A Test of Contrasts: Brilliance and Recklessness in a Dramatic Encounter

The match commenced on a pitch that offered early bounce and movement, a challenge that the West Indies top order struggled to negotiate. Within a short span, three wickets had tumbled for a mere 28 runs, putting the visitors in dire straits. The conditions were testing, demanding patience and application, yet the early dismissals suggested a lapse in technique and temperament against the moving ball.

However, the innings took a dramatic turn as Gordon Greenidge and Alvin Kallicharran came together at the crease. Their partnership provided much-needed stability, countering the New Zealand bowlers with a blend of controlled aggression and resolute defence. When rain interrupted play just before tea, the duo had guided the score to 166, giving West Indies a sense of reprieve after the early blows.

A Crucial Partnership and an Astonishing Collapse

The second day's play began late due to the previous day’s rain, with action resuming at 1:00 p.m. Greenidge and Kallicharran continued from where they had left off, extending their stand to 190. Their 162-run partnership equalled West Indies’ record for the fourth wicket against New Zealand, a testament to their skill and composure.

Yet, just when the West Indies seemed to have gained control, a shocking downturn followed. Greenidge’s departure triggered a dramatic collapse, exposing an inexplicable lack of discipline in the middle order. Kallicharran, Deryck Murray, Clive Lloyd, and Joel Garner all fell to reckless strokes, attempting to hit across the line on a surface that still favoured batting. The recklessness proved costly, as the final seven wickets crumbled for a mere 38 runs.

On a pitch that held few demons, this sequence of dismissals was nothing short of astonishing. The inability to convert a promising position into a formidable total highlighted a worrying pattern of inconsistency within the West Indies’ batting lineup. By the end of the day, New Zealand had safely negotiated seven overs without loss, setting the stage for their reply.

New Zealand’s Commanding Response

The third day began dramatically, mirroring the West Indies’ early struggles. John Wright was dismissed off the very first ball of the innings, and John Webb followed soon after, leaving New Zealand in early trouble. However, the momentum quickly shifted as Geoff Howarth stepped in to anchor the innings with a composed display of batting.

Howarth’s innings was a lesson in discipline and patience. Batting for nearly six hours, he notched his fifth Test century, expertly navigating the West Indian attack. Contributions from Mark Parker and Jeremy Coney further solidified New Zealand’s position. As their lead grew, West Indies’ bowlers lost their edge, failing to exert pressure.

Then came Richard Hadlee’s explosive cameo, transforming the innings into a spectacle. Displaying his trademark aggressive stroke play, Hadlee stormed to his maiden Test century in just 115 minutes off 92 deliveries, peppered with eleven boundaries and two sixes. His innings showcased not just power but also an intuitive ability to punish loose deliveries, dismantling an increasingly toothless West Indian attack. By the time New Zealand declared, they had amassed a commanding 232-run lead, leaving the visitors with a mountain to climb.

A Resilient Fightback

With their backs against the wall, the West Indies embarked on their second innings under perfect batting conditions. This time, the approach was markedly different. Openers Greenidge and Desmond Haynes displayed patience and precision, forging a commanding partnership. Their 225-run opening stand fell just 14 runs short of the West Indies’ highest opening partnership in Test cricket, signalling a strong resurgence.

Greenidge, in an unfortunate repeat of the first innings, fell in the 90s once again, a cruel twist of fate given his assured stroke play. Haynes, however, went on to register his second century of the series, providing a solid foundation. The middle order capitalized on the platform, with Lawrence Rowe and King both reaching three figures. Their centuries came at a brisk pace, particularly King’s, which was compiled in just over two hours, as the match lost its competitive edge.

A Match of Contrasts

What had begun as an enthralling contest marked by dramatic collapses, exceptional individual performances, and shifting momentum had, by the final day, turned into an exhibition of batting dominance. The recklessness of the West Indies’ first innings stood in stark contrast to the application shown in their second, reflecting the unpredictable nature of the game. Similarly, New Zealand’s composed build-up and Hadlee’s attacking masterclass underscored the dynamic shifts in play.

Ultimately, this match served as a microcosm of Test cricket’s enduring appeal—a format where discipline and recklessness, patience and aggression, brilliance and error coexist, shaping narratives that remain unpredictable till the very end.

Thank You

Faisal Caesar

Pakistan’s Dominance in the Second Test: A Decisive Victory and a 2-0 Lead

In a remarkable turn of events, Pakistan secured a resounding victory in the second Test of the series, taking a commanding 2-0 lead. This victory, which was by an innings and 373 runs, further emphasized the growing gap between the two teams. For New Zealand, it was their fourth successive defeat, and their third loss by an innings, marking a frustrating phase in their Test cricket campaign.

