It was a stunning run chase from India, and there is plenty for both sides to reflect on after the match. Before getting into some of the major talking points, I think it is only fair to acknowledge that New Zealand lost a good toss. That is an important point to make, but once we have established that, the conversation has to move towards the quality of India’s chase, particularly the opening partnership and the way they dominated the powerplay.
I have not seen a powerplay quite like that for a long, long time. The way the two Indian openers approached the first six or seven overs was extraordinary. I have been asking for Abhishek Sharma to be paired with Vaibhav Sooryavanshi at the top for some time, and I thought that change worked brilliantly. That is not meant as a sly on Sanju Samson in any way. However, whether bringing the new opening combination together helped take Abhishek to another gear or another level is difficult to say. What I can say is that watching both batters go after the bowling during those opening overs was fantastic.
It was extraordinary stuff, and I think the decision to make that change was clearly a good move.
India’s bowlers laid the foundation for the chase
I also think India’s bowlers played an important role in setting up the result. We discussed in the previous article the lengths they would need to bowl to suit the ground dimensions, and I thought they executed that plan very well.
At Hagley Oval in Christchurch, India’s bowlers had tended to bowl shorter lengths, allowing New Zealand’s batters to target the square boundaries. This time, there was a noticeable change in approach. They bowled a much greater percentage of deliveries fuller, targeting the stumps and encouraging New Zealand to hit towards the longer, straight boundaries.
These are precisely the sorts of details that teams discuss in their meetings. Morne Morkel will have discussed these things at length, and the bowlers deserve credit for going out and executing the plan on the field. It is one thing to identify the right lengths and the areas to target, but it is another to deliver those plans under match conditions. India did that well.
It is also important to remember that this was not India’s full-strength bowling line-up. They were without Hardik Pandya and Jasprit Bumrah, and depending on the conditions, they could also consider bringing in an additional spinner, such as Varun Chakaravarthy or Kuldeep Yadav. In other words, they were missing two or three bowlers from what could be considered their strongest bowling combination.
Despite that, they managed to contain what is a very good New Zealand batting line-up. I thought India made a very good start with the way they managed themselves in the field, and that discipline gave their batters an opportunity to take control of the game. Once the chase began, the way the two openers batted meant that the run chase almost looked after itself.
New Zealand needed a score above par
When I look more closely at New Zealand’s performance, I think there are several lessons for them to take into the next games. As I said, it was a good toss to win, and batting first against India at the moment presents its own challenges.
The biggest difficulty is knowing what constitutes a good score. New Zealand batted through their 20 overs and lost only three wickets, which suggests
that they had the opportunity to push towards a bigger total. While I give India considerable credit for the way their bowlers exploited the conditions, I also think New Zealand had a little more in the tank with the bat.
I know Tim Seifert has not got going yet, while Finn Allen has made a couple of contributions. Daryl Mitchell played a very good innings in third match, and I thought his contribution was important. However, I do question whether he should be batting at number three. Having said that, when I look at the way he finished his innings, the scoring appeared to stagnate slightly.
New Zealand were only three wickets down at the end of their innings, and that is where I think they have to examine their approach. However difficult it might be, they have to find ways to keep pushing on rather than settling for what looks like a reasonable total.
Against India, I think you have to aim for a score that is above par rather than merely par. To me, New Zealand’s total looked like a par score. Of course, the way India chased it down made that total look even less imposing, but I do not think that should be the only way of judging it.
When you are batting first against India, you have to account for the fact that they possess the power and brilliance to take a game to a completely different level. They can produce something extraordinary at any point, and we saw exactly that in this match. New Zealand need to recognise that a total that might be competitive against another side may not be enough against India, particularly when their top order gets going.
Mitchell Santner’s delayed introduction was a concern
One of my biggest concerns from the match was the captaincy of Mitchell Santner. I am a massive fan of Santner. I think he is an astute leader, a fantastic bowler and someone who understands how to operate in different situations. However, I think he missed a trick in this game.
For me, this was an example of what I call match-up madness. It looked as though Santner held himself out of the attack for quite some time because India’s two left-handers were batting so well. The thinking may have been influenced by the conventional approach to match-ups, where an off-spinner is
often preferred against a left-handed batter rather than a left-arm spinner.
But I think the game sometimes needs to be viewed beyond those straightforward calculations.
When I look at Santner’s strengths, I do not think his value is simply about being a left-arm spinner who turns the ball into a left-hander. His greatest assets are his flight, variation and ability to read a batter. He is an intuitive bowler who can outthink batters, vary his pace and respond intelligently to the situation.
That is what makes him such a clever bowler. His value comes from his ability to create uncertainty and induce mistakes, rather than simply from the direction in which the ball turns.
For that reason, I do not think the fact that he was a left-arm spinner bowling to left-handed batters should have been such a significant consideration. In my view, he is New Zealand’s best bowler, and their best bowler did not enter the game until far too late, by which time the run chase had already taken shape.
When Santner eventually came into the attack, he bowled three overs and returned figures of one for 17. Those are respectable figures, but they also leave me wondering what might have happened had he been introduced earlier.
I am not suggesting that this was selfish captaincy or that Santner was trying to protect his own figures. I do not see it as a case of the captain looking after himself. Rather, I think it was a consequence of placing too much emphasis on the match-ups that have become such a prominent part of the modern game.
Sometimes, a captain has to look beyond the conventional model and recognise when a particular bowler’s skills could make a difference, regardless of the handedness of the batters at the crease.
Santner might have used his flight and variation to induce a false stroke. He might have created an opportunity that changed the course of the chase. We will never know, but I believe he should have been brought into the attack earlier. That is one of the key things I would take away from New Zealand’s performance.
New Zealand must find a way to match India’s standards
I think there are some significant lessons for New Zealand to take into the fourth and fifth matches of the series. At the same time, I do not want to be too critical of them because they were also without Matt Henry and Lockie Ferguson, two of their frontline bowlers who could have helped them set a different tone with the ball.
Their absence needs to be acknowledged when assessing New Zealand’s overall performance. It is entirely reasonable for the team to look at the match and feel that they did a decent job. They set what appeared to be a reasonable target, batted through their innings and were ultimately outgunned by an exceptional Indian batting performance.
However, I think New Zealand need to look beyond that immediate assessment. They know they are playing against the best team in the world, a side that appears to be taking the game to new heights and new levels in almost every series it plays.
The question for New Zealand is how they can match that standard. How do they find a way to compete with a team that can produce a chase of this quality? How do they ensure that their batting goes beyond a par score, and how do they make better use of their best bowlers when the opposition’s most dangerous batters are at the crease?
Those are the questions they need to answer as they prepare for the next game or two. There were positives in their performance, but there were also opportunities to do more, both with the bat and in the way the bowling resources were used.
Ultimately, it was a really enjoyable match to watch as a neutral. I suspect it was considerably less enjoyable for New Zealand, given the manner in which the game slipped away from them. India produced a stunning run chase, and their top order continues to take the game to new levels time and time again.
