Signs of progress

India should win the NatWest series. Unfortunately, it's a frustrating occupational hazard of ODI tournaments that the best team does not always win. Ultimately everything hinges on performance in one game and as such the preliminaries are meaningless in the context of actually securing the trophy.

With Sri Lanka's dreadful form, the preliminaries have effectively been dress rehearsals, and merit must still be proven on the day under the increased pressure of all-or-nothing circumstances. Were it not for Tuesday's loss to England, India might have carried the burden of attempting to live up to their preliminary form.

Irrespective of Saturday's result, though, India can take heart from their evident progress. While it's dangerous to make judgements using such a small frame of reference, perhaps more so given India's notorious inconsistency, there have been some apparent positive signs from the NatWest series. The salubrious and effective combination of youth and experience, Tendulkar's move to No. 4, Dravid's flourishing in the middle order, and the general spirit shown, which is perhaps a by-product of winning, have all been positives. Heavens, TV commentators have even had some kind words for Ganguly's captaincy.

Rahul Dravid

Yes, India seem to be making progress as an ODI outfit, precarious trend though that is. The only clearly identifiable weak point is the seam bowling, and inconsistency from Zaheer, Nehra and Agarkar is probably inevitable. Their collective lack of experience will surely tell in the Test series (even Chaminda Vaas, veteran of 62 Tests, struggled badly with four wickets at 109 against England). In the present one-dayers, though, they are coping well.

Having Tendulkar at four now appears a progressive move. Initially it seemed dangerously imprudent to shift him from a slot in which he was recognised as the world's best, but the change has really been a better utilisation of resources. Batsmen can usually be guaranteed a significant influence down to four - any lower and their averages start to fall away, as the third wicket is often not lost until at least the mid part of the innings - and having Tendulkar there still gives India the opportunity to start well, without making it as debilitating if they don't.

Also, Tendulkar at four eliminates any possibility of a tendency for the other batsmen to think that if he departs early, the cause is lost. Sehwag and Ganguly must perform first, and theoretically the innings will have been sufficiently established for the batsmen following Tendulkar to fire. The first game against England demonstrated that India are less Sachin-dependent than previously. Opponents can no longer feel that having knocked over Tendulkar and Ganguly at the top, the rest of the order will follow. At four Tendulkar remains the key player, yet with less negative consequences when he fails. The longer list also helps see to that.

Dravid as wicketkeeper seems a similarly effective change. At first impression it appeared wicketkeeping might over-burden Dravid while weakening the 'keeping position, but with India changing 'keepers so frequently that the position was destabilised anyway, not too much is lost there, and with Dravid apparently embracing the role it frees up a place for a young talent to play. There is still time for both these moves to backfire but so far, so good.

It's difficult to believe, from his performances in this tournament, that there have been doubts over Dravid's suitability as a one-day player. He has played a role similar to what Michael Bevan does for Australia and such innings-stabilising players are invaluable. You would not want more than one or two in your side, perhaps, but the roles they fill are vital, for their temperament and ability to patiently manage an innings that has either gone awry or requires careful building.

Dravid's innings in India's first game against England was also a testament to experience, a familiar topic lately among English commentators. From the wider theme of scorning the excess of ODI cricket played, England have taken the opposite position and realised that they're actually not playing enough, and though in principle less ODIs are better, they need the matches to keep up to the superior experience levels of their opponents. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em (or at least, copy them). England have, with 22 ODIs in the past 12 months prior to this series.

Ronnie Irani

While on England, the demise of the bits-and-pieces player has also been an important step for them (Collingwood excepted). At first glance Ronnie Irani looks like your typical English bits-and-pieces type but he has played like a genuine bowling all-rounder, if only of the ODI variety. Mike Brearley wrote in 'The Art of Captaincy', addressing the flawed axiom "always pick the best specialists": "One's top cricketers need to be able to perform one of the specialist skills at the level required." Irani has done that, and Flintoff is now far from your token all-rounder, either.

Although experience doesn't mean a great deal if you don't learn from your successes and mistakes, it is undeniably valuable. Aside from their inherent quality as batsmen, the experience of Dravid and Tendulkar showed in India's third game when the pair played the situation to near-perfection. With India three down, they recognised exactly the need to preserve wickets, did not become overly impatient as the overs ticked by and the desired total grew distant, and then unleashed their assault with perfect timing as England had to employ their lesser bowlers. With the free-hitting youth of Yuvraj, they ripped 106 runs from the last 10 overs. The eventual total of 285 in the washed-out game vindicated their approach and was a victory for experience, as they had the benefit of knowing they could delay acceleration and still reach the desired score.

So the English point is valid -- experience counts. That said, if the England squad had more games behind them they could no longer trade on their underdog mentality. Hussain has said England need to play well for a whole game to win; they can't turn it on and win with bursts of inspiration like the more talented sides. This overlooks some fundamentals, though.

Yuvraj and Tendulkar were able to produce their late-innings fireworks in game five because of the solid, patient partnership built through the middle. It needed the positioning more than the talent and the partnership, not only Tendulkar, should have been instructive for England. For me, one of India's perhaps overlooked strengths in both forms of the game is that once a partnership is really established, they punish the opposition. Batsmen don't give their wickets away when on top; when they're dominating they continue to dominate. This is borne out by the ODI wicket partnership records, of which six are held by Indians (seven of top ten partnerships for any wicket). Those moments may be all too few and far between, sure, but the point stands. It's a tribute to determination and ruthlessness, the sort of qualities on which this England side should pride itself.

With that recognised, there's no reason why England can't get into the sort of positions from which their hitters like Flintoff can produce the same type of spectacular batting. Experience and talent are only part of the equation.

Of course, experience does not automatically equate to performance, either. It still comes down to consistency and optimum performance in the key matches, which all sides crave. The team that is able to best produce those attributes should win the final.

More Columns

Mail Daniel Laidlaw