Wellington: Former India captain Sunil Gavaskar has defended the team management’s decision to promote Axar Patel ahead of KL Rahul in the second ODI against New Zealand, arguing that there was nothing wrong with the thinking behind the move, even though it did not produce the desired result.
India tried the left-handed Axar at No. 5 during the chase at Wellington on Saturday, November 7. The decision raised questions because Rahul has an established record in the middle order and is regarded as one of India’s dependable batters in pressure situations.
Axar managed only seven runs from 17 deliveries, while Rahul remained unbeaten on 26 from 38 balls as India navigated a difficult chase. Speaking during a discussion on Sony Sports, Gavaskar explained that the promotion was intended to make New Zealand’s bowlers adjust their lines and lengths.
“There was nothing wrong with that thought process,” Gavaskar said, explaining why sending a left-hander ahead of Rahul could have been a useful tactical option. He added that such experiments sometimes work and sometimes do not. This time, the move failed to deliver, but India still had Rahul waiting in the batting order.
Why India sent Axar Patel ahead of KL Rahul
The decision was based on a familiar limited-overs tactic: introducing a left-handed batter to disrupt a bowling attack’s rhythm.
When a left-hander comes to the crease, bowlers who have been operating to right-handed batters may need to change their line and length. That adjustment can create scoring opportunities, including for the right-handed batter who follows.
Gavaskar pointed out that changing the angle of attack against a left-hander can affect a bowler’s line when the strike rotates again. The idea was therefore not simply to give Axar more responsibility, but to use his left-handed batting as a tactical option.
The plan also allowed India to retain Rahul for a later stage of the innings. With a recognised batter still available, the management had room to attempt the promotion without immediately exposing the lower order.
However, Axar could not make the most of the opportunity. His seven runs from 17 balls meant the experiment did not provide the momentum India would have wanted during the chase.
Gavaskar says tactical experiments should not be judged only by results
Gavaskar’s defence centred on the difference between a sound tactical idea and its execution. In cricket, a decision can be reasonable at the time it is made but still fail because of the conditions, the opposition’s bowling or an individual player’s performance.
He observed that if Axar had scored quickly, the same decision would probably have attracted praise for the captaincy and the team’s planning. Since the left-hander did not score enough, the move became a talking point.
His comments offered support to captain Shubman Gill and head coach Gautam Gambhir, whose approach to flexible batting positions has been debated. Gavaskar’s position was that teams need to retain the freedom to try different combinations rather than treating every unsuccessful change as a mistake.
The presence of Rahul after Axar was another factor in the decision. India had not sacrificed a specialist batter permanently; it had temporarily changed the order to test a particular match-up.
KL Rahul earns Gavaskar’s praise for handling pressure
Although Gavaskar defended the decision to promote Axar, he was particularly impressed by Rahul’s batting after he arrived in a difficult situation.
India’s chase had become uncomfortable after early wickets. The top order struggled against New Zealand’s attack, leaving the middle order with the responsibility of keeping the innings together.
Rahul responded with a composed unbeaten 26 from 38 deliveries. He combined a solid defensive approach with timely attacking shots, including boundaries that helped India remain in contention.
Gavaskar praised Rahul’s ability to judge the conditions and choose his scoring opportunities. He also highlighted the batter’s use of the shorter square-leg boundary and his ability to play with a straight bat and soft hands.
Rahul’s innings was important not only because of the runs he scored but also because he helped India manage a tense situation without allowing the required pressure to become overwhelming.
India survive a dramatic chase to beat New Zealand
India’s batting difficulties came after the bowlers had put the visitors in a strong position. New Zealand were dismissed for 134 in 41 overs after India chose to bowl first in the rain-affected match.
Gurnoor Brar led the attack with four wickets for 30 runs, while Auqib Nabi, Anshul Kamboj and Axar Patel took two wickets each. Daryl Mitchell top-scored for New Zealand with 55, but the hosts could not build a substantial total.
India’s chase began poorly. Jacob Duffy dismissed Gill for a golden duck and then removed Virat Kohli, leaving the visitors under early pressure. Kyle Jamieson also struck as New Zealand’s bowlers threatened to turn a modest target into a difficult assignment.
Shreyas Iyer contributed 30, while Rahul’s unbeaten 26 helped India stay in the contest. Rain eventually interrupted play with India at 113 for seven after 26 overs. Under the Duckworth-Lewis-Stern method, India were declared winners by four runs.
Gambhir and Gill’s approach remains under discussion
The Axar promotion has renewed discussion about India’s willingness to experiment with batting positions in one-day cricket. Flexible batting orders can help teams respond to match conditions, bowling combinations and the need to change the pace of an innings.
At the same time, the approach carries risks. A player moved up the order may face a different role from the one he usually performs, while a recognised batter may have to wait longer than expected to enter the game.
Gavaskar’s comments suggest that the result of one tactical decision should not automatically become a verdict on the captain or coach. The reasoning behind the move, the match situation and the options available further down the order also need to be considered.
India will nevertheless want a more convincing batting performance in their next match. The narrow victory in Wellington gave the visitors a 2-0 lead in the five-match series, but the collapse during the chase showed that even a modest target can become challenging when wickets fall in quick succession.
For Gill and Gambhir, the task will be to retain tactical flexibility while ensuring that India’s batting order delivers greater stability. Gavaskar, meanwhile, has made his position clear: the Axar experiment did not work, but the idea behind it was not necessarily wrong.