India VS New Zealand: Three key takeaways from the second ODI

The first T20I between India and New Zealand was washed out without a ball being bowled. The second was played out entirely but saw a rain interruption – even though it had no bearing on the result. 

The third T20I saw another rain interruption, which did impact the result – a rare tie was declared as India was level with the DLS par score when it was determined that no further play would happen. 

The first ODI was played out with minimal fuss, but the second ODI was washed out with no result – much to the frustration of both sides. 

However, there were still things that India would have learned coming out of this match. Here are three key takeaways from the game. 

Shubman Gill needs to be a regular event with the seniors back – It’s evident to anyone who watches cricket that Shubman Gill is a budding severe and new talent. However, his slightly conservative batting method means he has been limited to ODIs and has found T20I chances hard to come by. But whatever options he’s gotten, he’s made the most of it. 

Watching him bat in the second ODI against New Zealand made it evident again that Gill is a player who needs a longer rope, not just brought in whenever the senior pros need a break. Yes, there’s no lack of talent in the Indian team, but Gill is unique – and India needs to treat him like he is. 

Suryakumar Yadav needs a longer ODI look-in – Such has been Suryakumar’s batting in T20I cricket that many are left gobsmacked whenever he wields his willow in the shortest format. But many forget that he can be just as effective in the 50-over format as he showed during the second ODI when he batted. 

SKY was at his swash-buckling best during his time at the crease and injected some serious adrenaline into the innings. Unfortunately, rain curtailed his time at the crease, but he did enough to show that his magic should also be more regularly used in ODI cricket. 

Weather needs to be a factor in scheduling series – Look, we get it. Cricket is a sport that, more so than others, is at the absolute mercy of the broadcasters due to the demand for more and more content and cricket’s propensity to schedule a series at the drop of a hat to get that sweet, sweet broadcast dollar. 

But isn’t it short-charging fans who have to tune in on TV and those who pay for tickets and travel to the stadium only for rain to play spoilsport? It isn’t good not only for fans but also for the game at large. And given the number of series that are played anyway, surely it would make sense to ease out the schedule just a tad when even the weather has decided that play won’t be possible.