So the search for the elusive away series win continues. As India prepared to leave for the Caribbean, great hopes were nurtured that, for the first time since England in 1986, they would return victorious. The visitors were even installed as favourites by some experts, the mood was generally upbeat, and both positive and negative factors seemed to sway things India's way.

And yet, at the end of the five-Test series, the result sheet reads: West Indies 2, India 1, drawn 2. The silver lining was provided by that notable victory at Port of Spain, and yes, there were a few individual feats that did not go unnoticed. But by and large, the weaknesses of the side were all too apparent, and in the final analysis, the series must be termed a disappointment.

When the Indians landed in the West Indies, certain inherent weaknesses were known to everyone, but it was hoped that the team's main strength ­ the middle-order batting ­ would help plug the loopholes in the other departments. The main worry was the bowling, but there was also a question-mark over the top of the batting order. However, with the West Indies themselves going through a lean period, it was felt that the strengths and faults of the two sides would level out and, with some good fortune, India could win their first series outside the subcontinent in 16 years.

A series between two sides occupying the bottom half of the Test rankings list was bound to be mediocre. All the same, it had the makings of a close series, and the keenness of the contest that saw the final Test decide the series covered up for some rather ordinary cricket. The limitations of both sides were all too palpable, but whereas the home side rose above these limitations and played above their potential, the Indians did not play up to theirs. Therein lay the chief reason for the defeat.

Underlining this was the West Indian bowling. Before the series commenced, it was reckoned that the pace quartet, a pale shadow of their predecessors, would be hard-pressed to bowl out the formidable Indian batting line-up twice in a Test. Yet, they did this not once, not twice, but three times in the series, and only on one occasion out of six did the Indians cross 300.

On the other hand, the brittleness of the West Indian batting did present the Indian bowlers a great chance to cover themselves with glory. And yet they could bowl out the West Indians in a Test only twice, and in one of those four innings, the hosts scored a little matter of 422. By the end of the series, Messrs Merv Dillon, Pedro Collins, Cameron Cuffy and Adam Sanford could justifiably be proud of having done an admirable job.

But then even Messrs Ramnaresh Sarwan, Carl Hooper and Shivnarine Chanderpaul can pat themselves on the back for rising to the occasion. There were always doubts over the durability of their opening pair, and it was taken for granted that much would depend on these three and Brian Lara. The star left-hander's poor form put additional pressure on the trio but, thriving on this, Sarwan, Hooper and Chanderpaul bolstered the team's fortunes time and again in such a manner that, by the end of the series, the Indian bowlers must have been quietly thankful for their deliverance.

© CricInfo

The Indian quartet in the middle-order faced much the same pressure, in that the openers hardly ever came off. Under the circumstances, it must be said that their performance was up to par. Rahul Dravid, Sachin Tendulkar and VVS Laxman all got hundreds, while Sourav Ganguly was happily among the runs again. A bit of a bonus came their way with Ajay Ratra's timely century at Antigua and the form shown by Wasim Jaffer. But again, consistency was not their strong point, as proved by the debacles at Bridgetown and Kingston, Tendulkar's failing by his own high standards, and Shiv Sunder Das' inability to get going.

© CricInfo

However, I would not like to be too hard on the batting. If anything, harsher criticism should be leveled at the bowling. Sure, there were limitations, but then again, they too were up against a supposedly feeble West Indian batting line-up. Lara's lack of form presented the Indian bowlers with a golden chance of coming good. Yet, over and over again, they bowled seemingly without a set plan to dismiss a batsman. And when they were confronted with Hooper and Chanderpaul, it looked like they were just going through the motions of completing the over.

The defining moment in the lack of ideas probably came in the pre-lunch session of the Kingston Test. To me, that was the period when the game ­ and the series - was won and lost. On a pitch that was heaven-sent for them, Ganguly's decision to field ­ a defensive tactic ­ gave the Indian bowlers the opportunity to run through the West Indian batting. But they made a mess of things, got carried away by the pace and bounce of the wicket, sprayed the ball all over the place, and thereafter it was uphill for India all the way.

It is fashionable to blame the batsmen for the failure of the team, but a look at the Test averages provides clinching evidence that the bowlers were probably more to blame, symbolised by the fact that the five main bowlers between themselves had just one five-wicket haul. I am not sure whether persisting with the policy of three seamers and only one spinner throughout the series following the victory at Port of Spain was that sound a strategy.

It must have been galling for Ganguly to lose a series he must have looked forward to winning, especially after the triumph in the second Test. His captaincy had high points and low points, but his passion and his tough, no-nonsense approach, which have been hallmarks of his captaincy over these last two years, is still very much prevalent. All he requires is a little brushing- up on matters of tactics and planning. In any event, there is little doubt that he remains the best man for the job. But the Indians will continue to win at home and lose abroad. This unfortunately is the prime lesson driven home by the just- concluded Test series.

© CricInfo