The match was played on a pitch that was markedly different from the one used in the first Test in Auckland. Prepared by the retiring groundsman Wes Armstrong, the surface at the Basin Reserve was tougher and truer, offering much more to the bowlers. Armstrong, after 22 years of service at the ground, had never witnessed a home defeat at the venue, until now. The pitch provided initial bounce and swing, allowing the fast bowlers to take advantage early on.

New Zealand’s Struggles: A Fragile Start

Upon winning the toss, New Zealand’s captain, Rutherford, made the decision to bat first on a hot and dry morning. His choice was based on the belief that batting first would allow his team to capitalize on the early life in the pitch, but it quickly became clear that the decision would not pay dividends. Rutherford’s own dismissal, when he failed to move his feet and was caught off guard by a delivery outside off-stump, set the tone for New Zealand’s batting collapse.

Wasim Akram, Pakistan’s lead pacer, made his mark in the first over by removing Young, and the damage continued through Pakistan’s third seamer, Atu-ur-Rehman. Rehman’s consistency in length and his ability to move the ball off the seam made it difficult for New Zealand’s top order to settle. Only Andrew Jones showed some resolve with a battling 43 off 168 balls, while Greatbatch managed a quick-fire 45 from 56 balls. However, neither of them could turn their efforts into something substantial. The rest of New Zealand’s batsmen were dismissed for under 20 runs, highlighting a lack of application and discipline against Pakistan’s well-organized attack.

Pakistan’s Response: Controlled Domination

Pakistan’s response to New Zealand’s fragile total was clinical. Despite the loss of Aamir Sohail early on, the Pakistani batsmen capitalized on the favourable conditions. On the second morning, Saeed Anwar, after receiving a reprieve when Dickie Bird turned down a potential inside edge off Doull, took full advantage. Anwar’s 169-run innings, his maiden Test century, was a lesson in patience and stroke play. Anwar’s off-side drives were particularly pleasing to the eye, and he played with composure for over five hours. His solitary missed opportunity, when Blain missed a stumping chance, was a sign of the luck that favoured the Pakistani batsmen in this Test.

Alongside Anwar, Basit Ali provided the necessary aggression with a blistering 85. His aggressive strokeplay, which included some powerful drives and pulls, complemented Anwar’s more measured approach. The two batsmen built a formidable partnership, taking Pakistan's total to 548 before declaring, with New Zealand still 373 runs behind.

The innings was further solidified by the contributions of Inzamam-ul-Haq and Salim Malik. Both players, known for their composure under pressure, added centuries of their own, continuing Pakistan’s dominance throughout the second and third days. The partnership between Inzamam and Malik for the fifth wicket: 258 runs, was a crucial phase in the match, effectively sealing the outcome. Malik’s declaration at 548, well ahead of New Zealand’s first innings total, left his team in an unassailable position.

New Zealand’s Second Innings: Too Little, Too Late

New Zealand’s response in the second innings was far from the robust fight that was needed to make a contest of the match. The fast bowlers, particularly Wasim Akram, struck early and reduced New Zealand to a paltry six runs for the loss of both openers. Rutherford, whose earlier decision to bat seemed to be a miscalculation, showed flashes of brilliance but failed to capitalize on them. He formed a 114-run partnership with the resilient Jones, but the writing was already on the wall.

Blain, New Zealand’s top scorer in the second innings with 78, fought hard but was left to carry the fight alone. His 78 was the only significant contribution from New Zealand’s middle order, but it came too late to change the course of the match. New Zealand's top-order failure and inability to build substantial partnerships left them with little hope of achieving the improbable. By the time the final wicket fell, New Zealand had been dismissed for just 175, conceding victory by a staggering margin of 373 runs.

Wasim Akram: The Architect of Pakistan’s Success

Wasim Akram, Pakistan’s talismanic pacer, was once again at the heart of his team’s success. His seven-wicket haul for 119 runs was his best-ever Test performance, and it came on the back of his growing dominance in the series. Akram’s bowling in this Test was a masterclass in persistence. He was not as explosive as in some of his previous performances but demonstrated remarkable control and consistency. Akram's ability to extract bounce and swing from the pitch, combined with his sharp tactical acumen, kept the New Zealand batsmen under constant pressure. His seven wickets pushed his series tally to 20, further solidifying his position as the bowler of the series.

The Turning Point: Pakistan’s All-Round Strength

Pakistan’s victory was not solely down to one or two standout performances; it was a collective display of excellence. The batting was marked by disciplined and aggressive stroke play from Anwar, Ali, Inzamam, and Malik. The bowlers, led by Akram, bowled with unrelenting focus and tested the New Zealand batsmen with their precision. The fielding was sharp, and every opportunity was seized with determination.

