At least, I am sure that many who watched the game would have realised why the Australians are favourites when it comes to winning the Wills World Cup. The point that India could have won the game is highly hypothetical and debatable, because any analysis should necessarily be based on what transpired, and not what could have been.

First, I must say that Shane Warne took the cake asfar as the bowling honours were concerned. I wouldn't be surprised if Azhar was not too pleased about the pitch which certainly gave some assistance to Warne. I am sure the Indians would have preferred a flat batting track which would have helped them counter the Aussie bowlers, particularly Warne. The leg-spinner is such a classical bowler and I just can't stop admiring the variety and confidence that is so apparent in his bowling. I feel that his tight bowling in the middle phase did a lot of damage to our chances.

Talking about India's chances, the Bombay game once again emphasised the point that India depends so much on Sachin Tendulkar's pyrotechnics. Sure, cricket is a team game, but that day, it was Sachin who put India back into the game after the loss of two early wickets.

India has been struggling to get off to a good start which is so crucial while chasing a biggish total, and Sachin again showed his class under pressure. What singles him out from the rest is his amazing ability to have a go at the bowling, whatever be the situation. India needed him to stay in the middle for as long as possible. But on his departure, India's hopes gradually ebbed.

I thought that Sachin looked so much better playing the ball into the gaps rather than going over the top. He is such a lovely timer of the ball and has an excellent eye which enables him to get into position quickly to play a stroke. Against the West Indies, it was his counter-attack that took the fight out of the former champions. Once he got going, he looked every bit a champion batsman.

It brings us to the point about India's over-dependence on Sachin. Against Australia, I thought that we mucked it up by pushing Vinod Kambli at No. 3 when we had a player of class and undoubted calibre in Sanjay Manjrekar. Kambli has been struggling for runs and has lacked the consistency to fit into such a crucial position.

In this context, I firmly believe that the selectors would have done well in blooding Karnataka's 'Mr Consistent' Rahul Dravid, instead of persisting with Kambli. Surely, Dravid's performance last season was enough to justify his inclusion. Of course, it is a bit late in the day now to talk about selection, but I, for one, cannot help but point out the blunder.

Likewise, Manoj Prabhakar is finding the going tough. No doubt, Manoj is still a difficult bowler to deal with during the slog overs, but I feel that he is banking purely on his experience and little else. Also, India cannot take a chance and open the batting with Manoj in one-dayers because he takes quite a while to settle down and is unlikely to push things a bit when the need arises.

Under the circumstances, India will have to do their homework right if they have visions of making it to Lahore. As I mentioned in my previous column, it is quite evident that we still are short on match practice. At the Bangalore camp prior to the World Cup, the players spent a lot of time practising the sliding and diving stops, but little else. The boys would have been better off playing a few first-class games, like the Ranji Trophy ties.

In my book, the Aussies won the game mainly due to their excellent running between the wickets and, of course, their fielding which was simply superb. This is another aspect that the Indian team needs to work on.

I quite enjoyed watching Mark Waugh bat. He was simply out-standing and very straight, with a silken touch about his strokes. His second century in as many matches did not surprise me in the least, for he is a true champion performer and the India bowling did not trouble him one bit. Small wonder then that the Aussies folded up after he got out.

India may eventually go far in the tournament, but I hope that the think-tank does not ignore the lessons that the Australians taught us. It is one thing to deny that we do not depend on one man and quite another to prove it by performance.?