Opinion: The difference between India and England

England have taken an unassailable 3-1 lead in the 5-match series with one match to go. Have the hosts really outplayed India in this series as the score seemingly suggests? Barring the match at Lords, it doesn't seem they have.

India managed to create enough opportunities in this series, but they let slip the advantage at vital moments. When you have a team on the ropes at 90 odd runs with 6 wickets in the bag, twice in 2 matches, you just cannot let them score above 200.

Both at Edgbaston and the Rose Bowl England ended up sneaking their way out of trouble. England in crunch situations stepped up and battled whereas India, in similar situations, capitulated. Therein lies the difference between the two sides.

Both teams look formidable on paper. The Indian pace trio of Shami, Sharma and Bumrah bowled their hearts out and as such, their performance was commendable. Hardik Pandya and Ashwin also bowled well but lacked consistency.

England pacers were equally good, and I think the bowling departments of both the teams did their jobs beautifully, although, in the recently concluded test, Ashwin was able to hit the rough only once or twice in an over.

Moeen Ali, on the other hand, consistently hit the rough with at least 4-5 balls pitching in the rough. Maybe Ashwin was carrying a groin injury. Nonetheless, in the last test he was completely outperformed by Ali.

If it wasn’t the bowling, was it perhaps the batting that made the difference in the series?

The openers of neither teams were able to contribute meaningfully in any of the test matches. But in all fairness, overcast skies and a swinging ball were never going to make it any easier for them.

For India, Kohli was by far the stand-out batsman. Rahane too found his form but barring the two of them, and perhaps Pujara’s 132, there was no contribution from any of the other batsmen. As an English bowler, you knew that if you got India 5 down, the tail could be wiped off very quickly.

Pandya, Ashwin and Pant all have considerable potential with the bat, but they all either succumbed to their weaknesses or poor choice of shots. In Pant's defence, he has only played two matches and so it might not be prudent to judge him on the basis of these two performances.

The bowlers showed a lot of resilience with the bat, but asking them to get anywhere excess of 50 runs under difficult batting conditions would have always been too much of a long shot.

England’s middle order, on the other hand, showed a lot of fight. Joe Root always got starts, but couldn’t convert them. Jonny Bairstow was not at his best either. But it was the combination of Stokes, Buttler and Curran that tilted the balance in favour of England.

Even in the third match, it took some great bowling from India to break the partnership between Buttler and Stokes and eventually win the test. The trio have scored a total of 723 runs in the series so far. For India, it was Rahane, Pandya and Ashwin and they managed to score 510 runs.

As an Indian bowler despite getting England 4 or 5 down, there was no respite as the English came in and counterattacked. Ergo, as a bowler, the mindset was very different. England believed that they could win the match after getting Kohli out. India, however, had to toil hard even after getting 6 English wickets.

Buttler's maiden test century

England had Stokes and Curran as all-rounders who did well with both bat and ball. India, on the other hand, didn’t muster similar performances from their all-rounders. Both Pandya and Ashwin are capable of batting well but in this series, they hardly lived up to their reputation. This is where England were really able to take the game away from India and this is what stood between a potential scoreline of 2-2 and the actual scoreline of 3-1.