Where all did go badly for India?

They were a band of innocent no-hopers in 2007 and yet India played exciting cricket and won the inaugural World Twenty20 in South Africa. Two years later, they swaggered into England lugging heavy reputations and massive expectations but resembled anything but a champion side. Just where, and how, did it all go wrong for MS Dhoni and his men?
The first question that must be asked: why was India one of the favorites to lift the World Twenty trophy for the second time? During the period between the inaugural tournament and this one India played only five Twenty20 internationals, of which they lost three, all away from, home. Their billing as a formidable Twenty20 force grew because of their strong performances in the 50-over format and their players' individual success in the IPL. As a team, though, India's track record was poor ever since they won the World Twenty20, when the format was still in its infant stages on the international circuit.
"Everyone was new to Twenty20 cricket internationally in 2007 and India just had a young and very explosive team while everyone was finding their feet," Gary Kirsten, the India coach, said. "I think what's happened now is that other teams have got clever, they've worked out what they need to do, and we've been matched in all departments. There are definite holes in our Twenty20 set up which we are exploring."
Those holes were easy to spot during India's World Twenty20 campaign in England. Several match-winners were in poor form, the standard of fielding was abysmal and, perhaps most significantly, in their attempt to be flexible and unpredictable, there was no stability in India's batting line-up. Batsmen tried to play many roles but most failed to act any out successfully.
"We were not 100%, our performance was not up to the international standard," Dhoni said. "Your key players have to be in form for a tournament like this. That never really happened for us."
The loss of Virender Sehwag was a significant blow to the team's plans irrespective of how well Rohit Sharma performed the opener's role in the group stages. His absence deprived India of a batsman capable of winning a match single-handedly and also created a gap in the middle order that had to be filled from the reserves.
It was the failure of the middle order, though, that hurt India the most. They constantly changed the line-up, sending Dhoni at No. 3 during the warm-up games and the group matches but he struggled to make an impact, scoring 6, 9*, 26 and 14. Suresh Raina came in at one drop during the Super Eight games against West Indies and England but he too failed to contribute significantly. Dhoni had said earlier that the choice of No. 3 depended on which opener had got out.
If it was Gambhir, then Dhoni would come in to play the steadying role, and if it was Rohit, then Raina would be sent in to continue the attack from where Rohit left off. "We have a lot of flexibility," Kirsten said. "We don't want to be predictable as a batting side."
Dhoni was typically candid about his own form. "I am not consistently clearing the park that is for sure. I am here to admit that and I am working hard on it," he said. "I feel cricket is not only about hitting sixes because there are quite a few players in our team who have to play different roles in Twenty20 or the one-day format.
Dhoni's poor form on the field coincided with controversial moments off it - an alleged rift with Sehwag which the team denied through a statement and a public show of unity, and arguments with the media over Sehwag's fitness - but Kirsten was adamant that the captain was an "extremely professional cricketer" and was able to "separate what's going [on] externally and able to focus on the field and lead in the way he needs to".
Dhoni apart, even the rest of the batsmen struggled against the tougher teams in the Super Eights. They succeeded against the weaker attacks of Ireland and Bangladesh but were startlingly inept against the volley of short balls bowled by the West Indies and England fast bowlers. India's susceptibility against the short length was no secret but it was the extent of their inability to counter that line of attack which was surprising.
Addition to those from the 2007 squad, India had Raina and Jadeja, dangerous fielders with sharp reflexes in the circle and swift enough to be among the best in the outfield. And yet they were shabby, their performance best captured by a terrible effort from Yuvraj at short fine leg, allowing a wide from Harbhajan to go through him for five runs off the last ball in England's innings. India went on to lose that match by three runs and were knocked out.
India's performance in the field was perplexing and perhaps it was because of the low intensity levels within the squad, a problem Kirsten attributed to the fatigue levels of the players and the niggles they were carrying into the World Twenty20 from the IPL. India had no time to prepare as a team because of the time crunch between the end of the IPL and the beginning of the World Cup and Kirsten felt the squad wasn't as "energetic" as it had been during the successful tour of New Zealand.
In the end it was a combination of factors that did India in: fatigued players, injuries, out of form batsmen, slack fielding, inept batting against short bowling and their opponents' ability to exploit all these weaknesses to the hilt.
For more info: T20 world cup 2009

John rik is the author of the website http://www.indyalive.com/
And provides information about T20 world cup Records,
T20 world cup Result,