I know you're trolling but if you're just going to judge a team's competitiveness during a series by looking at the final scoreline then that's a really stupid way of looking at things.
England came very close to winning the 1st Test in the UAE against Pakistan last year, and gave themselves a shot at winning the 1st Test this series. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that had England had a spinner of the quality of Swann this year, that day 5 of the first Test might have gotten extremely close to an England win.
And a Test series takes on a whole different complexion if you win the first Test instead of drawing it. In the UAE, England got agonisingly close to saving the 2nd Test, from memory I think there were about 5 overs left when Rashid had a brain fart and smashed one down mid-off's throat. Given he'd been disciplined enough to bat out 150+ deliveries at that point, I again don't think it's out of the question that a slightly better batsman (Collingwood) goes the distance and saves the Test with England 9 down. That makes the series 1-0 Pakistan with 1 to play when it was very close to being 1-0 England. And for the 3rd Test in that series, England were poor on the final day but had gotten themselves into a position where they might have done better.
This series, they were in the driving seat in the first Test and have made India generally work hard for their wins. They had very poor 2nd innings performances in Mumbai and Chennai that's resulted in a loss by an innings, but they've competed for parts of the Test and forced India to play well to win. Both series were deservedly won by Pakistan and India, but England weren't a million miles away from drawing, or even winning the series in the UAE. And while I think India would still have won this series regardless, it doesn't take a lot to happen differently for the margin to be less severe. Better bowling day 5 in the first Test and better batting day 5 in Mumbai and Chennai and it's a 2-1 series win for India, which looks a hell of a lot better than 4-0. But at the end of the day, England weren't good enough to make those moments in games count, which is why they lost 4-0.
Coming back to scheduling, I think it's interesting that England let things slip in a lot of 3rd sessions during the series, which says to me there's a lack of mental fitness. And that possibly comes from a bit of burnout and a ludicrous schedule over the last few months. The other thing about this, and other series, is that with the schedule cramming in as many Tests as possible into a short space, the momentum in a series can sometimes take on the momentum of a runaway train, because England have basically had no opportunity this series to go away, take stock, work on weaknesses in nets and in a tour game, and come back for the next Test more prepared. It's just into the next Test, then the next. I think that's why we're seeing quite a lot of one sided series recently, because the touring side gets no chance to arrest the momentum and two defeats all of a sudden becomes three or four.
But sure, let's just trash England and offer a free pass to the worst touring side to visit India in the last 10 years because the pitches were too difficult for them. Marvellous posting.
