Come off it. Broad bowled brilliantly throughout the game and whilst Anderson wasn't at his very best, he still got a fivefer. If India had batted first, England's bowlers would have made a right mess of India's batting lineup.
The reason they made those mistakes was down to one thing - building pressure, from bowling good lines and lengths. Batsmen like Dravid don't hang their bat out at a ball like that unless someone has been bowling well!
I thought broad bowled well in the first innings, but not in the 2nd. About 20 odd times, I called whether he'd bowl it full or short and I was right nearly all the time.
I agree with you that India would have been absolutely raped if they had been put into bat.
Honestly I thought tremlett was the best bowler. It looked like the other two Pacers generated some play-and-miss, but in reality they were just leaves. With tremlett, the extra bounce he got genuinely troubled the batsmen, even tendulkar at times.
Yes, while England played better, surely you can see that victory was made significantly easier for them with the loss of two players and injury/illness to two others?
regarding those problems: sehwag's was unlucky and is a chronic problem, but India had the opportunity to cover for it with mukund, who came in and did a good job IMO. With zaheer, that was a huge blow, but was down to poor preparation and organization, leaving India with 3 frontline bowlers. With gambhir and sachin, that was very unlucky and couldn't have been planned for, so in the circumstances they covered pretty well. And for gambhir tto come in and play as he did shows what a soldier he is. Well played to him.
Don't get me wrong, England was the better team each and every day, but they got some assistance along the way.
