India vs England match Tied, but MORAL VICTORY goes to ENGLAND, do you accept?

Ya ,we can say that the Moral victory is goes with England. But both team played well,and both of them had lot of problem also. The England were chasing so I will say that they won the match 55%. Indians batted without pressure. But Dhoni said the pitch turned more batsmen ftendly in the second innings. Any way I accept that England won the match morally than India

the match got tied but no body won. not even a moral victory. take india. they scored 300 in around the 45th over but they failed to even touch 350 with almost 6 wickets remains. they let england score way too easily . they got the breakthrough at the the batting powerplay and got some quick wickets with around 30 runs from 3 overs with only tail-enders left. should have won there.but no. we dont accept anything less than losing and so let them get a win which they almsot did. take england they let the indian batsmen pick them way too easily.didn't bowl like a world cup team.why no broad? they should be happy they contained the final stages of themgame and started very well. while dominating almsot 44 overs of their innings,only a minnow side will throw away a potential victory like that one. they had almost 7 wickets with 2 set batsmen with around 7 runs required. they give it away and settle for a draw. both dressing team will be extremely upset with the way they performed good for them because the next matches for both teams will be against minnow teams

I don't agree with you as India fought back from an inevitable loss and settled with a tie. If at all the word 'moral' comes into picture, then I say both teams faced 'Moral Loss' and not moral victory. While India is unhappy because of the reasons mentioned by you, England should feel sorry for themselves as they couldn't finish a well structured innings.

I think both side should take equal credit and equal blame. Nobody can boast of moral victory more than the other side. It is true England top order particularly Strauss and Bell scored the runs under difficult conditions, which nobody expected them to do, but they should have won the match hands down when Strauss got out. The strong England middle order crumbled. The innings from Strauss was 'once in life time' innings which they can't expect every time, the middle order has to chip in. If they can't win the match from such a strong position how they can claim the moral victory? India can not take the credit because they allowed England to come that winning position in their strong hold. So it is real tie in all respect.

Yes I think morally England wins because after putting around 350 on the score board a team can feel that they already have won the match its almost impossible to achieve this kind of huge target under artificial lights. One more thing which is need to be considered that chasing a target like this puts a great amount of pressure on the team who is chasing to they performed under huge pressure that is another reason I believe England morally won the match.

No I dont think so,the way strauss and bell were going they must have won the match.Amazing comeback by Zaks after being spanked all over the park in the first spell.But still the tailenders fot 28 off 12 that demorales the Indians.So the final verdict is its a morale tie aswell.

It was actually a very good match that finally wakes up the world cup, hopefully. I do not think it was a moral victory for England. I think England were odds on favorite to win the match around the 40th over match. So in a way India did greatly to come back and a point was a fair result to both teams and it vets my view that in the subcontinent pitches no score is enough. Cheers! Ram

I don't agree that England had the moral victory, I don't know what you mean by that, give examples in the game. I thought it was an amazing Cricket match and one that is very rare in an actual tie. Both teams will rightly think how did we not win that game?