Now that India are without Hardik Pandya for their next World Cup game against New Zealand on Sunday, it is apparent what a key player he is for the team. The only way to replace his all-round skills is by picking a player for each discipline, which isn’t possible in an XI.

As a result, India will have to field an imperfectly balanced team in Dharamsala, no matter what route they take.

If they still want six bowlers with as much batting depth as possible, their option is to bring in R Ashwin for Pandya. It would mean a thin lower-middle order with Ravindra Jadeja at No. 6, followed by Ashwin and Shardul Thakur.

A more conventional approach would be to replace Pandya with a batter and play just five bowlers. Suryakumar Yadav has the x-factor, while Ishan Kishan has more ODI experience and gives India an additional left-hand option. Both are options.

Replacing Pandya with a specialist batter, however, leaves India with a potential bowling problem. Thakur might disagree, but the team might have reservations about picking him as one of five bowling options. As a sixth bowler – the role he’s been performing so far in the World Cup – Thakur gives India batting depth at No. 8, something they have not yet needed in their first four games. But can the team bank on him to bowl a good ten-over spell against New Zealand?

If India replace Pandya with either Suryakumar or Kishan, and bring in Ashwin for Thakur, then they will have the batting depth they desire and a fifth bowler who can be relied on to deliver ten overs. But that will leave them with only two quicks – Jasprit Bumrah and Mohammed Siraj – and three spinners – Ashwin, Ravindra Jadeja and Kuldeep Yadav – which isn’t ideal unless the Dharamsala pitch is a rank turner.

So if India are concerned about Thakur’s ability to bowl 10 overs in a five-person attack, but also want a third pace option, they will have to play Mohammed Shami, which means the batting depth ends with Jadeja at No. 7.

The only workaround to retain the structure, depth and wicket-taking ability of the side in Pandya’s absence involves making a significant sacrifice, the kind India have been forced to make in the past too. If Ashwin replaces Thakur as the bowler who can bat but also bowl 10 overs, and Shami replaces Kuldeep Yadav as the strike bowler, India can retain their three-two attack, have Ashwin at No. 8 and benefit from Shami’s wicket-taking ability.

Shocking as it may sound, Kuldeep missing out is not too different to Shami missing out so far in the tournament to allow India the batting depth of Thakur at No. 8. It is not the perfect solution, but this route allows India to field a XI that closest resembles the structure of their first-choice XI.

These are all permutations, but if we are to predict what India are likely to do, what they did when they last missed Pandya might be an indicator. In the ODIs against Australia just before the World Cup, India played Thakur as one of five specialist bowlers. Chances are, they might just ask more of Thakur, and make just the one change to the XI.