If anything, the drawn first Test at Mohali proved that even in familiar surroundings and conditions, the Indian team has certain inherent weaknesses. The result certainly exposed the myth that we are invincible at home.

On the eve of the Test, one former Indian captain in his newspaper column wrote off the New Zealanders saying that the series would be ``an absolute cakewalk'' for the home team. He also said that Nash and O'Connor was not a combination to strike terror in the hearts of any line up. A few hours after readers had gone through his column, Nash captured six wickets for 27 as the Indians were shot out for 83 in 27 overs. And even though the Indians fought back commendably, first through an inspired spell by Javagal Srinath that kept the New Zealand lead to reasonable proportions, and then through their batsmen who of course really went to town, New Zealand weathered a difficult task - realistically they had to bat out 135 overs to save the Test - to pull off a honourabld draw. Whatever happens then in the next two Tests, certainly the series cannot end in ``an absolute cakewalk'' for the home team.

One must be careful when making predictions. There are so many points to be considered - the strengths and weaknessess of the two sides, the wicket and weather conditions, where the game is being played, the past record and present form of the contestants - that it is very difficult to be accurate. In this case, the former captain, having been proved wrong, in his column after the end of the Test, had no other option but to come down heavily on the Indian batsmen for not scoring runs quickly enough in the second innings and the Indian spinners for not bowling well enough to bowl out New Zealand on the final day, all the time maintaining his stance that the visitors were a ``brittle and average side''.

Well, if the Indians could not dismiss a ``brittle and average side'' in 135 overs through the fourth afternoon and the whole of the final day, what does it say of the home team? Simply put, it means the Indians were worse than brittle and worse than average. Where is the question then of such a team registering ``an absolute cakewalk'' in the three match series?

The truth however lies in the fact that the columnist was way off in his assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the two teams. I am not being wise after the event but I honestly felt even then - on the eve of the Mohali Test - that this was going to be a keen contest and I had said so in my curtain raiser for the Test in these very columns. And I listed my reasons for saying so. However good the record of the Indians is at home, one must have respect for an opposition that has made the semifinals of the World Cup - a competition in which India just about made it to the Super Six - and a team that has just won a Test series in England - something that was beyond the Indians in 1996 when the Englishmen were as much under the microscopic eye as they are now.

Certainly this is not an average and brittle New Zealand side. No team which has bowlers of the calibre of Cairns, Nash and Vettori in the line up can be average. No team which bats solidly if unspectacularly up to No 9 can be brittle. Under the inspiring leadership of Stephen Fleming, this New Zealand side has shown that if it has certain limitations which may make victory in the series difficult they do possess the will power to hold their own against the very best that India can field. Watch out for more engrossing contests at Kanpur and Ahmedabad.