The Indian team finally managed to salvage some pride towards the end of their Caribbean tour by winning the truncated limited overs series.

Given the past record - on three previous tours, the Indians had won just two and lost ten one-day internationals - it can be rated as a commendable achievement. Too much should not be made of the weakness of the opposition, for even when their decline was palpable in 1997, the home team still took the one-day series by three matches to one.

Indeed, there was something positive about the Indian victory. The methodical selection of the replacements made for a nicely- balanced outfit with an ideal blend of youth and experience. The youth certainly did their bit in raising the fielding standards while the experience came in handy when it mattered most.

There is little doubt that the inclusion of Dinesh Mongia, Virender Sehwag, Ajit Agarkar, Tinu Yohannan, Yuvraj Singh and Mohammad Kaif  - none of whom played in the Tests ­ strengthened the team for the one dayers and gave it the cutting edge. Most, if not all of them, should be members of the World Cup squad some eight months later and the experience gained in the West Indies ­ limited as it was ­ will stand the youngsters in very good stead.

The induction of youth, however, should not mean that experience should be given the cold shoulder and in this regard a couple of points deserve to be touched upon.

© CricInfo

I was never happy with the selection of Rahul Dravid as wicketkeeper. Either his batting or his work behind the stumps is bound to suffer ­ as was evident during the three matches - and this is something the country can ill afford. As I have pointed out, Dravid is still very much one of our leading batsmen ­ yes, even in the limited overs game ­ and he should be allowed to concentrate on his batting.

It must not be forgotten that he was the leading run-getter in the last World Cup and it would be a folly to relegate him to the level of a fringe player in South Africa early next year. He must have the confidence that the team still needs him to get some quick runs, something he can achieve through judiciously placed singles and twos rather than big hits.

He must be handled with respect, based upon his record and reputation, and not treated as someone who can only retain his place in the squad if he can also keep wickets. As I have already pointed out in a previous column, this policy is also unfair to Ajay Ratra, besides being detrimental to the team's interests.

Another senior cricketer under pressure is obviously Venkatsai Laxman. As the man in form ­ he was the leading run-getter in the Test series ­ he should have been an automatic selection for the one-dayers. Instead, he was dropped to accommodate a younger cricketer and played only in the fourth one-dayer when Saachin Tendulkar was injured.

Encouraging youth is commendable but this should not be done at the expense of a in-form senior cricketer. A youngster should be made to earn his place in the side, not take the slot for granted.

Also, what was Sachin Tendulkar doing batting at No 4 in the final game? I thought we were given to understand clearly by the team management that he would bat at this position only when India were chasing a target and he would open the innings in case India batted first.

Tendulkar in fact did go in at No 4 in the third one-dayer when India were chasing. As Tendulkar is quoted to have said after the decider, "Sourav asked me if I would like to bat at No 4 and I said okay."

After making the policy statement public, why did the team management so quickly go back on it? Perhaps it did not make much difference to the result or to Tendulkar's reputation but it does speak poorly about the lack of planning and resolve. Once a tactical decision has been taken, it should be tried out for some matches before there can be any rethinking on the strategy to be evolved.

Overall, the tour was one that evoked mixed feelings. Losing the Test series to opposition that was not exactly formidable ­ and after taking the lead - must be termed as a disappointment. Against that, the victory in the limited overs series came as a pleasant surprise.

Individually too, the end of the tour report card is pretty much up and down. The middle-order batting did live up to its reputation and the promise of Wasim Jaffer holds out encouraging prospects. Shiv Sundar Das, considering his record and technique, was a major disappointment and it can only be hoped that the gifted youngster recovers his form and composure soon and comes off on the England tour

The bowling was a major problem on the eve of the tour and it remains a problem, particularly with Srinath having retired from Test cricket. Will four bowlers ­ whatever the composition ­ be enough to win the Test series in England? Is there enough ammunition in the bowling to win the one-day tri-series involving England and Sri Lanka? Given their dismal overseas record, can the two main bowlers Anil Kumble and Harbhajan Singh spin out the opposition?

© CricInfo

Amidst these question marks, the one encouraging aspect of the tour was the discovery of Ajay Ratra. Both in front and behind the stumps, the young Haryana wicketkeeper did exhibit enough skill and guts to show that he could finally solve India's long- standing problem in this specialised field. His being discarded for the one-day series was a mistake which one hopes will be rectified soon.

© CricInfo