Ramnaresh Sarwan played the innings of his life in a zigzagging one-dayer. Amid mini-fires in the stadium, pelted water bottles on the outfield, and mounting pressure on the pitch, he never lost his head and smacked a memorable four off a last-ball full-toss. He had risen to the moment just as he had to several others in the course of his innings. When Carl Hooper fell in the 39th over, the second wicket in the space of seven balls, West Indies needed close to eight an over. From that point, Sarwan made 48 off 38 deliveries, and chose an appropriate time to hit each of his three sixes and four of his six fours. There were two fine nineties in the match, but this was the innings that made the difference. It had class, but more importantly, it oozed character.

Of those nineties, Agarkar's was the better one, because Wavell Hinds had two lives, or maybe even three if you include a close appeal for caught-behind. Agarkar didn't play the pinch-hitter as much as the naturally offensive No. 3. There was criticism at his promotion, the main argument being that this Indian batting line-up does not require a pinch-hitter. It probably does not, but that is missing the point.

The purpose really was to see if Agarkar inspires enough confidence to be able to include an extra allrounder (say Sanjay Bangar) instead of one of VVS Laxman or Dinesh Mongia, who have been batting at No. 3 over the last year. This would allow for a bowling line-up of two spinners and three seamers, and might mean that one of Mohammad Kaif, Rahul Dravid or Agarkar slide up to No. 3. Nobody says that is the best possible combination, but surely it must be considered an option. Better to tinker now than be panned by today's critics in the World Cup for not having been flexible enough.

The crowd behaviour was a disgrace. At one point, the match was halted, and almost granted to West Indies based on the Duckworth-Lewis method. It was a pity that a formula needed to be even considered: ideally, the home team would straight away be penalised, though it's no fault of the cricketers. Yet, this creates too many complications. What about neutral venues?

Cricket crowds in India are a mixed bag. Their passion can lend a sense of occasion, but their stupidity should not be tolerated. During the Mumbai Test, the West Indians, Merv Dillon in particular, were splattered with abuse, often with racist connotations. Over here, as is generally the case, the unrest was a show of ire towards their own side. That does not makes it any more civilized or pardonable.

Yes, the police (as always) could have been more vigilant, but a fundamental sense of decency has to come from within. The board must dare to blacklist venues.

Bans should have been slapped on Eden Gardens after the semi-final of the 1996 World Cup between India and Sri Lanka, and again after a Test against Pakistan in 1999, because these were both instances where it wasn't one person misbehaving or even ten, but entire sections of the stadium acting together. A message needs to be sent out. Jamshedpur does not deserve an international match for the next five years.

Rahul Bhattacharya is assistant editor of Wisden.com in India.

© Wisden CricInfo Ltd