The sense of entitlement in the Indian team and their media acolytes is quite staggering. Clearly, they appeared to be saying before the first Test, we are so good, so super-fine, that we do not require the preparation of others. We, after all, are India. Perhaps they might have taken notice of the old sporting mantra about failing to prepare and preparing to fail.

The demands of the Indian Premier League, however understandable from the financial sense, have undermined the preparation of Mahendra Singh Dhoni's team to such a degree that the Indian cricket board, if it has any integrity when it comes to the status of Test cricket, should investigate it and if necessary limit the participation of its international stars.

Virender Sehwag is not here having delayed a shoulder operation until after the IPL, Gautam Gambhir missed the West Indies tour because of it, Zaheer Khan's fitness was compromised by it, Sachin Tendulkar's mental resource drained by it. India's sole successes in what, given the massive advantage they were accorded by winning the toss, was a defeat of such magnitude that it bordered on humiliation, were from those players who were in the Caribbean.

The excuses from the team and their apologists have been endless: India, we are told, are notoriously slow starters and just wait until Trent Bridge; the pitch, said Dhoni, was uneven and our batsmen were forced to play at deliveries they would rather have left; the loss of Zaheer on the first day was critical; Sachin was ill; we were forced to bat out of position. Anything that could go wrong, said Dhoni citing Murphy's Law, did. No mention that perhaps the side that played well as a unit, outbowled them, outbatted them, outfielded them, looked fitter and more purposeful, were better led, and having been put in were still able to declare twice, deserved to win the match.

Of course Zaheer was a loss but go into a Test match with an unquestionably brilliant but ageing bowler of suspect resilience, especially abroad, and virtually no current level of fitness for the long form of the game, and then have as your only back-up option the stumper taking off his pads and turning his arm over, and you reap what you sow. At times in the match, India were a shambles, a masquerade, and it would serve them well this week if instead of looking for excuses they were honest with themselves and found some valid reasons for their failure. No good being slow starters if the horse in front has bolted.

England, for all their success, will no more underestimate their opponents second time around than they did Australia in the winter. In Adelaide they just about played the perfect game, but here at Lord's there were flaws. If Zaheer's departure was a hammer blow for India, then the advantage England got from the loss of 40 overs on the first day, when conditions were at their most bowler-friendly and the excellent Praveen Kumar had the ball on a string, was inestimable. But Jonathan Trott's unflappability, the most responsible innings of his life from Kevin Pietersen, and the combative efforts of Matt Prior saw them through to flourish in calmer times thereafter.

In the end, though, a side wins Test matches because the batsmen between them score sufficient runs to give the bowlers enough in the bank at which to bowl. For England, the equation is telling and a fundamental reason why they are now within a whisker of snatching away that coveted No1 ranking. In the nine Tests since the start of the Ashes series they have not failed to bowl the opposition out in the first innings and only three times, in the draw at Brisbane when Australia had minimum time, and twice in rain-affected matches against Sri Lanka, have they failed to do so second time around as well. To have dismissed India twice for under 300 on what, despite Dhoni's assertion was a pretty decent batting pitch with the real trickery coming from the atmosphere, was a fine achievement.

When the match was over the England head coach, Andy Flower, was seen in warm embrace with the bowling coach David Saker, an acknowledgement of the input into the success, not least the manner in which he appears to have made the penny drop with Stuart Broad. Broad was a marginal selection for this match, and it remains hypothetical whether Tim Bresnan, who excelled in Australia, would not have bowled equally as well. We may find out at Trent Bridge, for which Tremlett is a doubt.

It is hard to find fault, though, with the response of Broad, who had been reminded of his role in no uncertain – and, if Saker was involved, abrasive – terms. Any so‑called enforcement, he was told, was to be done strictly on a needs-must basis, otherwise top of off‑stump is your target. Broad found the right length to make use of the swinging conditions, and later, when the demand changed, was able to pull his length back sufficiently to utilise some of the bounce differential that tall bowlers often manage to get on wearing pitches.

In a three‑man attack, there is no room for the weak link. The England trio, together with Graeme Swann, who took a backseat role but did so willingly and with skill, allowed no respite for India. If, in the end, India were not actually beaten by themselves before they started, then they were certainly done so by a quality attack at the peak of its game.