The debacle against England included vastly superior bowling by England - bowling to their strategic fields so well the '59-metre boundary' became irrelevant, combined with the poor batting by India, which never looked able to match the confident batting exploits of Bairstow, Roy, and Stokes. Shami took wickets but his attempted yorker fulltosses cost at least 25 runs - he needs to practice them. Even the fielding was not upto scratch. The team has to find a way to make up for the missing Dhawan; the late inclusion of Pant may have caused his problematic performance. And neither Rohit nor Kohli looked anywhere near as imperious as the English batsmen. Kohli said the pitch remained 'flat' when India batted; if so, why couldn't a more aggressive approach be taken against the England bowling? Lots of questions to answer. Unlike India which have looked more vulnerable as the tournament has progressed - they nearly lost to Afghanistan! - Australia has looked increasingly more invincible, going from strength to strength. One of the weaknesses of Indian batting has been lack of six-hitting ability, which cost it the World T20 in Mumbai some years ago. Pandya tried, but he could only hit fours, which the English fielding dried up. When there is a 59-meter boundary on hand, why could Indian batsmen not take advantage, as with reverse sweeps? Lots to ponder on and work on. Or else the current #1 ODI ranking will be meaningless.