In contrast, New Zealand's inability to build partnerships, combined with their failure to respond to Pakistan’s pressure with the bat, exposed the flaws in their setup. The decision to bat first, although logical under the conditions, backfired due to the top-order failure. The absence of big centuries or grinding partnerships in both innings meant that New Zealand could not mount a serious challenge. While Blain’s efforts with the bat were commendable, they were too little, too late to change the result.

Conclusion: A Comprehensive Victory for Pakistan

In the end, Pakistan's comprehensive performance in all aspects of the game ensured a dominant victory. The 373-run margin of victory was a clear reflection of the disparity in quality between the two sides. Pakistan’s disciplined batting, punctuated by magnificent centuries from Anwar, Inzamam, and Malik, was complemented by Akram’s persistent bowling and a well-rounded team effort. On the other hand, New Zealand's inability to produce consistent performances with the bat and the failure to cope with Pakistan’s disciplined bowling attack meant they were always on the back foot.

With the series now firmly in Pakistan's control, New Zealand will need to regroup and address their batting frailties if they hope to salvage some pride in the remaining Tests. Pakistan, on the other hand, will look to continue their dominant form and aim to close out the series in style.

Thank You 

Faisal Caesar 

A Battle of Brilliance and Resilience: The Story of Turner’s Defiance and Rowe’s Glory

Test cricket, at its finest, is a game of shifting tides, a contest where moments of brilliance, errors in judgment, and sheer resilience dictate the outcome. The encounter between New Zealand and the West Indies in this unforgettable match was precisely such a spectacle—one defined by astonishing individual performances, tactical lapses, and the indomitable spirit of survival.

At the centre of this remarkable drama stood Glenn Turner, whose unbeaten 223 saved New Zealand from what had appeared to be an inescapable defeat. His innings, played with measured precision and unwavering determination, was the cornerstone upon which New Zealand built their survival. The significance of his knock was magnified by the dire situation his team faced. At 108 for five in reply to the West Indies’ colossal 508 for four declared, New Zealand was teetering on the brink. It was then that Turner, with the steadfast support of Wadsworth, embarked on an innings that would be remembered as one of the greatest acts of defiance in Test history.

The Rise of a Star: Lawrence Rowe’s Phenomenal Debut

Before Turner’s heroics could take shape, the match belonged to one man—Lawrence Rowe. Making his Test debut, Rowe delivered an extraordinary performance, etching his name in cricketing folklore with a majestic 214 in the first innings and an unbeaten 100 in the second. In doing so, he became the first batsman ever to score twin centuries on debut. His batting was an exhibition of elegance and composure, a seamless blend of technical mastery and West Indian flair. Unlike many of his Caribbean contemporaries, Rowe played with a compact technique, his bat rarely straying far from his pad, ensuring minimal risk while capitalizing on scoring opportunities.

Rowe’s innings was not a flash of audacity but a methodical dismantling of the New Zealand attack. His hunger for runs was evident as he built partnerships, first with Fredericks, whose aggressive strokeplay complemented Rowe’s solidity. Their second-wicket partnership of 269 set the foundation for the West Indies' dominant total. Fredericks, despite offering three difficult chances, punished the bowlers with a flurry of square drives and cuts, reaching his first Test century in four and three-quarter hours.

Yet, despite Rowe’s initial invincibility, his subsequent struggles in the series raised questions about his temperament rather than his technique. His debut, however, remained an unparalleled feat—one that, for a brief moment, seemed destined to define the match entirely.

New Zealand’s Struggles and Sobers’ Tactical Lapses

Facing a massive first-innings total, New Zealand's response was shaky. The West Indian pacers made early inroads before Holford, the leg-spinner, exploited the fragile middle order. At 108 for five, the game seemed lost, the visitors staring at an inevitable defeat. It was here that the first cracks in the West Indian strategy emerged.

Turner, despite his early struggles, found himself with an opportunity. A crucial moment came when Carew dropped him at extra cover off Gibbs when he had made just 47. It was a costly miss, one that allowed Turner to anchor the innings with increasing authority. His batting was a masterclass in crisis management—showing an impeccable technique against both pace and spin, blending patience with intent.

He found an unlikely ally in Wadsworth, a wicketkeeper-batsman with a modest highest Test score of 21. The two formed a formidable partnership of 220 runs, effectively negating the West Indian bowling attack. Turner expertly shielded Wadsworth from undue pressure, while Wadsworth himself rose to the occasion with great composure and a straight bat. The significance of their partnership was amplified by the fact that it came against a staggering nine different bowlers—evidence of Sobers’ increasingly desperate search for a breakthrough.

