As I have been saying, this Indian team is very brittle in both the batting and bowling departments. Although we have taken a leaf out the successful Australian model, the system and methods of training have got to be utilised effectively in their entirety. We have shown tremendous improvement in fielding but it is imperative that a batsman or bowler first contributes in his chosen department; whatever else happens is a bonus. This side boasts of 'allrounders' who neither can bat sensibly nor bowl to save their face. In such a situation, the think tank has to make the role of each player clear and suggest what is expected of them.

India's last match against New Zealand was disastrous. The Kiwis were aware that if any batsman could see India through, it was Ganguly and so their game plan was to get rid of him as early as possible. As luck would have it, Ganguly opened the innings instead of keeping the New Zealanders in suspense by coming down the order. Ganguly has a fine record as opener but the rub of the green is not with him right now and he is better off coming after 10 or 12 overs. Once he got out cheaply, New Zealand were confident that 201 was a good score to defend. It is a pity that Rahul Dravid has not yet become a force to reckon with in the limited overs game, especially when he has to carry the side in the midst of a run chase.

The one match suspension slapped on Ganguly by Match Referee Cammie Smith was, I felt, very unfair. Ganguly's was the normal, frustrated gesture any batsman would show in such a situation. If we go back in recent history, it was nothing compared to what Michael Slater got away with. I believe there should be some provision for the players to vent their emotions on the field as long as it does not get offensive. The loss of Ganguly gave Dravid a chance to display his prowess as captain against Sri Lanka and I thought he handled the situation very well considering it was only his second game in charge.

I would however give the credit primarily to the bowlers for responding magnificently. When Sri Lanka had advanced to 120/1, the prospect of a total even as high as 280 looked likely, but all the bowlers combined well to skittle them out. It was the first time in the competition that all the Indian bowlers used produced such a disciplined effort. With the target restricted to less than 200, Laxman and co., who had struggled to make any sort of impression until then, got a massive psychological boost.

In Tendulkar's absence, India have struggled to develop a durable opening pair with four different combinations being introduced in four games. Rather than searching for makeshift arrangements, I thought a specialist opening bat like Shiv Sunder Das would have fitted the bill but the opportunity to blood him in the one-day game has gone abegging. For the moment, India should persist with Virender Shewag at the top of the order. I believe he's doing his job even if he's making only 20s or 30s and given some support from the other end, India can get off to a healthy start.

In my view, VVS Laxman is the ideal candidate to open with Shewag. It's true India's past experiment with him as opener did not succeed but those were different times. Laxman was apprehensive at the time because he was not a certainty in the team. He need not worry about his place now and should be more self-assured following his unbeaten knock of 87 against Sri Lanka after a run of modest scores. Unlike the wickets in the earlier part of the tournament, the track for India's game against Sri Lanka offered a fair contest between bat and ball, providing some leeway for the batsmen to indulge in their strokes. If we get a good, true wicket like that in our remaining games, I think India still have a chance of reaching the final, provided all our key players are fit.

© CricInfo