As often is the case with Indian cricket, the team's decision to opt for a rotation policy has opened up a can of worms.
Since India is not performing as well as expected, most debates are centered around why India need to do away with this approach.
Also, expectedly, several Sachin Tendulkar fans disapprove of it because he is being made to rest every third game when he has made himself available. He doesn't often play ODIs so he must play everything when he is willing is not a completely unfair argument either.
While the approach of the team in adopting the policy is honest, at least in thought, as it wants to give the middle-order batsmen a long run, it is flawed in its application.
Firstly, it is not helping the openers one bit. Both Virender Sehwag and Gautam Gambhir are struggling for form and would love to have a consistent run to get their bearings right. Right now, it's a case of the three people playing a video game with two joysticks. And if you have been through this ordeal, you will know it's no fun at all.
Secondly, no rotation policy can be set in stone. What if the opener slated to be rested for the next game gets a hundred. Will he still be dropped? Would he not want to capitalise on his form, especially Sehwag and Gambhir?
Unsettling the openers just to ensure some middle order batsman gets a game despite being in poor form is probably a big price to pay in one-dayers where the top two-three batsmen usually decide the fate of the match.
The rotation policy is used either to ensure players stay fresh or try out youngsters. But that's not the case here. Tendulkar has made himself available to play ODIs for the first time since the World Cup final last April and he still has to rest.
Sehwag and Gambhir would love to play all the games to get some runs under the belt but have to make way for a teammate every third game. The last thing an out of form player wants is missing out on playing time. Resting is surely the last thing on their minds and adjusting themselves for two-game sessions is a needless addition to their list of problems.
Skipper MS Dhoni said the policy was adopted to give Rohit Sharma a long run in the middle order. But Sharma has been one of the most consistent performers in ODIs for India since the World Cup, averaging in the 70s. What does he still have to prove to the think-tank that he already hasn't? What is it that the think-tank wants to know about the youngster that they don't already know?
With Virat Kohli picking himself, Suresh Raina is the only other person benefitting from this rotation policy.
He has played more ODIs than Sharma and neither his abilities nor his disabilities are hidden from the team. That he has been woefully out of form in the last few months does not even need to be validated with stats anymore.
So, despite being in poor form, Raina keeps making the playing XI and the middle order appears shaky if the unsettled openers do not score runs or Kohli fails to play a long innings.
Most teams replace an out of form player, in this case Raina, with another, in this case Sharma, and go about their business peacefully.
Indian cricket is known for its unpredictability and more crucially rigidity. But if they do not do the predictable thing of changing their approach, Sri Lanka might be the team benefitting the most from the rotation policy.