So the Indian cricket team lost another series abroad? What else is new? Nothing really, except perhaps that the contest was even more tame than one expected. Two defeats, one by an innings and the other inside four days, and a draw that had the Indians fighting with their backs to the wall were not exactly the kind of results envisaged at the beginning of the series by fair-minded and knowledgeable critics.

When will we learn not to put unnecessary pressure on our players? As it is, there is enough pressure on them when they play on faster and bouncier tracks in alien conditions abroad. It is worth recalling that almost all our notable performances abroad have come about when there was no pressure on the players and the expectations have been modest.

Of course, these were the supreme optimists who seriously reckoned that India had a chance in the series. Pray tell me, on what grounds can such an estimate be made? This is a side that, on paper, has one strong department ­ the middle order batting. Certainly, a line-up of Rahul Dravid, Sachin Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly and VVS Laxman would normally give bowlers bad dreams. But can this alone cover up for the various weaknesses in the squad ­ the question mark over the opening batting, the weak seam and spin attack, the inability to find a wicket-keeper of even near international standards, the lack of an all-rounder? And when even the much-touted middle-order batting performs below expectations, the results are bound to be disastrous.

The trouble is, we get carried away by the Indian team's impressive record at home and expect them to carry this form abroad, aware as we are of our abysmal away showings. We get so caught up in the seemingly awesome credentials of some of our prima donnas that we feel they can do no wrong. What we conveniently forget is that the opposition is also strong, and they too have players who could walk into a World XI. We overlook the fact that they have a balanced team, with the right blend of youth and experience, a more-than-adequate attack, and a batting line-up consisting of both stonewallers and swashbucklers. They also do not have any opening-slot or wicket-keeping problems. And, oh yes, they have three all-rounders, whereas we have none.

When will we learn not to put unnecessary pressure on our players? As it is, there is enough pressure on them when they play on faster and bouncier tracks in alien conditions abroad. It is worth recalling that almost all our notable performances abroad have come about when there was no pressure on the players and the expectations have been modest. Did any of us expect the Indian team to win in the West Indies in 1971? Or in England later the same year? Did we honestly see the Indian team drawing a tough series in Australia in 1980-81? And what about the World Cup triumph in 1983?

On the eve of the 1999 World Cup, a national news-magazine ran a long cover story entitled "11 reasons why India will win the World Cup," which analyzed, in a hopelessly one-sided manner, the country's prospects in the competition. The gist of the story was that India was sure of winning the World Cup as the team had the world's best batsman in Tendulkar, who had the support of Dravid, Ganguly, Azharuddin, Jadeja and others. Besides, it was argued, the team had a balanced seam attack, so very important in English conditions; it had ten-wicket-man Anil Kumble; it had a lucky captain in Azharuddin, and so on.

A proper and balanced perspective would have also provided the strengths of the other competing teams. But the lop-sided cover story just ignored this aspect, as if India had all the giants and the other countries had just schoolchildren playing marbles. Of course, we all know now how India fared in that World Cup. Are not many Indian cricket followers just as imbalanced in their thinking? Do we not look only at our strengths and ignore the strong points of the opposition? Just because we have cricketers performing super-feats at home, we raise them to a pedestal on which they do not belong. Playing at home and playing away are very different propositions, particularly as far as Indian cricket is concerned.

Just one look at our record should convince us of this. Let us therefore face facts squarely and bravely and admit that we are just not good enough. Let us just be thankful that there was no infamous double collapse, like being bowled out for 100 and 66 at Durban in 1996. On the other hand, this was perhaps the worst performance of any Indian team in South Africa. For, on the last tour, we at least came close to winning the final Test.

The pity of it all is that the latest debacle will soon be forgotten if and when we get the better of England next month. That, of course, is if there is any play at all.

© CricInfo