Garfield Sobers, one of the game’s most astute captains, made crucial errors in handling his resources. He failed to restrict Turner’s exposure to the strike, allowing New Zealand to escape from a seemingly hopeless situation. Even more puzzling was his underutilization of Holford, whose leg spin had troubled the New Zealanders earlier in the innings. These miscalculations contributed significantly to New Zealand keeping the first-innings deficit to just 122 runs.

The Final Act: Tension, Grit, and Survival

With a modest lead, the West Indies sought quick runs in their second innings to force a declaration. Rowe, continuing his golden debut, finished unbeaten on 100. However, Sobers' delay in declaring—likely to allow Rowe to reach his milestone—meant New Zealand had a fighting chance to bat out the final day.

The last act of the match was fraught with tension. Holford struck again, dismissing Dowling and Turner in quick succession just after lunch. With the key man gone, a West Indian victory seemed imminent. But just as Turner had done in the first innings, Burgess rose to the occasion, counterattacking with a spirited century. His innings, marked by aggressive strokeplay and determination, ensured that New Zealand would not succumb to the pressure. In the end, they survived, salvaging a draw from what had once looked like a certain defeat.

A Match Defined by What Could Have Been

This Test match was a testament to the unpredictable nature of cricket. The West Indies, dominant for long stretches, were ultimately undone by crucial lapses—Carew’s dropped catch, Sobers’ tactical miscalculations, and the inability to break Turner and Wadsworth’s defiant stand. New Zealand, on the other hand, demonstrated immense character, with Turner’s 223 not out standing as one of the great backs-to-the-wall innings in Test history.

While Rowe's record-breaking debut was the statistical highlight, Turner’s innings was the defining narrative—a story of perseverance, technique, and unyielding spirit against overwhelming odds. This game, rich in individual brilliance and fluctuating fortunes, remains a classic reminder of why Test cricket is the ultimate test of skill, strategy, and temperament.

Thank You

Faisal Caesar 

Courtney Walsh’s Masterclass: Precision Over Power in a Record-Breaking Triumph

In an era where brute pace often overshadows the subtleties of seam and swing, Courtney Walsh reaffirmed the timeless virtues of discipline and precision. On a Basin Reserve pitch lauded for its batting-friendly nature, Walsh’s artistry dismantled New Zealand’s fragile resistance, orchestrating a historic victory for the West Indies. His match figures of 13 for 55 were the second-best ever recorded by a West Indian bowler, surpassed only by Michael Holding’s legendary 14 for 149 at The Oval in 1976. More remarkable, however, was the economy with which Walsh operated, a miserly 1.52 runs per over—highlighting a performance built not on hostility but on an unerring command of line and length.

Nowhere was this precision more evident than in his duel with Stephen Fleming. The left-hander, seemingly assured on 47, found himself ensnared in a web of relentless accuracy. Over after over, Walsh probed at the edge of uncertainty, each delivery a masterstroke of subtle deviation. The final act, Fleming’s dismissal, was inevitable, a lesson in patience and deception worthy of any coaching manual. For Walsh, it was a personal triumph as well; his previous best figures of six for 62 in both innings now lay in the shadow of this extraordinary feat. When he dismissed Bryan Young for the second time, he not only cemented West Indies’ dominance but also marked a personal milestone, his 250th Test wicket, achieved in his 70th appearance.

New Zealand’s Unraveling: A Failure in Grit, Not Conditions

Excuses were neither plausible nor necessary. The pitch had been a batsman’s haven, with even the visiting captain, Jimmy Adams, rating it "nine-point plenty out of ten." And yet, New Zealand’s batting crumbled in both innings, exposing a fundamental flaw—not in technique, but in temperament. In a season meant to commemorate their Test centenary, they instead staged a tragic repetition of past frailties. Where defiance was needed, recklessness prevailed; where composure was required, capitulation followed.

This inability to withstand pressure was thrown into sharp relief by the visitors’ batting masterclass. West Indies’ 660 for five, their fourth-highest total in Test history, was a study in controlled aggression. The innings featured three centurions, each with a distinct approach yet unified in purpose.

Brian Lara, ever the artist, painted another masterpiece. If there were blemishes in his early strokes, they soon dissolved into a breathtaking display of fluid strokeplay. His 147 off 181 balls, embellished with 23 boundaries, was an innings of contrasts, early uncertainty giving way to supreme command. His 221-run partnership with Adams set a new West Indian third-wicket record against New Zealand, an alliance that exuded both fluency and calculation.

