'Indian thinktank losing bigger picture'

There has always been a sneaky suspicion, especially after the heroics of men like Harbhajan Singh and Lasith Malinga in the early days of the format, that T20 is a bowlers' game masquerading as a batsman's.

If we didn't already know it thanks to the IPL, it has become obvious at the World Cup in Sri Lanka that the lesser bowler rates above the lesser batsman when each innings is restricted to 120 deliveries and change.

Watching a Virat Kohli take a wicket against Pakistan, it became clearer.

Skipper Dhoni seemed to have rediscovered his magic touch in that game, with every move paying off handsomely, whether it was bowling Yuvraj Singh early or letting Kohli bowl.

True, he kept Kohli on for the extra over which went for runs, but by then it didn't seem to matter. Equally true, Kohli's dibbly-dobbs succeeded against a team that was so knotted up and tense that the top order seemed focussed on ensuring they remained not out rather than scored runs. It was a strange kind of insurance against the backlash expected from fans.

Not for the first time, an India-Pakistan clash brought out the selfishness of the individuals of one team just as startlingly it did the teamwork of the other. For losing captains – especially those like Hafiz, who seemed to be treading on broken glass most of the time – nothing goes right. When catches are dropped, the batsmen go on to make an impact. When Virender Sehwag dropped one, the batsman was dismissed in the next over. The game is kind to captains who take a chance, not so to those who want to play safe.

Still, questions must be asked about India's run chase. Were they not aware that they had to get to the target in 16.4 overs in order to overtake Pakistan on the net run rate? Or are all those lap tops used only for calculating income tax returns? This is not a rare occurrence in an Indian run chase. It is very well saying that two wins in a row will render irrelevant such things as net runs rates, but with Australia having almost qualified for the semifinal, it is possible that two teams could end up with the same number of points.

If India beat South Africa and Pakistan beat Australia, you could have three teams with four points each; on the other hand if South Africa beat India and Australia beat Pakistan, you will end up with three teams with two points apiece. There are other permutations, but these make the point. In the build-up to the semifinals, the net runs rate is crucial, and India were in a good position to put some credit into the bank on Sunday.

Beating Pakistan was important, but somewhere along the line the think tank seems to have lost sight of the big picture.

For India, the ideal math-free solution is for them to beat South Africa and for Australia to beat Pakistan. Then they will go through with Australia, leaving South Africa at the bottom of the pool and Pakistan just above.

The shorter the duration of the game, the greater is the role of luck in the final analysis. And this is where Dhoni's reconnecting with it is of significance. When Napoleon was stold of the strategic brilliance of one of his generals, he is reported to have asked, “but is he lucky?” Dhoni has “gone with his instinct” especially in the shorter formats of the game, and that it wasn't paying dividends in this tournament must have worried Indian fans. The Australia match was a disaster as team selection somehow took precedence over getting it right on the field.