A tinge of disappointment perhaps but nothing more

The denouement must have come as a disappointment to the millions of Indian cricket followers the world over. But let's face facts. Without Sachin Tendulkar, was there a realistic chance of winning the Coca- Cola Cup tournament in the face of competition from two sides, one businesslike and the other always formidable at home? The format of the tournament was such that it gave enough opportunities to every side to recover from a bad start - as indeed it helped India. So one can't have any complaints on that score. It's just that in the final analysis India faltered at the last hurdle yet again in the face of some inspired play by Sanath Jayasuriya and his men.

We Indians, an over emotional bunch, always believe that our super heroes can win almost all the time and almost against any opposition. There is this tendency to downplay the achievements of members of the opposing sides and talk only about the great players in the Indian ranks. The fact remains that both New Zealand and Sri Lanka are very good sides. Besides winning the World Cup in 1996, Sri Lanka have shown that they are not a team who can be taken lightly against any opposition and in home conditions, in familiar wicket and weather conditions, in front of a wildly partisan crowd, they can be a handful. If nothing, figures bear this out. They have won five out of six one-day competitions played in the island nation in the last six years. And New Zealand too showed by their triumph at the ICC KnockOut tournament at Nairobi last year that they had shed the bridesmaid tag once and for all.

Given this background, it should have been obvious to everyone - except for the unreasonably optimistic Indian cricket fan - that winning the Coca-Cola Cup was not going to be a cinch - especially with Tendulkar not around. In retrospect, a spot in the final and a loss to Sri Lanka cannot be termed as a totally unexpected result. Why then is the feeling of disappointment so pronounced especially when for long it seemed like India would not even figure in the final?

Well, there are various factors for this. For one thing, in Tendulkar's absence, the opening slot became a sort of lottery. That four combinations were tried out in seven matches tells its own sorry inconsistent sale. This sort of shuffling can only lead to disaster as exemplified by the fact that for the first five matches, the average partnership for the first wicket was nine. And though Ganguly and Shewag came good with a stand of 143 runs against New Zealand, it was another early departure for the opening pair in the final.

A second major disappointment was that the newcomers, despite many chances, did not grab the opportunities that came their way. Some tell tale statistics will illustrate this. Hemang Badani in six innings scored just 78 runs. Amay Khurasia, who was probably lucky to make the trip in the first place, got 12 runs from two innings. Reetinder Singh Sodhi from five innings scored just 83 runs. Yuvraj Singh had one success and four failures - not a very encouraging ratio for a player who is still considered one of the most promising cricketers in the land.

The bowling was always going to be the weaker of the two departments so one does not want to be overly critical of the bowlers. And yet it must be said that at crucial junctures, most notably in the final, Ashish Nehra and Zaheer Khan let the side down. Yuvraj Singh, suddenly finding himself in the unfamiliar role of a frontline bowler did reasonably well and of course not much was expected of RS Sodhi and Shewag. Perhaps Mohanty should have played in more than one match and certainly Ganguly himself should have bowled more are the only other points that one can make.

The inconsistency of the players was another irritating factor. Each member had one - maybe two - good performances which were almost buried somewhere amidst four or five failures. Both the experienced players and the youngsters were guilty of this. Rahul Dravid was fairly consistent with his run getting but in his case, the strike rate left much to be desired. About the only exception was Harbhajan Singh. The 21-year-old off spinner was easily the outstanding Indian player in the tournament. Taking wickets, keeping the batsmen guessing, restricting the scoring rate and trying out his bag of tricks even in the limited overs game, Harbhajan was a shining star.

The negative aspects are serious points to ponder over, but overall there is nothing very much to be discouraged about. Perhaps a touch of disappointment is understandable. But then again one must not forget the tremendous fightback by the team in winning three matches in a row when all was thought lost. For once, the tag of chokers would not seem to be in order. India lost to a better team. Perhaps the final margin could have been narrower. And perhaps the result might have been different had Tendulkar been around. But at best that can only be conjecture for the moment.