Adams himself was a picture of measured intent, accumulating 151 off 226 deliveries, his innings a testament to patience and placement rather than raw power. His reluctance to hook until his 80s was symbolic of an approach dictated by the game’s demands rather than personal inclination. The final flourish came from Junior Murray, whose maiden Test century, an 88-ball blitz, mostly scored on the vacant leg side—offered a stark contrast to the measured builds before him. Though nearly undone on 98 by a missed caught-behind appeal and an untaken stumping chance, his hundred remained a fitting punctuation to a monumental team effort.

New Zealand’s Misfortunes: Self-Inflicted and Otherwise

If New Zealand’s batting woes were largely self-inflicted, their misfortunes in the field were a cruel subplot. Injuries plagued the side before a ball was bowled. Justin Thomson, needing eight stitches after an off-field mishap, was erroneously deemed fit to play. Restricted to first slip—his bowling rendered a mere formality—he became a spectator in his own Test match. Doull and Rutherford, too, carried injuries, their diminished capacities further weakening an already brittle unit.

Selection woes compounded the issue. The inclusion of Su’a, recently suspended by Auckland for umpire abuse, raised eyebrows. Even more bizarre was the presence of Stephen Mather, not as a selected player but as a substitute, opportunistically available due to his suspension from Wellington for off-field misconduct. A team in need of discipline, both in form and character, found itself in disarray, undone as much by circumstance as by its own shortcomings.

A Victory for the Ages, A Defeat for the Record Books

When the final wicket fell, the result was more than just another West Indies victory; it was a statement. Their innings-and-322-run win was the fourth-biggest margin in Test history, an emphatic rebuttal to any suggestion that their dominance was fading.

For New Zealand, it was a reckoning. This was their heaviest Test defeat, a stark reminder that talent, however abundant, must be tempered with resilience. In an era of transition, where their cricket was still searching for a definitive identity, this humiliation would linger, a scar that, if nothing else, might serve as a lesson for the battles ahead.

As for Courtney Walsh, his name would now sit alongside the legends of West Indian fast bowling. His success had not been built on intimidation but on craft, an exhibition of control, patience, and an unwavering belief in the fundamentals. In an era that often glorified aggression, he had proved that bowling, at its finest, remains an art.

Thank You 

Faisal Caesar 

A Test of Attrition: Pakistan’s Pace Dominance and New Zealand’s Faltering Resolve

This was not merely a Test match; it was an examination conducted by a treacherous pitch. Uneven bounce, erratic lift, and a surface that oscillated between docile and demonic turned every defensive stroke into a wager. But difficult surfaces do not create collapses on their own. Undisciplined batting amplified what high-class fast bowling merely exposed.

The pattern of the series crystallised here: quality pace appeared almost supernatural because technique faltered under pressure. On such terrain, the margin between survival and surrender narrowed to a fraction of a second.

And in that fraction operated two masters.

Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis: Milestones Forged in Fire

The match belonged to Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis, not merely in numbers, but in presence.

Wasim Akram: 9 for 93 in the match

Waqar Younis: 6 for 81

Both crossed major career landmarks:200 and 150 Test wickets respectively

These were not hollow statistical achievements. They were milestones chiselled out of hostility and control.

Wasim, bowling with relentless rhythm, made the pitch his ally. His left-arm angle, late movement and unerring control of length transformed uncertainty into inevitability. Batsmen were not dismissed; they were unravelled.

Waqar, operating with pace that felt personal, attacked the stumps with venom. If Wasim seduced with skill, Waqar assaulted with speed. Together they represented the two philosophical poles of fast bowling, art and aggression, yet merged seamlessly into a single force.

It was not simply that they took wickets. It was that they dictated psychological tempo. Every defensive prod felt like a temporary truce.

Even Simon Doull, claiming seven for 114 through pronounced swing rather than sheer pace, seemed part of a fast-bowling concerto in which Wasim and Waqar were the principal soloists.

A Deceptive Calm: New Zealand’s First Innings

Salim Malik, captaining Pakistan for the first time, inserted New Zealand — a decision that soon appeared instinctively correct. Yet the early hours offered no omen of destruction. At lunch, New Zealand were 67 for one. The match breathed normally.

 Then the collapse began, not dramatically, but surgically.

Rashid Latif, sharp and tireless behind the stumps, collected nine dismissals, a Pakistan Test record. His gloves were the punctuation to Wasim and Waqar’s prose.

Ken Rutherford Jones (correcting contextually: Jones) produced New Zealand’s most composed innings, orthodox, confident, resistant. For a fleeting passage, Mark Greatbatch supported him with 48 from 34 balls, assaulting Mushtaq Ahmed before misreading the googly and slicing to cover. That dismissal at 170 altered the mood.

When Jones followed five runs later, the innings fractured. The middle and lower order dissolved quickly, as though aware resistance was futile. The pitch did not worsen; the pressure did.

