Agree with barmyarmy, whether you agree with the rankings (system) or not, it is done in a way that the fact England are playing at home when they go top is irrelevant. Seem to be plenty of excuses for losing floating around, the better side won so get over it
A very impressive and satisfying win, given the fact that, like barmyarmy said, England had to take 15 wickets in the end. 3 of those were Morgan/Strauss/Swann's fault and the other two could have been done away if certain Indian batsmen didn't oppose DRS. It would appear their opposition has worked wonders for them.
The Indians could as easily suffer from the lack of LBW referrals as gain, while England could bemoan the number of errors in umpiring and catching they still won comfortably as I was sure they would. I still can't believe the pundits were going on as if the pitch was a flat 'un, there was plenty in it for the bowlers as the various spells of wickets reinforce. Sure the bowlers "bowled well" for those wickets, but you don't get multiple instances on most pitches and I think the totals were a little inflated
Sure England got to 160/3 in the 1st innings, but it could have been worse and they didn't have to face Khan (2/18) much. India were then bowled out for 286 and 261 while inbetween those innings England were reduced to 62/5 and 107/6, all except the 1st innings of the match heading for par of 300 which is far from the batting belter the pundits would have you believe it was. Sure there were runs for those who batted well, but there was enough movement in the pitch to make sure the batsmen could get a good ball at any time. Aside from the England 1st innings which included KP's cracking innings, 816 runs were score for 27 wickets @ 30.22 per wickets, set fair for totals around 300 which is way below what I'd suggest for a flat track.
The fact that the second Test starts on Friday seems a little too soon and a little unfair on India too, since they have illness, injury and fatigue haunting their team at the moment.
Poppycock, it's the same for both sides and it is just bad luck on India that they are the ones with injuries and illness. Would it have been "a little too soon" if England had lost Pietersen and Swann to injury........................? (as well/instead) Both sides start on Friday, that wasn't decided during or after the 1st Test or indeed based on the injuries and illnesses. That's life, you can't always have your best players available as is the case with Sehwag's absence.
MOTM is a tough one, the obvious key performances are Pietersen's 202no, Prior's 71 and 103no, Broad's 74no and 4/37 and 3/57, Dravid's 103no and 36 and Anderson's 5/65
I'd narrow it down to one batting (Pietersen more influential in the result, special mentions to Dravid and Prior) and one bowling (Broad had a bigger impact overall, special mentions to Anderson, and lesserly Kumar and Sharma)
I see officially it is Pietersen, well I'd give it to Broad. He bowled well in both innings, kept India in check with three of the top four in their 1st innings when the match could have moved towards parity and then his 74no came at a crucial time when India were still in the match. You could argue Prior played a bigger hand than Pietersen overall, a key 71 when the score had been 270/5 in the 1st innings, and a hugely decisive 103no when it had been 62/5 in the 2nd innings with all results then still possible. Law of big number has been applied officially though, immense innings as it was - as any double usually is.
