Required A Pollock, Flintoff

One of the great things about cricket is that itstimulates debate. It is the sort of game where no one really knows if they areright or wrong when they assess teams or individuals. After conceding the leadin the Test series against Pakistan and then again losing their way in the one-dayinternationals, pundits, critics, coaches will ask the question: why to India?

Indeed, my guess is that it was caused by a multitudeof factors, one being that Pakistan played as a team and the side seemed to havea better game plan.

Of course, this is pure speculation as I do not sitwith the Indian team and discuss these things.

I am only able to comment from our perspective as theopposition. I am often asked what I think of the Indian team. In fact, someoneasked me the other day can India win the 2007 World Cup. So much can and willtake place between now and the World Cup that the only answer is that India havethe same chance as most other teams in the competition.

India's performance in the last World Cup in South Africa was interesting. Theywere unheralded before the tournament started, for reasons I am unable toexplain. They have on paper a batting line up that rivals Australia's, both inability and talent. Yet following their World Cup performance they have beenunable to sustain that momentum and probably, as I write, have regressedslightly.

With a batting line-up boasting of Virender Sehwag,Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, Saurav Ganguly, Yuvraj Singh, Mohammed Kaif,most of us would agree that they would never be short of runs. Apart from theDelhi chase on a pitch not fit for one-day international cricket they stacked upthe runs heavily against us in the just-concluded series. So why did they fallfrom a 2-0 lead to concede the series?

Most modern day limited-overs sides have at least fivefrontline bowlers, usually six. South Africa in the 90s sometimes had seven.This allows for flexibility in strategy and tactics. India also have aninteresting problem that they have three very fine left-arm bowlers but likeright arm bowlers bowling over the wicket the ball ends up going wide of the off-stumpand the modern one-day player will latch onto any width.

I thought Ajit Agarkar's inclusion and his ability tocramp the right hander with reverse swing gave India more options.  LakshmipathyBalaji to me is a Test match bowler and not a one-day bowler as he also tends togive too much room outside the off-stump.

Another area where India will have to look at the make up of the team will be inthe fielding department, Kaif stands out but it looks pretty pedestrian apartfrom Tendulkar who is a great all-round cricketer.

The batting I do not think is a problem as the abilityto score heavily is always there.

One thing that really struck me though was a lotdepended on Dravid to do the donkey work in the middle, taking the ones andtwos. It seemed that the individual roles were blurred. I hasten to add herethat I am not privy to their meetings but I guess the instructions are prettymuch play your natural game -- Rahul you bat through, Kaif you pressurise themlater with running between the wickets, etc. All teams have that.

However, if one of Tendulkar or Sehwag were to batthrough the innings instead of blasting together then India would have a greatadvantage. Yuvraj is a fine player whose form did not come to the fore in thisseries. He did not get the opportunity to bat for long periods, but it is thesestrategic areas that India were unable to put it together, or that is how itseemed to me!

In the Test match arena it is similar -- runs are veryrarely the problem, but it is containing and pressurising the opposition with abalanced attack.

The side needs to find an all-rounder with the capabilities of an AndrewFlintoff, Shaun Pollock or Jacques Kallis. I suspect that most sides would cravefor that. I have always believed that in order to win one-day internationals itis important to have three dimensional cricketers in the team, not bits andpieces players.

I suspect that with the depth they have, India can puttogether many combinations. Despite V.V.S. Laxman being not included in the one-dayside, batting was never a problem. I was very impressed by S. Sriram atHyderabad as he is a quick singles and twos man, hits the ball hard and is abrilliant fielder, completely three dimensional. Irfan Pathan looks like he canbat. He might be encouraged to be used at seven with a specific role. In M.S.Dhoni, India have found a good all-round cricketer and as he improves he will bea very important part of their one-day side.

I think India can win the World Cup but I also thinkPakistan can! I suspect Australia think they can too! Don't forget the otherteams as well!

The most important part of any debate are concretefacts not hypothesis.

PTI