Process is proven, results need refining

India's exit from the World Cup with a crushing 95-run defeat to Australia should be neither surprise nor shock. Or even a cause of lamentation. It was the conclusion of a World Cup campaign that was built on thin ice given the team's limitations and its ability to skate lightly over them.

Following a miserable two months in Australia, it was their opening World Cup game against Pakistan that served as the best way to jump-start the creaking Indian wagon. It gave the team lift-off and helped them get going for their next match - against South Africa at the MCG, which was to be in real terms their toughest group game.

It was a match won in a way India know best and have been doing so for a while (at one point, in Test matches overseas as well): batting first, maximising their batting skills to pile up the runs and using the weight of those runs to dictate the course of play. This with an 86,876-strong crowd that turned Melbourne into a home game and added to the suffocation of a mounting asking rate.

Despite the passion and drama surrounding the match against Pakistan, the South Africa game was India's best. After South Africa, the Indians moved for a month through the tournament like a maglev train on a cushion of air.  In the semi-final against Australia, the maglev's poles were reversed and the cushion of air instantly deflated.

Seven straight wins were unexpected, given what preceded in Australia, and for that the class of 2015 must be given due credit. India's batsmen put their full range out on display, the fielding was arguably of the highest quality seen by an Indian team and the bowlers' sharpness was shining-razor stuff.

What also worked in their favour was the quality of the opposition that they faced as they moved through the group - Pakistan, South Africa, UAE, West Indies, Ireland, Zimbabwe - which was always due to happen because of the World Cup's current format. With Super Sixes and the like, the level of urgency increases with every match as the event wears on; in this format, two groups, top eight to knockouts, things can actually flatten out through the group stages depending on the draw.

After back-to-back victories in Perth, India's main aim was to top the group and the competition that stood between them and the No.1 position was Ireland and Zimbabwe. It could have been easier, but fiendishly difficult it was not. A quarter-final line-up against Bangladesh was a draw that worked in India's favour. Bangladesh matched them - but only for a very brief period. After that it was back to a familiar template.

The semi-final proved what was always known: that India were one batsman short and using Ravindra Jadeja as a bowling allrounder was not going to work against high-quality outfits. That had, in fact,  happened before - in the tri-series that had been called a "waste of time" by team director Ravi Shastri. One good use of the time that the tri-series could have served was to remind India that their batting reserves were meagre.

Against teams with high-skilled bowling in a World Cup knockout, one of their top batsmen would have to produce a miracle innings, ideally their most experienced batsmen with 100-plus ODIs under their belt. Rohit Sharma, Virat Kohli, Suresh Raina and MS Dhoni fall in that category but none could really respond in Sydney. Given that the next World Cup is going to be held in England, separating those batsmen who can tackle lateral movement and play attractive strokes from those who can only do one of the two may be a good idea for the future.

The real surprise of the India campaign was the transformation of the quick bowlers from scatter-gun specialists into a well-tooled pack. Mohammed Shami, Umesh Yadav and Mohit Sharma had enough time to work out what worked best for them in Australia, and hit the intangible yardage between short and good length. They not only asked questions of batsmen but punished those who failed to answer them, including the rampaging South Africans. Against Australia, along with the spinners, they applied brakes in mid-innings but at the end found a familiar nemesis - wild-eyed lower-order hitters.

What did this World Cup prove with respect to the India bowlers in ODIs even under the current lot of regulations? That India's quick bowlers can be high-pedigree thoroughbreds as those from anywhere else in the world, but need to be looked after like the real ones on four legs.

What are the omens for the future? The ODI team between now and the 2019 World Cup could well look largely similar, especially in terms of batsmen, who are always given a greater leeway to "develop." The bowlers, particularly the quicker ones, are a brand Indian cricket administration has always struggled to handle capably.

The biggest change that India will have to deal with is captaincy, as it will have captains in different formats, with the Test captain a younger and most ambitious man. Minutes after India were knocked out, Dhoni told the TV cameras that he felt fit and was running around suitably, and would think about his ODI future only after the 2016 World T20. A day before the semi-final, in an interview to the BCCI website, Kohli was asked how being captain had affected his outlook towards ODI cricket and he said, "I have been vice-captain for the ODI side and I would keep giving inputs to MS about the things that I felt he could use. Now, in recent times knowing the fact that I probably will have to lead the side in the ODIs as well in the future at some point of time, I see more of how Dhoni changes his bowlers, at what stages and situations of the game."

Amongst Kohli's many fine qualities as a cricketer, batsman and competitor, patience and forbearance do not quite figure in the top three. There is little doubt that in between this World Cup and the next one, a churn will be afoot.

A frequently repeated argument during India's struggles in Australia was about the team being happy with the processes they were involved in and the attacking brand of cricket they had been playing. At the end of these four months, we return to the process versus result debate. Should India's World Cup be judged by the standards of their seven straight wins or their single defeat? The seven victories are worth celebrating and enjoying on the given day, what they did for the confidence of the squad and their general feel-factor. Look back to the 2011 World Cup, though. It was played at home and despite that made for a hard, chaotic scramble all the way to the title.

Which one do you prefer?