Me, I would go for, to start with, a left arm bowler in tandem with a right armer. I would endow both of them with tremendous pace, and control over the variables of length and line. And then I would let them loose, and let nature take its course.

Why? Because in context of today's inverted cricketing logic where the slog begins in the first over, and continues till the field spreads out at the end of 15, two bowlers of similar type will be crucified. Two right-arm quicks, for instance, will despite their individual idiosyncracies allow the rival batsmen to get into a certain stroke-making rhythm. They would, for instance, not have to counter the ball angled across their body and moving away - as, for instance, would happen if a left-right combination were in operation.

Take that thought a little further. Imagine facing two right arm quicks. Remember, too, that when you are in assault mode, shot selection has to be far quicker than if you were playing each ball on its own merits. What this implies is that certain shots you play in the initial overs are pre-determined. If it is short, you hook or pull, is one of these. If there is width, you swing the bat freely through the line, is another.

But if a left-armer is operating with a right-arm quick, then the short ball does not necessarily prescribe the pull - for pulling at a left arm fast bowler's short of length delivery angled across the stumps is a sure bet to fetch the top edge, easily held in the slip-gully-point cordon.

It is this uncertainity, this hesitation, a batsman feels against a left-right combination that makes Pakistan's opening duo of Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis so lethal. Plus, of course, the fact that both are attacking, as opposed to defensive, fast bowlers.

And therefore, the key to India's success will lie to a considerable extent on how they negotiate the opening overs.

Having allowed logic to carry you thus far, extend it just a shade to include the fact that a slog is not always possible in the end overs against either Waqar or Wasim. Both are great movers of the older ball, with Waqar in particular specialising in the fast, swinging toe-cruncher that is almost impossible to hit.

Having got that far in our reasoning, we then reach the inevitable - someone, at the very top of the order, has to go for the Pak spearheads from day one. And that this assault is not likely to come from Sachin Tendulkar is more or less a given the Indian skipper, after taking over the mantle from Mohammad Azharuddin, has shown a marked penchant for eschewing his blazing strokeplay in favour of building an innings.

Therefore Tendulkar's opening partner has to go for the bowling and for my money, that partner should be Mongia. Essentially a front foot player, Mongia is - like most wicket-keepers - adept at despatching the full-pitch to the fence. And Waqar in particular has a marked penchant for trying to pitch the ball, at least once an over, a foot behind the stumps.

The biggest advantage in sending Mongia at the top, in my book, is the fact that even if he gets out in ball one, it really does not damage the batting lineup. And if he does get runs early on, then that makes the job of mid-innings consolidation all that much easier.

So, Tendulkar and Mongia to open? Right. At number three, I would like to see Mohammad Azharuddin coming in. Azhar is one of those players who, if asked to score at a run a ball from ball one, tends to get a quick 20 and then get out. Let him take a bit of time settling down, though, let him get the timing of his wristwork just so, and he is capable of racing to large, potentially match-winning, scores - let's not forget, after all, that he is the scorer of the second fastest century in the limited over game.

So Azhar in at three, to give him time to build an innings. Another plus with this being if Mongia is out early, then Tendulkar and Azhar are two players who are brilliant judges of a run - and given the patchy fielding of Pakistan, the short single is likely to put enormous pressure on the bowling.

So who goes in at number four? For my money, Saurav Ganguly - unless, of course, India is say 130, 140 in over number 35-plus when the second wicket falls - in which case I would plump for the freer strokeplayers, Jadeja or Kambli. Ganguly at four, with his silken off side play (handicapped, of course, by a certain lack of strokes on the leg side) can get runs and rotate the strike without being forced to launch a blitz which, given his curtailed leg side play, is almost an impossibility for the Calcutta southpaw.

Number five, for me, is a natural position for Kambli - it is where he himself is most comfortable, and where he is unlikely to face a newish ball that jumps up at him or poses awkward questions outside the off-stump. At five, for the most part facing spinners and the occasional bowlers, Kambli can launch into his strokes with less worry than were he to go higher up.

Six, of course, is Jadeja for certain - he has, in the past, shown an uncanny ability to play the most outrageously innovative cameos from that position. And approaching the death, a touch of Jadeja would not go amiss.

Seven? Sunil Joshi. Highly competent as a batsman, the lefthander would at a crucial point in the proceedings be, by virtue of being a left-hander, just the destabilising factor that can put a bowler off a perfect length and line.

The rest of the lineup is pretty automatic, isn't it? Srinath, Kumble, Prasad and Johnson.

And yes, I would give Johnson the cap - though I would have preferred, personally, to have blooded him first in Sri Lanka, against say Zimbabwe. Neither an additional batsman nor a spinner is really indicated - the first, because if Jadeja at six and Joshi at seven does not suffice to ensure a good total, then Mr X at eight is hardly likely to. And India would, when going against the strong Pakistan batting lineup, need at least one extra bowler in their side, to cover up for a possible assault that knocks one of the others off length and line.

Having drawn up a batting order, a postscript would need to be added: Sachin, as skipper, will have to ensure that every single player knows his brief, in a variety of probable situations. For instance, if say Ganguly and Azharuddin find themselves at the wicket together, it would be mandatory for Azhar to take on the responsibility of getting brisk runs, enabling the less experienced Ganguly to find his feet at the crease. Alternately, if Sachin scoring methodically at one end finds Azhar bogged down at the other, then what? The knee jerk reaction would be to have Sachin himself step up a gear or two - but I would favour the Indian skipper asking Azhar to chance his arm instead. If Azhar manages to hit his way out of trouble, fine. If he doesn't and loses his wicket, then Ganguly coming in would be a better option than Azhar dithering around.

The point here is that at any given point in time, there should be one batsman at the crease who is charged with the responsibility of keeping the scoreboard moving along at a fair old clip two people hanging around, trying to get an eye in while the dot balls mount, will place too much of a burden on the later order against the swinging yorkers of Akram and Younis.

Am I arguing that a settled batting order is the key to Indian success against Pakistan? Actually, yes. Let's face it, our bowling lineup comes with its inbuilt strengths - Srinath's fire at the top is one, Prasad's surprising control in the middle overs another, Sunil Joshi's controlled agression a third - but also weaknesses (most notably the fact that most teams now appear to have figured out how to play Anil Kumble - simply treat him as a slow-medium seam bowler).

These pluses and minuses have to be lived with, because these bowlers are, for now, the best we have to call on.

So then the key to consistent success must necessarily rest with the batting lineup. It is there that the talent and depth are both available - it is merely a question of realising it, and converting paper strength into numbers, lots of them, on the scoreboard.

Copyright 1996 Rediff On The Net All rights reserved