Pakistan’s Vulnerability, and Inzamam’s Defiance

Pakistan’s reply revealed that the surface was impartial in its cruelty. Four wickets fell for 50. Soon it was 93 for six. The match threatened symmetry.

Enter Inzamam-ul-Haq.

His counterattack carried echoes of his World Cup semi-final heroics on this ground. Where others defended tentatively, he imposed rhythm. It was dynamic, instinctive, disruptive. The tail contributed intelligently, narrowing the deficit to just 27 — a margin that felt insignificant given the conditions.

De Groen extracted steep bounce; Doull maintained discipline. But the psychological advantage still tilted toward Pakistan’s pace axis.

Wasim’s Spell: The Match Turns Violent

New Zealand’s second innings lasted just 32.1 overs.

Wasim Akram bowled throughout.

That statistic alone explains the collapse.

New Zealand were 44 for six before Cairns and Doull lashed their way past 100. It was not construction; it was survival thrashing. Thirty wickets had fallen in two days — the match reduced to an accelerated drama.

Wasim’s spell was not simply destructive; it was authoritative. The line, the control, the refusal to relent, this was bowling that announced hierarchy. On a volatile pitch, he was the constant.

Waqar’s role complemented it: sharp bursts, attacking lengths, relentless pressure. If Wasim closed doors, Waqar sealed windows.

 

Together, they ensured that 138 — modest by conventional standards — felt mountainous yet attainable.

The Final Passage: Control Amid Chaos

Chasing 138, Pakistan faltered early. Saeed Anwar and Asif Mujtaba departed cheaply. The fragility resurfaced.

But Aamir Sohail played the decisive innings of the match. Ten fours and a six, carefully calibrated aggression. He chose his moments with intelligence, a rare commodity in a low-scoring Test.

New Zealand’s final hope evaporated through missed chances: Greatbatch spilled a slip catch; Blain dropped an under-edge. Young eventually claimed his sixth catch of the match, a New Zealand record, but by then the narrative had moved beyond rescue.

Rashid Latif ended proceedings with a six to mid-wicket. Pakistan won by five wickets with more than half the available playing time unused.

The Larger Meaning: Pace as Identity

Beyond the scorecard, this Test reaffirmed Pakistan’s defining cricketing identity.

On unstable surfaces, discipline is survival. But genius is domination.

Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis did not merely exploit conditions; they elevated them. Their milestones,200 and 150 wickets, were symbolic markers in a broader story: Pakistan’s fast-bowling lineage asserting itself once more.

The pitch created uncertainty.

The batsmen created collapses.

But Wasim and Waqar created inevitability.

And in that inevitability lay the match.

When England Mistook Conditions for Excuses: Christchurch 1984 and the Cost of Arrogance

There are defeats that expose technical flaws, and then there are defeats that expose culture. England’s collapse at Christchurch in 1984 belonged firmly to the latter category. Bowled out cheaply twice on a pitch that demanded discipline rather than bravado, England did not merely lose a Test match, they revealed a mindset unprepared for a changing cricketing order.

At the center of that reckoning stood Richard Hadlee, a cricketer whose greatness England neither fully respected nor adequately planned for. By the end of the match, Hadlee had scored a brutal 99 and taken eight wickets for 44, orchestrating an innings victory that still resonates as one of New Zealand’s most emphatic statements of self-belief.

The First Misreading: Bowling Without Thoughts

England lost this Test on the first day, long before the scorecards became humiliating. After New Zealand won the toss, England’s bowlers responded not with patience but with impulse. On a pitch that offered swing and seam, they chose aggression without control, long-hops, half-volleys, and an obsession with bounce.

The advice attributed to Ian Botham,“bounce them all,”was less strategy than reflex. It reflected an England side still clinging to intimidation as a default mode, even when conditions demanded restraint. The result was predictable: New Zealand raced to 307 at more than four an over, aided by 42 boundaries that told a story of excess rather than enterprise.

Hadlee’s 99 was not an act of reckless hitting; it was punishment. He merely accepted what was offered. England bowled as though reputation might substitute for execution. It did not.

The Illusion of a “Bad Pitch”

In the days that followed, the pitch became England’s preferred alibi. It cracked. It moved. It was “dangerous.” But this explanation collapses under scrutiny. New Zealand did not self-destruct on it. They adapted. England did not.

When Bob Willis shortened his run-up and focused on line and length, he immediately became more effective. The lesson was there, written plainly. England as a collective chose not to read it.

The pitch did not force England to pad up to straight balls, nor did it compel reckless shot selection or mental retreat. Those were decisions, born of doubt, seeded by early fear, and magnified by a refusal to recalibrate.

