored a century.
Did you even watch the match? There's no point going just by names--the English bowling attack bowled really well, and the conditions were very difficult for batting, with overcast conditions for most of the time. Pietersen and Vaughan survived the overcast conditions and then under the sun, Pietersen made merry, without too much swing around. Jimmy Anderson and Ryan Sidebottom were always on target and Tremlett wasn't far behind. The batsmen were ALWAYS under pressure, whether they were not yet off the mark, or they had got around 30. And you will notice that Dhoni's innings was far from one of his best. He stuck it out but he could very easily have gotten out. Karthik, even after reaching a 50, was unable to cope with the outswing.
It's time you start crediting the bowlers a bit, I feel. Sure, our batsmen are supposed to be a few of the best in the world, but they are always going to come across conditions and players who are going to be difficult to face.
England oughta' feel robbed. Outplayed India in all departments & clearly deserved victory.
Dhoni played really well though, albeit he struggled allot early on. Pretty good for someone whose only made 4 First-Class hundreds.
Again, they didn't outplay India in all departments. You will notice that each team had a couple of decent knocks with the bat but most batsmen struggled, bar Pietersen in the second innings. Both teams' bowlers bowled really well given the conditions, it was just that the English were on target more often, which put the batsmen under more pressure. In fact, if Pietersen hadn't played that gem of a knock, this game would have looked far closer.