India didn’t adapt well enough. The bowlers conceded too many against Pakistan and, to be completely honest, were in the process of allowing Australia to put up a match-winning score when the rain arrived. The bowling was the real issue here, not the absence of key players. True, you cannot substitute a Yuvraj or a Zaheer easily, or in this kind of form a Sehwag, but that is the reality of all sport. Teams that rely on specific individuals will always be vulnerable. India need 15 or 16 players playing at a certain level and currently while that could be true of the batting, it isn’t of the bowling.

It might have been a throwaway line from Dhoni when he said that at times he felt he was three bowlers short. In fact in the game against Pakistan, at the 38 over mark, he could have looked around the ground and not found one player he could confidently throw the ball to. Harbhajan Singh, his most experienced bowler, and the bowler who really should have been his bank, his go-to bowler, had an average tournament. But most dramatic, and disappointing for Indian cricket, was the decline of Ishant Sharma and RP Singh. Coming on the heels of similar problems with Irfan Pathan, Munaf Patel and Sreesanth, it is a question that requires a very serious assessement. Good bowlers bowl well for ten years with the occasional bad period in between, not for two years or a season here and a season there. Could it be too much cricket? Could it too much in the mind? Could it be too little in it?

Inevitably then, the question will be what next? India cannot afford to lose Ishant and RP Singh but for the moment, a period of contemplation might be right. I wonder if players are encouraged to come up with their own solutions because one of the pitfalls of having too many coaches is that players stop becoming very good at thinking for themselves. As an observer I would love to know what these two think about this decline.

Given that India play a lot of cricket in home conditions I suspect they could get away with the current team composition where a lot of batsmen who bowl part-time stuff are slow bowlers. At some point Yuvraj will return and India can be expected to use more of Sehwag and Raina. But the real balance in the team will come from having a seam bowler who can regularly bat at number seven (hence the value of Irfan Pathan) or having one of the top six bowl seam up. India tried doing that with Abhishek Nayar but he is not going to be a seam bowling all-rounder. Nayar is a good cricketer but his place in the side is as a batsman first; certainly at the moment.

The big question the selectors need to address is what to do with Rahul Dravid. Like he has done most times in his career, he has contributed to the team since his return. He provided the substance in the match against Pakistan, I am pretty certain that was his role, and didn’t ever look out of place. He was brought in as an asset in conditions that were expected to be difficult and to then leave him out when the conditions are more conducive to the sub-continent style of batting would be unfair. If I was Dravid I would feel used. I know there is talk of putting a team together for the 2011 World Cup but much has to happen before that. I know Virat Kohli has looked good and I think he will benefit from being in the squad but somebody has to knock the door down and I haven’t seen anyone do that yet.

India’s player of the tournament was probably Ashish Nehra. And it is a great story for those who think they are down and out and that their moment has gone. A year ago, in spite of a decent IPL, he was probably not even among India’s top ten seamers. Now, in the absence of Zaheer Khan, he has emerged as number one. Hope and practice is a very good combination!