Receiving their visas for England was about the only thing India successfully accomplished on their tour of England. The score line of 4-0 in the Test matches and 3 – 0 in the ODIs, in accordance with injuries and a blatant lack of preparation, which showed when team India could not acclimatise to the rainy conditions and seamer friendly tracks.
Similarly England have proven that the only success they’ve had in showing up to the matches and subsequently losing their wickets, as India have so far obliterated England in both matches, even… yes you read right, in the fielding department.
So the question then is; which team is actually better? One team has recently won the T20 world cup; the other team has won the World cup. Does this mean that the venue matters more than the players themselves? Can England never prevail on slower, flatter pitches? Can India never prevail on seaming, wet pitches?
For both teams, being number one has become the most important aspect of their game. Unlike the Australians and West Indians before, India and England don’t seem to be able to be the world’s best teams outside their own backyards. At home, they are fearless, dominant and decisive, away from home; they cross the pitch like lost, mindless sheep.
So must teams play in neutral venues for a true world champion to be found?
Or must India and England simply learn to love the game, not the result?
Technology will give us stats, the players will give us opinions but ultimately… we have no answer.
Until then however Spartans like Virat Kohli will continue to disdainfully dispatch bouncers with the pull shot that screams; ‘This Is India!‘