Many lessons

On paper, the Indian cricket team is the second-strongest in the World Cup""only India and Australia have four batsmen each with international one-day batting averages in the 40s. The Indian team is also by far the most experienced, and therefore should be expected to know how to deal with pressure situations. The problem of course is a combination of two failings, one old and the other new. The first is a lack of mental toughness or discipline, the second is that the batting heroes have dropped their averages sharply in recent months (Sehwag managing just 17.50). Both factors make the team more susceptible to collapse than the big names in it suggest. It is worth noting that, of the three batsmen in form, two did well in the disastrous Cup opener against Bangladesh (only Dhoni failed).

The first lesson therefore is that form matters, which is a point that the Indian captain has stubbornly refused to recognise in picking his team. There were other mistakes too on Saturday, like under-estimating the opposition, batting first even after knowing that the pitch would ease out as the match progressed, and undisciplined bowlers who fed too many loose balls to the opposition. Bangladesh performed well in all aspects of the game, and has emerged as the fourth serious cricketing nation in South Asia, having beaten mighty Australia recently, and then New Zealand in a warm-up match last week. India is now close to matching Pakistan's spectacular self-destruct""and perhaps leaving the World Cup's corporate sponsors wondering why they ever relied on a team that has performed poorly over the past year and more.

India's performance must lead to the old question about the structure of domestic cricket. The issue is whether it trains cricketers enough to be able to cope with what is required at the international level. Domestic cricket in India is woefully uncompetitive. With the top players opting out season after season, there is little attraction to the game, with the usual consequences of low turn-outs and a lack of attention. Of course, with the schedule of international cricket as tightly packed as it has become, you cannot seriously expect first-team players to be able to find the time to play domestic cricket too. This is where the cricket authorities should take a stand, by limiting the amount of international cricket that the team plays, and encouraging players to go back to play for their zones and states. Only then can interest return to the local level, where all development normally happens. The time may have come to consider limiting the number of international games per year to around 30 and allowing each of the top players to play not more than 25 of these. India also needs to have a clear cricket season of just about 180 days, instead of today's 300. That may leave television short of big sports days, and the answer to that could be provided by similar reform of other domestic sports, and the invitation to leading international players in different sports to join domestic teams. Indian sport now has the financial muscle to pay for them.

Finally, the time has come for South Asian followers of the game to become less unbalanced in their support, in good times and bad. Going ga-ga in victory and attacking cricketers' homes in defeat reveals an undernourished ego that speaks even more poorly of the country than its cricket team's performance.