Against a weak British Universities side on Friday, the Indi- ans opted for batting practise instead of pushing for a win. And in the process, gave up its last chance of pocketing the 2,500 pound bonus that food and beverages giant Tetley holds out for visiting national sides in the event of winning any of the tour games.

The Tetley Challenge Series - which involves the three-day games touring teams play against county outfits - began seven years back and proved an instant hit, if only because the huge purses on offer (a county that defeats a touring national side gets to pouch 7,500 pounds and that, even in these inflationary times, is no small potatoes) made rival captains keen to go for a win. Earlier, captains of touring sides tended to allow their batsmen to take root in the middle, treating the county games as a kind of extended net practise and, in the process, boring us all to tears.

It will, of course, be argued that this is precisely what a tour game is meant for - to allow the visiting sides to acclimatise. But then, what precisely do we mean by acclimatising? Does a procession of batsmen scoring hundreds against club class attacks equal acclimatisation? Or does it make more sense for the touring team to go flat out to ensure wins, not only because there's big bucks riding on success but also because it gets the whole team charged up for the Tests to come?

Pakistan - just beginning its own tour of England - is a side that illustrates the latter theory. When they last toured here in 1992, the Pakistanis lost their first tour game to Northamptonshire, then went flat out in the remaining games to win a total of nine out of 12 games played. The side pouched as much as 50,000 pounds from Tetley, true. But let us not forget that it also went on to win the Test series 2-1.

There is something to be said for acquiring the winning habit, after all.

It is a habit India seems in dire need of. For two seasons, it played all its games at home on spin-friendly wickets, and conned itself into believing it was a world class side. The minute it stepped outside its own boundaries, though, India found itself on the losing end - at Sharjah, at Singapore, and now in England.

It is not that we lack talent - a side that boasts Sachin Tendulkar, Mohammad Azharuddin, Javagal Srinath, Anil Kumble and such suffers, rather, from an embarassment of riches. It is, rather, that we play our cricket in keeping with our tradition of karma. A sort of ``whatever will be, will be, so what's the use of working up a sweat about it?'' attitude on the field that results, ultimately, in the colossal waste of all that talent.

So how do we change this?

Such solutions as providing competitive wickets for domestic tournaments, picking players on the basis of form and ability and not zonal considerations - these have been discussed threadbare.

But there is one other thing that we need doing - and that is, to inculcate in our team the determination to win. Every time they go out into the field - whether it is against the current world champions, or against the county that ranks lowest in the championship table - the attitude must be to go flat out, to do whatever needs to be done to register a win. For as teams like Pakistani, Australia and South Africa (and of late, even Sri Lanka) will tell you, winning is as difficult a habit to shake as losing.

Which is why I didn't quite manage to stomach Azharuddin's decision (okay, let me say here that this is not yet another hatchet job on the Indian skipper - when I say Azhar's decision, I do take into consideration the fact that the team would have had its collective say in it) to allow his batsmen to score meaningless runs on the final day of the three day game against British Universities in London.

For those who came in late, India had batted first and piled up 457 for six declared, with Sanjay Manjrekar - whose recovery from a painful ankle twist in the first Test must provide some relief for the side - leading the procession with 101, Ajay Jadeja offsetting his Test-level failures with 112 not out, and Azharuddin (73), Vikram Rathore (54) and Saurav Ganguly (52) all helping themselves at this liberal feast.

Came British Universities turn to bat, and Narendra Hirwani gave the Indian selectors some food for thought - in fact, said selectors have had so much food for thought in recent times, the whole lot of them must be in danger of acute mental indigestion - with a spell of six wickets for 60 runs that, albeit against much inferior opposition, recalled his dream debut against the West Indies in Madras.

BU, in the event, were all out for 217.Giving India the option of either enforcing the follow on (they were leading by 240 runs), or of rattling up a quick 100 or so, then going flat out to try and bowl the BU batsmen out again.

India, however, opted to bat on. And on. And on. Rahul Dravid, who failed by five runs to join fellow debutant Saurav Ganguly in the record books by scoring a century in his maiden Test, and that too at Lord's, hit 13 fours and a six in his individual score of 101 not out. Nayan Mongia, who will in all probability open for India in the III Test as well (though I would prefer to see Manjrekar walk out with Rathore, followed by Ganguly, Tendulkar, Azharuddin, Dravid and then Mongia) scored 85, his highest so far on this tour. And play ended with India declaring on 231 for three.

By then, of course, it was too late for any result to be possible, so BU did not even bother to play its second innings in the few minutes that were left for the final draw of stumps.

So what are the gains for India? Hirwani's six wicket haul must have given him some confidence, we all admit. But then, by the same logic, shouldn't the centuries scored by Manjrekar, Jadeja and Dravid, not to mention the 50-plus scores of Mongia, Azhar, Rathore and Ganguly have given those batsmen sufficient confidence for the do or die battle at Trent Bridge come Thursday July 4?

No. If batsmen were to acquire confidence by piling up 100s on placid wickets and against inferior bowling, Indian batsmen must rank as the most confident in international cricket. Let us not forget that all these batsmen - Rathore, Azhar, Dravid, Manjrekar, Jadeja and company - have got good scores in the earlier county games on this tour. So what good did it do them when it came time for the Tests?

So this business of letting batsmen have a long stint out in the middle is not really all its cracked out to be. Sure, early on in the tour a long bat out there gets the player used to the weather conditions and the atmosphere - but not this late in a tour. Around this time, the side should be peaking - not looking to find its feet.

Another reason why I was rather disappointed that India didn't go for a win against BU stems from our bowling. Why did we fail to win the Lord's Test? Primarily because our bowling attack, having set England up for the kill in both innings, failed to administer the coup de grace. In both innings, England was five for very little, before the latter batsmen went on to take the side to safety.

Wouldn't it then have been better policy to allow bowlers like Ankola, Hirwani, Raju and the rest have a go at the BU batsmen in the second innings, and get themselves into the mental frame to attack?

Logic suggests that the answer is yes.

But then, logic has no place in India's cricketing scheme of things, does it?

We move in mysterious ways our blunders to perform.

We always have. And always will.

PS: India's final county match begins Saturday (June 29), against Hampshire at Southampton. And the third and final Test in the Cornhill series kicks off at Trent Bridge on Thursday July 4.