The Psychological Crack

The decisive moment did not come via a wicket, but through hesitation. When David Gower padded up to a Hadlee delivery that was never missing the stumps, it sent a tremor through the dressing room. That single lapse of judgment did more damage than any ball that beat the bat.

By stumps on the second day, England were 53 for 7. Skill had been undermined by uncertainty. Technique by mistrust. This was not a batting collapse caused by violence; it was one caused by erosion.

A Team That Knew Who It Was

New Zealand, by contrast, were a side secure in their identity. Under Geoff Howarth, they did not overthink the contest. They trusted preparation, exploited conditions, and backed Hadlee with seamers who understood their roles, Ewen Chatfield, Lance Cairns, and the recalled Stephen Boock, whose selection spoke to quiet confidence rather than desperation.

This was a New Zealand team no longer content to compete politely. The underdog mentality had hardened into expectation. England, still viewing New Zealand as plucky rather than potent, paid for that miscalculation.

Follow-On, Followed by Inevitable Collapse

When England were forced to follow on, the outcome felt less like a possibility than a formality. Hadlee removed senior players with ruthless efficiency. Mike Gatting and Botham departed for ducks. Resistance was fleeting, almost embarrassed.

To be bowled out for around 100 twice on that surface was not an accident. It was evidence of a side that had mentally conceded long before the final wicket fell. 

Beyond Conditions: A Judgment on Attitude

Hadlee was correct to dismiss England’s post-match explanations. You cannot blame a pitch for boundary catches, run-outs, or padded-up lbws. You cannot blame conditions for lack of focus. England were not unlucky; they were out-thought and out-prepared.

This match mattered because it marked a shift. New Zealand were no longer content to be measured by England’s expectations. They imposed their own. England, meanwhile, were caught between eras—experienced, talented, but culturally adrift.

Respect, or Be Ruined

Christchurch 1984 endures not because England were bowled out cheaply, but because they were exposed intellectually. Cricket, especially away from home, punishes those who rely on instinct when insight is required.

New Zealand respected conditions. England resisted them. Hadlee mastered them.

And in that difference lay one of the most comprehensive defeats England have ever suffered, one that could not be explained away, only learned from.

Thank You 

Faisal Caesar 

Underarm Bowling 1981: The Ball That Rolled Away Cricket’s Soul

The series stood delicately balanced at 1–1. New Zealand had taken the first match, Australia the second. The third final of the Benson & Hedges World Series Cup was meant to decide momentum; instead, it interrogated the meaning of cricket itself.

Even before the last ball, the afternoon had begun to curdle.

Greg Chappell, Australia’s captain and fulcrum, had already been at the centre of controversy. On 58, he drove high and flat into the Melbourne outfield. Martin Snedden ran, dived, and claimed a catch that looked, and later proved, clean. Richie Benaud, watching live, called it “one of the best catches I have ever seen in my life.” Slow-motion replays reinforced the verdict. Snedden had cupped the ball above the turf.

The umpires disagreed.

In an era before television evidence could intervene, the decision stood. Some believed Chappell should have accepted Snedden’s word, invoking cricket’s old covenant of honour., Chappell insisted he was uncertain and within his rights to wait. He went on to score 90, before later walking when caught in a near-identical fashion, having seen the ball clearly held.

Already, the game had exposed a tension that would later snap: between what the law allowed and what the game expected.

Arithmetic, Exhaustion, and the Slippage of Control

Australia’s management of the closing overs betrayed an unusual disarray. Dennis Lillee, their premier bowler, completed his ten overs with the dismissal of John Parker. Richie Benaud later accused Chappell of “getting his sums wrong” by not reserving Lillee for the final over. Graeme Beard’s overs were similarly miscounted after a mid-field conference involving Chappell, Lillee, Kim Hughes and Rod Marsh failed to reconcile the arithmetic.

Trevor Chappell was left with the last over. New Zealand required 15.

Bruce Edgar, stranded at the non-striker’s end on 102 not out—an innings later called “the most overlooked century of all time “could only watch.

Trevor’s over was chaos in miniature: a boundary, Hadlee trapped lbw, two hurried doubles, Ian Smith bowled attempting a desperate heave. Suddenly, improbably, New Zealand needed six to tie. Seven to win was impossible. Six was not.

Under the laws of the time, a tie meant a replay.

The match was alive.

The Delivery

Greg Chappell, exhausted, overstimulated, and fielding the residue of a punishing season, made a decision that would outlive everything else he achieved in the game.

He instructed his brother to bowl underarm.

It was legal. That, ultimately, would be its most damning defence.

