Tendulkar's absence seems to have affected the team's planning

The difference the absence of just one player can make! If at all any proof was required that the Indian team would greatly miss Sachin Tendulkar's omnipotent presence, the first two matches in the Coca- Cola Cup in Colombo have proved it. The team just does not have the necessary qualities needed to offset the advantage that Tendulkar's presence gives it.

Yes, one understands it is not easy for any team to recover from the absence of a leading player, particularly one of Tendulkar's sublime capabilities. If anything is evident, it's not just the batting but even the bowling that has been weakened. But more than the batting, bowling or fielding, what has really hit the Indian team is the simple fact that Tendulkar is not around. His mere presence is enough to lift the team's morale.

Mentally, the team has been hit and perhaps this has turned out to be the most important factor. But it is true that Tendulkar's absence has also led to a number of changes which may not augur well for the team. For starters, it was taken for granted that there had to be a new opening partner for Sourav Ganguly. But in the first two matches itself, there have been two separate combinations tried out. Amay Khurasiya was chosen specifically as a replacement for Tendulkar, going by the statements made by the selection committee chairman Chandu Borde. But obviously the team management can't seem to decide on the opening combination. Why has Yuvraj been pushed to open the batting when his place is obviously in the middle order? And in the absence of Tendulkar, should it not be imperative for Ganguly to open the innings? And yet against Sri Lanka, Ganguly inexplicably dropped himself down the order. Somehow Tendulkar's absence has weakened not only the top order but also the entire batting line-up. It has also led to a change in plans but the team is yet to hit upon a winning strategy. They seemed to be going in for unnecessary desperate measures. Witness the needless tactic of sending Harbhajan Singh at No 4 against Sri Lanka. It's a confused team management out there in Colombo.

The bowling too looks thin in the absence of Tendulkar. His ODI career figures of 101 wickets at a strike rate of 56.4 with a best of five for 32 clearly illustrate Tendulkar's value to the side both as one who can curb the scoring as also his ability as a change bowler used to break partnerships. And in the event of a leading bowler not playing - like Ashish Nehra missing out the game against Sri Lanka - the Indian bowling really looked fragile. Against both New Zealand and Sri Lanka, they let the opponents off the hook and on pitches that were helpful to bowlers. The batting, with the uncertainty at the top and the inexperience in the middle, really cries out for Tendulkar, as the collapse in both the games clearly illustrates.

The value of the bench strength in any side is vital if it is to overcome the sudden withdrawal of a prima donna. The Indian team just does not have the resources required to make good the absence of a giant like Tendulkar. That is the most obvious lesson driven home by events in the first two matches in the Colombo competition.