Where did it all go wrong for India?

They were a band of inexperienced no-hopers in 2007 and yet India played vibrant 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 were India one of the favourites 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."

The most unpredictable move was the promotion of Ravindra Jadeja to No. 4 during the run chase against England at Lord's. It was a tremendously difficult situation to throw a 20-year old into: a must-win game, India had lost two early wickets, the conditions were challenging, and England's bowlers were sending down a relentless stream of short pitched bowling, far superior in quality to what Jadeja would have ever faced in Indian domestic cricket or the IPL.

Jadeja was sent out to "stop the wickets from falling" and, though he achieved that goal, he got so bogged down that the asking-rate climbed steadily. Kirsten said that the idea behind the move was to have their "three most powerful batsmen" in Yuvraj Singh, Dhoni and Yusuf Pathan playing the last 12 overs of the innings, to absorb the pressure during the business end of the chase.

It's a fine plan - catching the opposition off guard by sending in unexpected batsmen, saving your coolest heads for the crunch - but with a major practical flaw. Kirsten called Dhoni one of the "great finishers in the game" who was needed to "come in at a time when he can close games out" but his lacklustre form in the tournament caused India to limp while he was at the crease. Dhoni was simply unable to find his timing and the boundaries off his bat were few and far between. India, in fact, lost momentum while Dhoni was batting against Bangladesh and West Indies. In both those matches, India needed a blitz from Yuvraj to give them a fighting total.

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.

"Gautam Gambhir is doing the job at the top of the order, and I am supposed to do it in the late middle-order. That was the plan but it never worked throughout the tournament. I would like to get back to hitting sixes but I don't think my cricket stops at hitting sixes."

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.

The two rising stars, going by their performances in the subcontinent and during the IPLs, Rohit and Raina struggled to play the short ball. Gambhir too was cramped for room while Jadeja simply looked out of his depth against Stuart Broad and even Luke Wright. India exited the tournament with a weak performance against South Africa too but, ironically, it was the spinners - Johan Botha and Roelof van der Merwe - who suffocated them as opposed to the pace of Dale Steyn and Wayne Parnell.

The poor batting performances severely damaged India's chances of progress but their campaign was further compromised by shoddy fielding. A moment's brilliance in the field - an outstanding catch, an alert run-out - is all it takes to turn a Twenty20 match sometimes but India had no such moments of inspiration. Electric fielding was a hallmark of their 2007 campaign, especially against the hosts South Africa, when Dinesh Karthik flew full length to his left at first slip to catch Graeme Smith, and Rohit scored one of the great direct hits to run out the dangerous Justin Kemp. India were defending a mere 153 in the match at Kingsmead and those moments of excellence helped win the game.

India came to England with a better fielding outfit than the one in South Africa. In 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.

"We consider performing up to 80% of our ability as a benchmark," Dhoni said. "If we are close to 80% with the talent we have got, we have chances of winning games. We were at about 50-60% of our potential [during this tournament]."

India simply weren't as geared up as the other teams heading into the World Twenty20 and they lacked the fight necessary to emerge victorious from a scrap. One moment from the game against England summed it up: India needed nine runs off two balls to win and keep their semi-final chances alive. Yusuf had just hit a six but only managed to drive the penultimate ball along the ground.

Incredibly, Dhoni and Yusuf settled for a single and did not push for a second. Admittedly the ball had gone straight to the fielder at long-on, and the most likely result of an attempted second run would have been a run-out, but the slightest of fumble or a wayward throw could have transferred the pressure and given India an opportunity to tie the game by hitting a six off the final ball. A single left them needing eight off the final ball and the game was out of India's hands. In reality the World Twenty20 trophy had slipped out of India's grasp long before Dhoni's futile attempt to clear the boundary off the final ball fell a foot inside the rope.