India produced a terrific performance in the first game, and for me, the biggest positive was the way their captain led from the front. Shreyas Iyer probably needed that innings as much as anyone, and the manner in which he played made it even more significant. He has spoken about wanting his team to play with aggression, and there could hardly have been a better way to demonstrate that intent than by going out and playing in exactly that manner himself.
I have always regarded him as a high-class player, but I thought this was a particularly important moment for him personally. It was not just about the runs he scored; it was about the way he led the team and showed the intent he has been talking about. I think an innings like that can settle a captain down and give him confidence. There is also something very reassuring for a team when its captain is the person setting the tone with his own performance.
That, for me, was probably the biggest positive India could have taken from the opening game. When the captain is able to translate his thoughts about how the team should play into his own batting, it gives the rest of the side something to follow. I expect that confidence to be useful as the series progresses.
The discussion around Sanju Samson and the opening combination will obviously continue after he was unable to make a significant contribution in the first game. I have not changed my view from before the series. I was in favour of playing Vaibhav Sooryavanshi, but having selected Samson for the opening game, I would be very surprised if India now decided to change that combination.
I expect the opening decision to remain the same. Rest and rotation will inevitably be part of a series like this, but I see those changes having a greater impact on the bowling attack and perhaps on opportunities for players in the middle order rather than at the top of the batting order. I would be very surprised if Gautam Gambhir and the selectors made a change to the opening combination after just one game.
Naman Dhir, meanwhile, was one of the players I was particularly interested in seeing because I had wondered how much of an opportunity he would get at the beginning of the series. He certainly took his chance. We had spoken previously about which players would be prepared to take the opportunities that came their way, and in his case, this was very clearly an opportunity taken.
What made his contribution particularly interesting was the bowling aspect. I don’t think he bowled a ball for Mumbai Indians in the IPL, so his bowling was perhaps not something you would have immediately identified as being central to his value. Yet, on his India debut, it became his primary asset to the team. I don’t think many people would have predicted that before the game.
For young players, I think there is a very useful lesson in that. Even if you are not getting opportunities to bowl, you have to keep working on that part of your game. You have to continue putting in the work in the nets, continue practising and continue improving the skills that may not necessarily be getting used regularly at that particular moment. You never know when that work is going to become important.
Naman Dhir showed exactly why it is worth continuing to develop every aspect of your game. He may have been viewed primarily as a batting all-rounder, but when the opportunity came for him to contribute with the ball, he was ready for it.
I also think there is something in that for Abhishek Sharma. He can bowl left-arm spin, and if Hardik Pandya is going to return to the side at some stage, India could potentially look at a combination involving three spinners and three seamers. If that becomes the preferred balance, Abhishek may have to contribute more with his bowling. It is something for him to continue working on, even if that is looking slightly further ahead.
As far as India’s spinners are concerned, I was particularly pleased to see Kuldeep Yadav picking up wickets. I have always felt that he is an integral part of the success of Indian cricket, not just in T20 cricket but across formats. Getting game time and wickets should give him confidence, and that is important for a player who I see as being such an important part of the team.
Mayank Yadav is another player I would continue to invest time in. He went for 40 runs from his four overs, which made it an expensive outing, but I don’t think one game should change the way India look at him. The important question for me is how they manage his workload and whether they decide to bring him in and out of the side.
Personally, I would like to see him play again. I wouldn’t automatically rest or rotate him simply because he had an expensive first game. There is value in giving him another opportunity, particularly when the larger objective is to continue developing him.
Overall, I thought India produced a really solid and strong performance in the first game. They have plenty of positives to take forward, but I think the way the captain played and the opportunity Naman Dhir seized were particularly encouraging aspects.
For West Indies, the focus has to be on how they can improve from that first performance. I was surprised that Gudakesh Motie did not play, and I think he should come into the side for the second game. That is the change I would be looking at rather than making wholesale alterations.
Roston Chase is another option. While he played in the last game, he came on as the first-change bowler. One option for West Indies in the second game would be to open the bowling with him, although I wonder whether the presence of a right-hander in Sanju Samson has influenced that thinking. That is something West Indies may consider when looking at how they want to alter their approach.
I would also continue with Akeal Hosein opening the bowling because he does a very good job in that role. Similarly, I think Matthew Forde should get another opportunity. He has an economy rate of 8.5 from his 29 T20 internationals, which is pretty good in the modern game for an opening bowler. He simply had a bad day in the first match, and I would not read too much into one performance.
So I don’t think West Indies need to make many changes beyond potentially bringing Motie into the side. For me, the bigger issue is what their middle order can produce.
There is a huge amount of skill and power in that batting unit, but it needs to fire. It didn’t in the first game, and that made a significant difference to the contest. If that middle order performs, I think we have a very different game on our hands.
That is where my attention would be if I were with the West Indies. Their batting has the ability to put India under pressure, but the players in that middle order need to deliver. With their skipper in good touch and Shimron Hetmyer coming in at No. 3, there is enough ability for the batting line-up to trouble India if the players around them contribute.
I do have some concerns about the variety in the West Indies bowling attack, particularly if they are playing on a good batting surface. Unless the conditions offer something to the bowlers, I think they could find it difficult to really test an Indian batting line-up of this quality. The bowling simply does not have the variety, in my view, to consistently challenge India on a really good surface.
That makes the batting even more important for West Indies. They need their strongest players to produce the kind of performance that can make India uncomfortable. If the skipper continues his good form, Hetmyer contributes at No. 3 and the middle order finally finds its rhythm, then I think West Indies can make this a much more competitive contest.
Ultimately, I think the contest could come down to whether the West Indies middle order can produce the performance it is capable of. Their batting has the skill and power to make India work hard. If that unit fires, then we could have a very different game. If it doesn’t, India’s confidence from the first match could continue to make the difference.
