We review the third Test between India and New Zealand in Mumbai where Ajaz Patel bowled New Zealand to an incredible win.
Apple Podcasts
SpotifyTalking Points:
- Is this the finest Test series win of all time?
- New Zealand overcome great odds in dream sequence
- The categories of outrage accompanying an Indian defeat
- The potency of left-arm spin in India
- Ajaz Patel’s dream Test
- New Zealand’s bowlers strike gold on tricky pitch
- To attack or to defend: India’s batting dilemma
- Rohit Sharma’s aggressive approach
- India’s choice to not play four spinners in the final two Tests
- Ashwin v the sweeps: and what his length seems to suggest
- The intriguing possibilities ahead of the WTC final
Participants:
Siddhartha Vaidyanathan (@sidvee)
Ashoka
Kartikeya Date (@cricketingview) | Substack| ESPNcricinfo
Mahesh Sethuraman (@cornerd)
*
———————————————————————————————
Buy books republished by 81allout:
War Minus the Shooting by Mike Marqusee
Cricket Beyond the Bazaar by Mike Coward
The Summer Game by Gideon Haigh
———————————————————————————————
Related:
- Black Caps’ unseen challenges on the way to whitewash of India – Andrew Voerman – Stuff.co.nz
- Why rank turners actually reduce India’s home advantage – Sidharth Monga – ESPNcricinfo
- India swept away by Ajaz Patel – Kartikeya Date – Cricketingview Substack
- A bad equilibrium – Harigovind S – Kohli and Kipling Substack
*
Lead image from here.
Another fantastic podcast. I enjoyed the views. Ashoka in the end made a very good point on India choosing these kind of pitches over the previous (2016-19) kind pitches.
I’m also thinking about the same why the management wants to risk their chances on these type of pitches. May be because of the ageing bowling attack. They don’t want to play for 4/5 days regularly.
But India should stick to the decent wickets where “luck” factor comes pre dominantly for batting.
Gone are the days opponents bowlers bowling for more than 100-120 overs to get those 10 wicket of Indian batters. That involves a good edge for India over the opponent in many aspects like fitness, game plan, bowling attack effectiveness etc.
Hopefully India will take a logical call over all this. Thanks.
Firstly, Ashoka, what a fun guy. The Led Zeppelin analogy, my god. The type of fans—great listing. Even Gideon Haigh, in his substack, has written, ‘ This is a team containing great players grown comfortable, and young players whose most arduous fight has been getting into the team, and who since then have never experienced a real setback or disappointment on the cricket field at home.’ I guess he does not remember the WC final last November.
Last week, I posted a comment saying that after bowling them out on the first day, India often is 70 or 80 for one. In this match, they looked set to be doing that before those 8 horror balls. If Kohli survives, India probably makes 20 extra runs and maybe that is enough.
I have a few queries for KD, The Indore test of 2023 was also on a rank turner, what is the difference between that pitch and these two, I want to know because you said these pitches did not offer anything for pace bowlers, I remember Umesh spell in Indore where he got 3 wickets, so was that turner somewhat different or Siraj or Akashdeep are not the seamers India ideally need on these pitches, someone like Umesh is better, not saying he need to be recalled.
Second, why does Mumbai seem to crumble worst of all? 2004, 2006, and 2012, DK had said in the pitch report unlike last week, there is no chance of batting well here on the third day, what is the difference?
Lastly, not a question, just a comment: I don’t understand why Rohit always wants to start with two seamers. Even against England, he kept doing that. England used to be 40 for 0 in the first spell of fast bowlers. He changed that only in Ranchi’s second innings. We saw in Pakistan that you don’t need to give them pace at all. Batting and luck aside, I just don’t understand why they have gone for two seamers once they have asked for such a pitch. Also, India now is 6-5 in the last 12 home tests and 4 of 5 losses are on turners, while we had Chennai loss, it seems there is more evidence of this not working.
Sadly India who just last month for the first time had more wins than losses in their history again has more losses, and probably now will take 3-4 years to change that given the next 10 tests, if India wins 3 out of those 10, I would call it a success.
Thanks Tarun. You raise some fine points. Umesh was a sensational bowler with the SG ball, so he was definitely cut about Siraj and Akashdeep on Indian pitches. Additionally, there is also the state of the ball and game itself. And sometimes the conditions help reverse-swing on turning pitches. So Umesh and Shami were a big miss for India through the series. Mumbai – 2004 was definitely a pitch that was made to crumble and batters had no chance. 2006 was not the same at all – Flintoff and Anderson had a good game. And 2012 was a bit different – Pujara and KP and Cook all scored fine centuries.
And yes, India could have tried 4 spinners in this series. Axar would have helped their batting too.
I love your discussions and always will. This critique comes from a true fan who loves the game and what you all bring to it.
I feel that over the last year, since KD stumbled upon runs per false shot (a.k.a. luck), a significant amount of time has been invested in arguing whether this metric is all-encompassing or not.
I would love for this debate to end one way or another. If you all agree that skill at that level is supreme and that wins or defeats are just a function of a bad day or luck, then let’s accept it and stop discussing cricket.
Alternatively, we could say that this metric is also a lagging indicator of skill—it can explain a bad day, but it is not all-encompassing. For example, skill would still play a role, and there is always going to be a spectrum, even at the highest level. That’s why points like the second bowler’s support and the transition of players were discussed. It can’t just be, “Well, we lost because we had a bad day in terms of luck.” Statistical proof would be Sachin or Kohli’s runs per false shot over the years. With age, it would have gone down, showing their skill deteriorating. But I bet it would still be higher than their contemporaries, showing a superior skillset.
I respect the metric, but it’s only an indicator of a good day or a bad day. Now, the reasons behind that day could be poor decisions, fading players, etc. I feel we spend so little time on the latter, and arguing with KD about luck takes up 60% of the podcast, which is frankly getting repetitive. I would love for the show to spend equal time across KD, Ashoka, Mahesh and Sid as all of you bring a different element of cricket aspect that fans connect with.
Thanks for the feedback, Pratik. We understand it is coming from a good place. The point of the ‘luck’ discussion was not ‘we had a bad day and lost’. It was to ask: did the Ind spinners bowl worse than the NZ spinners or was the proportion of of luck (which is not at all opposed to skill) higher. There was also a comparison to the 2012 series defeat to England – where it was clear that the Eng spinners were clearly superior to India’s back then (and it wasn’t just because of a good proportion of luck). The idea here is to distinguish actions from outcomes and to find a way of describing the series in as accurate a sense as possible. The idea is to not devalue skills or say everyone is equally skilled.
Please continue to send us your thoughts. We love hearing from our listeners.