With seven wins in seven matches, India became the first team to qualify for the 2023 World Cup semi-finals. The feat, while incredible, was far from surprising.

Ahead of the World Cup, no batter in ODI history has more runs at a better average than Virat Kohli. If one restricted it to openers, the same statement held for both Rohit Sharma and Shubman Gill. All three also have excellent strike rates.

At four, only two batters had more runs at a better average and strike rate than Shreyas Iyer. Combining four and five, only AB de Villiers bettered KL Rahul on those parameters.

It was a top order bound to succeed at the familiarity of home conditions. Predictably, the Indian top five average 57.03 at the World Cup, the most at this World Cup at the time of writing, though their strike rate of 97 is behind South Africa and New Zealand’s numbers.

Yet, batting has not even been India’s strongest suit at this World Cup. They have conceded 4.52 an over when no other team has kept it under 5.25. As a result, their bowling average of 20.67 has also been easily the best.

This, too, was on the cards. In the 21st century, Mohammed Siraj had the best bowling average and strike rate among fast bowlers until the World Cup, while only Mitchell Starc had more wickets than Mohammed Shami at a better average; and since the start of 2010, Jasprit Bumrah had a better economy rate than any pacer who had bowled more than him.

To add to that, Kuldeep Yadav is the finest exponent of left-arm wrist-spin in the world, while Ravindra Jadeja and Hardik Pandya bolstered both departments. To sum up, India picked a group of outstanding cricketers, and nearly all of them have stepped up.

So what does an unbeaten team need to worry about? Surely it cannot be about quality or form.

India left Shami out when they began the World Cup. They picked first R Ashwin, then Shardul Thakur – the latter, to bolster the batting. They were fine with playing a frontline bowler fewer, because they had six bowlers.

Pandya broke down after bowling three balls against Bangladesh, but India already had five other bowlers. They did not need his batting that day either. But for the next match, without a like-for-like replacement, they had to make changes in both departments, for the balance that had been working for them did not exist anymore.

They replaced Pandya with Suryakumar Yadav, a batter. This reduced them to five bowlers, something they could do nothing about. So they did the next-best thing: they took out Thakur, the hitter down the order, for Shami, the superior bowler. There was no extra bowler, but a superior bowler reduced the possibility of someone having an off day.

Yet, this involved several risks. First, the tail began at eight. Not only did that open them up to a collapse but, in case of three or four early wickets, was also likely to determine the pace at which their six and seven would bat. That might determine the outcome of the match.

A sixth-wicket partnership of 78 between Kohli and Jadeja prevented the tail from being exposed against New Zealand. Against England, eight, nine, ten added 26 in 43 balls – not a pace at which India would have liked them to go at the death even on a tricky surface before their bowlers put up a masterclass. Against Sri Lanka, too, the middle order stayed put for long enough.

Ahead of the match against South Africa, head coach Rahul Dravid backed his unit at the press conference: “I think we got to have confidence in our eight, nine, ten, eleven, the ones that we have now, I think they are working very hard and they are doing the best that they can. And I don’t think the batsmen really, to be honest, need to think about it or worry about it.

“If you play good cricket through the fifty overs and play according to the situation and what the demands of the game are, I think there’s enough quality in that top seven to look after itself.”

Fair enough, but the long tail was the least of the threats. Without Pandya, India were down to exactly five bowlers. If the opposition hit one of their quintet out of the attack, they had no one to fall back upon.

Temba Bavuma rightly pointed out at the press conference that India “obviously only have five bowlers, so they can, I guess, be put under pressure if one of their bowlers is not on their day” (though he admitted that “you’ve got to probably respect their bowling attack a little bit more than the other bowling attacks”).

“He just said the facts,” Dravid agreed to Bavuma. “The fact is that we will not be in a position to have a proper sixth option … The sixth option is something that Hardik gave us, but you’re right as well that we have been playing the last four games without the sixth bowling option.

“We also played a couple of games in the Australia series before the World Cup without the sixth option. We won two of our games, both in Mohali and in Indore, when we played only with five bowling options in those games as well.”

India may back a bowler having a bad day, but even that seems acceptable when pitted against the graver threat of one of them actually breaking down early in his spell. When Pandya walked off, India had backup. If it happens to someone now, they will not have any.

When Pandya was ruled out of the World Cup, India might have addressed this by replacing him with another all-rounder or perhaps a batter who could bowl a bit. Instead, they chose Prasidh Krishna, an out-and-out fast bowler with no known batting credentials. Dravid made it clear that they wanted backup for the fast bowlers.

In other words, India were fine with the risks. They wanted to play aggressive cricket, and were not going to take a backward step at this point.

If India keep doing whatever they have been doing, they are firm favourites to lift the World Cup. On one day, a collapse will bring their No.8 to the crease early. On another, a bowler will not find his rhythm or, worse, pick up an injury. Any of that is enough to offset the team balance and, in the knockouts, cost them the trophy.

At this point, they simply have to count on none of that happening before the World Cup finishes.