Since you don't fully understand what an ICC event is ... let me explain.
Bilateral tournaments are not ICC Events..
Outside of the FTP, teams can bilaterally arrange any series, which thus makes it a non ICC event. Like for instance last year WI toured India for a two test series which was not part of ICC FTP but a mutually agreed series between ICC and WICB. Such series take place all the time so not every Bilateral series is part of the ICC calender. Even if a series is part of FTP, even so the rules of this series with regard to some things are subject to mutually agreed rules between those nations. For instance whether floodlights can be used or not. Or whether
DRS can be used or not.
Also even in non-India involving sereis, just because teams may agree to use DRS, doesnt alter the fact that if they wanted could have chosen to not use DRS. This option is definitely there, with all boards. Thus in bilateral series the respective boards have a lot of control. For ages ODI series in Sharjah were organized, based on the mutual consent of the boards. India and Pakistan have played bilateral Series in Canada, based on mutual consent. ICC does provide a skeleton for the FTP, but those are all subject to all kinds of change depending on the boards in questions and they can if they so choose not even go ahead with the series ICC has arranged as part of FTP. For instance, so many Ind-Pak bilateral series over the years have not gone ahead. Also, ICC doesn't organise these events, and final say rests with the boards. What the venues will be, what kind of pitches, etc is for the host board to decide, and not the ICC. ICC may occasionally step in, if a pitch is poor but short of that ICC has no role.
So any
Bilateral series test or ODIs, whether part of FTP or not, is thus organised by the hosting board and not the ICC, and thus is not an
ICC event.
The ICC only organises the Muti-Nation events, like the World cup or Champions Trophy or World T20, and these are today the
ONLY ICC Events. Sure the ICC organises many events for the non test playing nations, but these three are the only ones that involve test playing nations. Also since ICC only organises these giant events, involving all the major teams, it is a matter of prestige to win these events. Hence ICC Events are at a level much higher than any bilateral series.
In ICC events, for starters ICC's name and logo is attached to the event. So its always the
ICC World Cup or
ICC CT. In all bilateral series ICC's name is missing. In ICC events the ICC actively enforces the rules which are common for all teams. No particular board has the option to change the rules, which is why in a World Cup DRS will always be there even in Ind matches, same in CT. Two teams in a day match cannot mutually decide to use or not use floodlights, when faced with fading lights. Also unlike mutual series two boards cannot just agree to scrap the World Cup. So even though at numerous times BCCI and PCB have scrapped
bilateral tours, even in the most heated of times they have
always faced each other in ICC events. For instance even when Ind Pak were in the middle of Kargil war in '99 and all bilateral cricketing exchanges between Ind and Pak had been scrapped, they still faced each other in the Super Six stage of the '99 WC.
There are tonnes of other differences, like for instance ICC chooses the host, which is missing in bilateral series. Two boards can mutually decide a series and who will tour who. In a bilateral series if the boards agree the series can be played in another nation entirely. Ind Pak like I said have played bilateral series in Canada in the past. Pak plays all its matches in Dubai, because the teams no longer visit and Dubai is the mutually agreed venue by the boards, and ICC has very limited role here. In bilateral series there are no restriction on squad sizes. Ind came to Eng with 18 players other teams tour with 15. The host nation constantly chops and changes their squad through the series, like Jordan and Woakes, being brought into the series mid way by Eng, or last year in Ind Dhawan being brought into the side aginst Australia.
In ICC events all sides have the same number of players, submitted before the event to the ICC, and only those players play. Thus ICC exercises direct control over the squad sizes which is missing in bilateral events. The host side too must submit a squad at the start and cannot chop and change it in the middle of a tournament. So suddenly the host board cannot announce a new squad for their SF clash in an ICC event and recall a player who was injured so far.
Now I hope the difference between an ICC event and a bilateral event is clear to you.
Also with regard to, India's ODI history in Eng, why are you trying to ignore that India have won the Natwest series in 2002 beating England in the final and the much more prestigious CT, last year also beating Eng in the finals. So whether Ind have actually won a bilateral series in Eng or not is way secondary to the fact the Ind did win CT in Eng. No one is losing sleep over the fact that Ind have not won a bilateral series in Eng. They have won plenty of much more important trophies in Eng than some bilateral series - WC '83, and CT last year for instance. Which brings me back to the question what have Eng ever won.
I still really want Ind to win, but even if they don't India's legacy of winning major tournaments in England is far too tall to be affected by this bilateral series. Its taller than even England's. What mutlinational major event have England ever won in Eng?
As for the 4-1 scoreline, for starters, tomorrow's match is in all likelihood going to be washed out, so that alone takes care of that prediction.
Your point though is well taken, India are not the favs to win. However that is because they are not in form and absolutely nothing to do with the fact that India are not likely to win because this is a bilateral series and Ind have a poor history. That is a wrong way of looking at it.
History has nothing to do with anything. Ind are not in form and hence not favs. Whether it was a bilateral series or a triangular series, Ind would not be favs to win.
