India vs Australia 2013: The tale of Indian cricketing incompleteness

There again, the Australians are also subject to the same set of rules that the Indian contingent is harping about. Same restriction of four fielders in the deep in the non-power-play overs and the utilisation of the second new ball in the second innings that the Indian team says prevents the ball from spinning and swinging and whatnot.

Australian bowlers face the same challenges as their Indian counterparts

How did the Indians manage to lose the first ODI then? By all accounts then, it should have been the Indian team, more specifically the batsmen, who should have been able to come up with a marauding performance to seal India’s victory and take a lead right at the start of the series.

A lead, that would have been decisive enough to ensure that India still stood a chance of winning the series even in the wake of the insult heaped on by James Faulkner and his 30-run riot.

These elements of irregularities aren’t however new to Indian cricket. Its penchant to ignore its incompleteness has always been a factor hovering in the background, threatening to bring about its abrupt fall from the cricketing top order.

But even as history keeps repeating itself, the biggest disappointment is that Indian cricket never learns. It does well to pick up the pieces and regroup itself, but when it comes to ensuring its completeness as a team thereafter, it always falls short, allowing the cycle to continue in the most vicious and detrimental of manners possible.