Thursday, December 26, 2002 First of all, there's no such thing as a 108-run pitch, unless we're talking about the ball shooting along the ground or turning so quickly and so square that it's impossible to get a vertical bat on it. It's just that the batting today, from both sides, was really poor.

Sourav Ganguly had two things to say about the pitch, before and after the match. The first observation he made came at the toss - that the pitch looked nice and brown, and that had he won the toss, he would have batted anyway. I was in agreement with Stephen Fleming, though, because this was a brand new pitch, and they generally get better with time.

At the end of the match, Ganguly had quite another view on the pitch. He said that it wasn't fit for international cricket. He seemed too defeatist – he couldn't look up straight and had no strength in his voice. It was almost like he was saying: "Give me back my flat pitch or I don't wanna play."

I concede that batting wasn't easy on this surface, but India, after the early dismissal of Virender Sehwag, who got a ripsnorting yorker from Shane Bond, were not prepared to knuckle down. Ganguly himself got out in a manner that typified the Indian approach. He, along with VVS Laxman, batting at No. 4 and No. 3, were the biggest disappointments for me. None of the batsmen were getting forward enough. They hadn't learnt any lessons from the last two weeks.

New Zealand were almost as bad, mind you. They batted fine till the tea break, but after it, they were just loose. They were trying to hit the ball too square, Matthew Sinclair in particular. That's not the way to play in New Zealand.

If you try and play square, it means that you are offering an angled blade, and in seaming conditions, that's going to get you out, like it did Yuvraj Singh. Playing square also means that you are playing alongside the ball rather than behind it. The key shot for batsmen in this country is the on-drive. If you're playing that shot, it means you're getting behind the ball, and also that you're moving into it.

Jacob Oram showed how you can survive if you play straight. Oram, of course, had a great allround game. Oram is a very good allround sportsman. He comes from a solid sporting environment and has risen through the grades in cricket. He may be new to the national team, but he is no spring chicken. He understands his game very well indeed.

The conditions certainly helped swing bowling today. It became quite gloomy and there was a bit of drizzle in the air. The bowlers' confidence all through this tour has been sky-high. They can't wait to get their hands on the ball and they just don't want to let go of it thereafter. What they are enjoying more than anything else is the carry off the wicket – it means that if they get an edge it's likely to go waist-high to the keeper or the men in the slips.

Javagal Srinath was superb for India. He had absolutely nothing to bowl at, but he performed brilliantly, and left the New Zealand team and their supporters feeling glad that he wasn't around for the Test series. Today he was able to regularly angle it into the right-hander and get it to straighten. The deliveries that got Brendon McCullum (though it might have clipped the shirt, not the glove), and Kyle Mills were magnificent.

Mills' own bowling was impressive, but his action had me concerned. A year ago his action was questioned, and New Zealand Cricket passed him after he put some work into it. So he's OK to play, and I'm not saying he's a chucker. I'm just saying that he's a bit jerky and if that action gets any worse, he will be in trouble.

Martin Crowe is a former captain of New Zealand and one of the most technically accomplished batsmen of his time. From 1981 to 1994, he played 77 Tests and made 5444 Test runs with 17 hundreds. He will give his expert view for India's seven one-day matches in New Zealand. He was talking to Rahul Bhattacharya.

What do you think of India's performance in the first ODI? Click here to send us your feedback

© Wisden CricInfo Ltd