India need to be flexible with their bowling

Despite the strong showing against Pakistan in Adelaide, India cannot afford to be conventional in this World Cup. They need to approach this tournament, especially the quarters and beyond, with the cricketing equivalent of a guerrilla mindset, at least when bowling.

Ambush has to be the watchword, as India do not have wicket-taking penetration, in the conventional sense. Use current form as your selection barometer, and do not go by past performance. Not-so-ideal team selection and poor bowling form leading up to the tournament have left MS Dhoni with almost no alternative strategy.

At first glance, you might wonder how the same team, essentially, won the Champions Trophy so confidently. The difference was that India were just coming off a nice, big home-series win against Australia. And the opening batsmen and opening bowlers were in good nick. Bhuvneshwar Kumar was regularly getting the early breakthroughs and looked penetrative. But with his fitness and form on the downswing - and it's tough to tell which one slid first - India have a serious problem taking wickets. Without early wickets, R Ashwin and his spin colleagues don't look nearly as effective.

That is why India needs to play this World Cup the "Martin Crowe way" and keep things flexible. The team management needs to front up to the fact that the bowlers are not in good form. If Bhuvneshwar is still struggling for fitness, Dhoni should use Mohit Sharma instead and go with two spinners, preferably Axar Patel and Ashwin. Even if Bhuvneshwar is fully fit, on current form, I'd rather play Mohit, who gives you a bit more flexibility, as he can bowl with the new ball, or be first- change. With his variety, he can bowl decently in the slog overs as well.

Playing five bowlers is good, because with the current field restrictions in place, you cannot hope to contain without taking wickets. Thinking of Ravindra Jadeja as cover for a possible top-order collapse is more by way of providing comfort in theory than being useful in practice. While it is important for the top order to not be under pressure thinking of a long tail, in an ODI, where it is almost a given that you can accelerate later in the innings - given the current rules - the top order being a bit circumspect in the beginning might just work to your advantage.

India need to be street-smart about their bowling strategy. If playing on flat wickets, get one of the spinners to open the bowling with Umesh Yadav. And then mix it up a bit - use Axar occasionally with the new ball, go to Ashwin otherwise. If India are playing Sri Lanka, Pakistan or West Indies, for instance, use Mohit/Mohammed Shami. But with teams like South Africa, New Zealand, England or Australia, open with Axar or Ashwin; maybe go with Ashwin against left-hand openers.

Play Jadeja only if the pitch offers a bit of help for the spinners. Jadeja hasn't been playing too much cricket, and at the moment he does not have the control and the bounce of Axar - who will potentially be useful against some teams at the top of the innings and against others who struggle against accurate spin in the middle overs. Although he may not spin anyone out, and is probably not Test-match material yet, his ability to bowl dot balls can in itself lead to wickets in ODIs. Jadeja is much too plain on flat pitches, and his batting is a bit of a red herring now. He was good in the Champions Trophy, but the pitches in England surprisingly helped spin then. There's very little chance that, apart from Sydney, pitches in Australia will offer much to spinners. So Axar must be first choice to complement Ashwin.

Stuart Binny should not be picked unless it is on an absolute greentop in New Zealand. He clearly doesn't seem to be a suitable selection for the conditions. India have got stuck with this idea of needing to play a seam-bowling allrounder in Australia. They have seemingly forgotten the crucial fact that this type of allrounder needs to get you a wicket or two consistently. Binny might have been okay as seam back-up in typical English conditions or if India had four real wicket-takers in the attack. But that is clearly far from the case. The other error India made in selection strategy is not picking a legspinner, like Amit Mishra. He was one of the reasons India looked so good at the World T20. Either that, or they should have given Kuldeep Yadav a decent run ahead of the World Cup.

In Australia, you need wristspinners and bowlers who can get you wickets in the middle overs, especially with the current ODI rules. Picking two slow left-armers just does not make sense. Especially since you will almost never play both of them together. When you select bowlers for a World Cup 15, you don't have the luxury of having to almost disallow one of the potential bowling combinations by default. If India felt the need to play a legspinner in the first Test against Australia, why this sudden change of tack? You would think the case for playing a legspinner in Australia is even stronger in ODI cricket. Watching Pakistan's Yasir Shah bowl against England in the warm-ups only underlines this.

Australia, South Africa and New Zealand are favourites this time around, and what they have in common is bowlers who can get you wickets. England have the bowling, but James Anderson and Steven Finn in one-dayers can be attacked by good batting teams, and their batting might not have enough flair against good bowling sides. Pakistan with Saeed Ajmal and Junaid Khan in the side might have made a strong showing despite their batsmen. Sri Lanka might just spring a few surprises if Lasith Malinga stays fit throughout.

Till the actual tournament began, India were not playing like a World Cup-winning side. Far from it. But they seemed to discover new energy in the Pakistan game. If they add to this, by playing alert, attacking cricket with a flexible, dynamic bowling strategy, they might yet stand an outside chance. If they stick to rote strategy and selection on the other hand, they might find it difficult to make it past the quarters.