Honestly, I think India has a good chance of making it to the semis.

It is obviously not a certainty. Only two teams, IMHO, are sure to make it to the semis and they are South Africa and Australia. For every other team – It is a question is of Who blinks first and who looses rather than who wins

And India may (just *may*) have the edge over other teams here. In any case, it is too early to write India off and I think India’s first three games in the Super8s will basically set the tone for the tournament.

The mute button on a TV remote control is the best invention ever for the benefit of cricket fans.
I can silence the cricket pundits from the comfort of my armchair.

You rightly say that all-rounders are vital in ODIs.
It is also true that we do not have any proper all-rounder.
All-rounders are born with the potential to become one,
otherwise everyone could and would be training to be one.

Failing which, we have to settle for players with dual attributes.
Batsmen who can bowl at bit, bowlers who can bat a bit,
and wicket-keeping batsmen.
and other than the WK, the more of these dual attributes, the better the logistics
of playing a long drawn-out and high pressure tournament.
I agree so far.

Which is why I fail to understand why Rahul Dravid is in an ODI team.
In the past he has kept, so did perform dual tasks,
but now he is occupying a position as a single attribute cricketer.
When all players are being encouraged to improve their weaker attribute, why do I not see Dravid bowl?

That because he is ‘the wall’ we cannot do without him in ODIs is a myth.
He has fallen for low scores time and time again.
And when he does so, he has nothing else special to contribute for the rest of the match.
That goes against the requirements of a modern ODI team.
I can only see him as a supersub batsman in ODIs, even that has been scrapped.

This question I ask is a taboo, almost blasphemous.
If India does struggle because of a lack of all-rounders,
I wonder if we will ever raise this question at all?