In T20 cricket, teams typically begin with third man and fine leg as the two fielders outside the circle. With a hard new ball, edges tend to travel fine behind the wicket. On slower pitches, they carry squarer—which is why Pat Cummins had a deep point for Rohit Sharma from ball one of the 2023 ODI World Cup final at Ahmedabad.
This was another World Cup final in Ahmedabad, but the surface was different. A mixed-soil pitch, part red and part black, with more bounce than the slow black-soil track from 2023.
Table of Contents
Santner’s Gamble
Mitchell Santner knew the pitch was “pretty flat and high scoring.” Unlike Cummins in 2023, he began with conventional protection. Third man and fine leg stood in place as Matt Henry ran in with the new ball.
Santner also knew India would attack relentlessly, as they had through the bilateral series and World Cup. The problem was those first six overs passed far too quickly. India surged to 92 without loss. By the time the field could spread, the damage was done.
The Powerplay Difference
| Team | Score | Wickets | Run Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| India | 92 | 0 | 15.33 |
| New Zealand | 40 | 3 | 6.67 |
“Credit to Sanju Samson and Abhishek Sharma to get 92 off the Powerplay,” Santner admitted. “It is pretty tough from there to come back. If we could have got a couple in the Powerplay, squeeze them through the middle, 220 could have been chased down on a very good wicket.”
The Execution Problem
Matt Henry’s opening over began well—four dot balls—before Samson flat-batted a short ball over long-on. New Zealand’s response searched for variation. Across five pace overs in the Powerplay, nearly every third delivery was a slower ball.
New Zealand’s Powerplay Bowling Strategy
| Metric | Details |
|---|---|
| Pace overs | 5 |
| Slower balls | Nearly 1 in 3 deliveries |
| Good length deliveries | Only 8 balls |
| Runs off good length | Only 12 |
But execution and sequencing never aligned. Lengths drifted either too full or too short. Only 8 balls were in the good length area—only 12 runs were scored off them.
“There wasn’t a lot of seam or swing to start,” Santner said. “We tried the wide stuff. We tried two on the leg side. We tried everything. But credit has to go to the way they set that Powerplay up.”
The Rotation Confusion
By the time Henry returned, India had raced to 51 in four overs. Santner had gone searching—the first four overs were bowled by four different bowlers. Matt Henry, New Zealand’s most reliable seamer, delivered just a single over at the start. Glenn Phillips bowled just once despite his first over costing only five.
New Zealand Bowling Rotation Issues
| Issue | Impact |
|---|---|
| Matt Henry | Only 1 over at the start |
| 4 different bowlers in first 4 overs | Lack of consistency |
| Glenn Phillips | Just 1 over despite conceding only 5 |
| Cole McConchie | Left out (off-spin option) |
“Abhishek played that very smart,” Santner said. “He gave it over to Sanju against the off-spinner. When you’re not taking wickets, it’s always a challenge.”
The Tale of Two Powerplays
“The tale of the day was the two Powerplays,” Santner said. “They were 90 for none and we were three for 40.”
From that point, the equation was always steep. Chasing 256 after conceding 92/0 while managing just 40/3 meant New Zealand were playing catch-up from ball one.
“We weren’t at our best tonight,” Santner admitted. “If you aren’t at your best against a very good team you’re going to be exposed and that’s kind of what we were tonight. You have to be going pretty well against India in a final.”
The Decisive Phase
Those six overs at the start tilted the final. Santner had read the pitch correctly and anticipated India’s intent, but he could not afford for them to dominate the phase entirely. Once India did, the final had slipped away.
Too many slower balls without precise lengths. Too much rotation without giving Matt Henry enough overs. Too little threat from off-spin despite Glenn Phillips’ economical first over. The execution fell short when it mattered most.
New Zealand lost the T20 World Cup Final in the first six overs: India 92/0, New Zealand 40/3. That 52-run Powerplay swing decided everything.
Mitchell Santner made the right read—he knew the pitch was flat and India would attack. But knowing and stopping are different things. Nearly every third pace delivery was a slower ball, yet only 8 balls hit the good length area where just 12 runs were conceded. Lengths drifted. Execution wasn’t there.
The bowling rotation compounded it. Matt Henry bowled just one over at the start. Four different bowlers in four overs suggested panic. Glenn Phillips, economical in his first over (5 runs), didn’t return despite being their only off-spin option.
Chasing 256 was tough. Losing three for 40 in the Powerplay made it impossible. Santner’s assessment was honest: “We weren’t at our best tonight.” The Powerplay proved him right. By the time the field could spread, India had won.
Read More: Sanju Samson, Finally Exactly What His Believers Promised
FAQs
What was the Powerplay score difference in the final?
India scored 92/0 in their Powerplay while New Zealand managed only 40/3, a difference of 52 runs that proved decisive in the final outcome.
Why did New Zealand bowl so many slower balls?
With no seam or swing available, New Zealand’s bowlers tried to take pace off and bowl outside off with point protection. However, the execution wasn’t precise enough, with lengths drifting too full or too short.
How many overs did Matt Henry bowl in the Powerplay?
Matt Henry, New Zealand’s most reliable seamer, bowled just one over at the start as Mitchell Santner rotated four different bowlers in the first four overs searching for wickets.
Why didn’t Glenn Phillips bowl more in the Powerplay?
Phillips bowled just one over in the Powerplay despite conceding only five runs. Santner explained that Abhishek Sharma played smart by giving strike to Sanju Samson against the off-spinner, and without wickets falling, it was hard to bring Phillips back.
What did Mitchell Santner identify as the key difference?
Santner said “the tale of the day was the two Powerplays. They were 90 for none and we were three for 40.” He acknowledged that if New Zealand had taken a couple of wickets in the Powerplay, even 220 could have been chased down on a very good wicket.
