The BCCI's inability to do so is further confirmation that no one in the Indian board knows, or seems to care, how to build a world-class team. As a group they remain unfamiliar with excellence.

John Buchanan told this writer after the World Cup that Indian cricket had the potential to be the "new Australia", that "India would just dominate world cricket for so long". Of course, only if it organised itself. But it is unlikely a team can turn itself into the best in the world if it constantly has to settle for second best in its preparation.

Travelling to England without a coach is not the best option. But the team may be relieved because it is not the worst option. Which would have been selecting a coach in a hurry when Graham Ford refused the job. "No coach" is thus a makeshift solution, a bearable compromise. This is not a known route to greatness.

Indian cricket has been good for its followers in one way. It has taught them to master the art of looking on the bright side. Thus, the England tour must be seen somehow as opportunity. In this case it is a chance for the captain to bloom. Unhindered by a coach, Rahul Dravid must show that this is his team.

Among the errors in Rahul Dravid's first instalment as captain was allowing for the perception that Greg Chappell directed the team to flourish. In such matters, the truth is irrelevant. The coach was not absent of virtues, but if his major fault was talking too much, then the captain's was in failing to control him.

Dravid's intelligence, thoroughness and respect within the team led many to view him as a potentially excellent captain. He has not met those expectations yet.

Not that he has been a failure, for dissections of his leadership reveal strong positives. He has worn troubled times as captain and yet his batting has stayed mostly firm ( 56.61 as Test captain, 57.46 career; 45.12 as one-day captain, 40.11 career).

He has earned a Test series win in West Indies, managed a Test win in South Africa, showed he has his own mind in using five bowlers and opening with Kartik, and fought mightily for Sehwag.

But Dravid also knows captains, like athletes, are only as good as their last games, and a flailing World Cup, the final two unappetising Test performances in South Africa, and the slow leak of spirit from the team, all left an unappealing taste.

No doubt this team is not high on discipline and short on consistency, and some might argue Dravid has not had sturdy shoulders to lean on. The public does not care. It wants to see progress.

Part of Dravid's growth as leader will necessitate a tinkering with his personality, a shift away from his comfort zone. He will never quite be a man comfortable with confrontation but he should have been firmer with Chappell. A subtle fellow needs to be seen as more commanding.

The captain is a steadfast fellow, who has inspired with his deeds and has not sought attention. He works hard and is invariably on time and simply expects men who play for India to do the same. How else do you become a great team, he must wonder. But some men must be pushed, others pulled, for not all are equally driven or as gifted. Installing the right attitude is part of his job description.

Indian cricket is alive, constantly, with a dozen mutinies and a captain must deftly quell them. Some insurrections are quelled by a quiet word at dinner or a friendly pat to an uneasy bowler. Dravid's toughness has reportedly made him intimidating to men who are not on his wavelength. Of course he must not pander to indolent fellows, yet must convince men to a common cause. A fellow at ease with words must communicate more ably.

No doubt there are players in the team who complain about the imperfections of Indian cricket (selection, too much cricket, etc), yet never strive for their own personal perfection. There are fading elders around, too, of varying utility. Yet for better or worse these are Dravid's men, this is his team. A great leader finds a way to unite the most rag-tag bunch, rousing them to play harder for him and each other.

It would have been no disgrace if Dravid had relinquished the captaincy after the World Cup, for not all men are adept at leading others. Sometimes they are the wrong men at the wrong time, just as Sourav Ganguly was once the right man at the right time.

But Dravid has chosen to avail himself of a second chance. A self-examining cricketer has noted his flaws and accepted there is need for change. The absence of a coach in England will be a burden, yet an opportunity to strongly demonstrate his leadership skills.

Most fans will acknowledge this team will not be the best in the world in Dravid's time (i.e. the next two years). They know that with Sehwag faltering, Pathan stuttering and Harbhajan out of form, match winners are few. They know a wobbly system comes in the way of greatness.

But all they want, to start with, is an Indian team with some direction, a little purpose, a bit of hunger and pride, and absent of conflict. And for that they will look to Dravid.

Dravid the player has been admired because he has the humility of the great athlete to know he must keep improving (like in one-day cricket). Now as captain he must progress. He cannot alone make India the best team, but he can make it a better team.