Underarm bowling existed in the laws like a fossil—permitted but obsolete, technically alive but spiritually extinct. It was against the regulations of several domestic one-day competitions, widely understood as unsporting, and never used in any serious context.

The umpires were informed. The batsmen were warned.

Trevor Chappell rolled the ball along the pitch like a bowls wood.

Brian McKechnie blocked it out, then flung his bat away in fury. Australia won by six runs. The New Zealanders walked off not defeated, but affronted.

In the confusion, Dennis Lillee remained fractionally outside the fielding circle. Technically, the delivery should have been a no-ball. Had the umpires noticed, the match would have been tied and replayed. They did not.

The law had spoken. The game had not.

Immediate Condemnation

Ian Chappell, commentating, instinctively cried out: *“No, Greg, no, you can’t do that.”*

Richie Benaud called it “disgraceful… one of the worst things I have ever seen done on a cricket field.”

The reaction crossed borders and institutions. New Zealand Prime Minister Robert Muldoon described it as “the most disgusting incident I can recall in the history of cricket,” branding it “an act of true cowardice.” Australia’s Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser called it “contrary to the traditions of the game.”

In the New Zealand dressing room, silence curdled into rage. Mark Burgess smashed a teacup against the wall. “Too angry for words,” recalled Warren Lees.

Cricket, usually insulated from politics, had forced its way into parliament.

Context, Not Excuse

Years later, Greg Chappell offered an explanation, not absolution. He spoke of exhaustion, of being mentally unfit to lead, of a season so relentless he had asked to leave the field mid-innings. Rod Marsh confirmed it. Chappell had spent overs on the boundary, overwhelmed by heat and pressure.

Chappell insisted the delivery was not about securing victory, Australia had already won, but about protest. A cry for attention against a system that, in his view, was grinding players down without listening.

If so, it was the worst possible articulation.

Cricket has always tolerated cunning. It has never forgiven contempt.

Afterlife of a Moment

The underarm incident changed the law. The ICC banned the delivery in one-day cricket, declaring it “not within the spirit of the game.” Few law changes have been so swift or so moral.

The memory lingered longer.

Chappell was booed relentlessly two days later, then scored a match-winning 87 to secure the series. In New Zealand, bowls woods were rolled onto the field when he batted. The incident entered folklore, parody, cinema, advertising, and comedy. Glenn McGrath later mimed an underarm delivery in a Twenty20, prompting Billy Bowden to theatrically flash a mock red card.

Brian McKechnie bore no lasting grudge, though he wished the moment would fade. Trevor Chappell, forever reduced to that one delivery, learned to laugh along. Greg Chappell accepted the stain would never lift.

Why It Still Matters

This was not an act of cheating. That distinction is important and insufficient.

It was worse.

It was an assertion that legality was enough.

Cricket, more than most games, has always rested on an unwritten compact: that the law sets the boundary, but honour defines the field. The underarm delivery shattered that balance. It revealed what happens when calculation replaces conscience, when winning becomes detached from meaning.

The match itself was forgettable. The moment was not.

On one February afternoon in 1981, the law won, the game lost, and cricket learned, painfully, that some victories cost more than defeat.

Thank You

Faisal Caesar

When Certainty Failed: England, New Zealand, and the Art of Last-Wicket Defiance

 Cricket, that most perverse of sporting theatres, has always delighted in humiliating certainty. It seduces captains into believing they have made the correct decision, only to expose the fragility of logic over the slow grind of time. Nowhere was this contradiction more cruelly staged than in England’s Test against New Zealand, a match that seemed methodically won, only to be reclaimed by defiance from the most improbable corner of the scorecard.

What unfolded at the end was not merely a last-wicket stand; it was a reminder that in Test cricket, victory is never secured until the final resistance is extinguished. Nathan Astle and Danny Morrison did not so much bat England out of the game as reveal the many subtle failures that had been accumulating long before the final afternoon.

The Toss That Lied: England’s First Misjudgment

England’s unravelling did not begin with Astle’s resolve or Morrison’s stubbornness; it began with a coin. Winning the toss on a green, moisture-laden surface, Michael Atherton made the apparently orthodox choice to bowl. On paper, it was sound. In execution, it was careless.

The English seamers, gifted conditions designed for dominance, bowled as though seduced by the promise of movement rather than the discipline required to exploit it. Lines drifted. Lengths wavered. Instead of building pressure, they released it, allowing New Zealand’s batsmen the luxury of survival during the most dangerous phase of the match.

More revealing still was England’s selection gamble. Choosing a four-pronged pace attack and leaving out off-spinner Robert Croft signalled a desire for early destruction rather than sustained control. Yet by the 11th over, Atherton was already forced to turn to Phil Tufnell’s left-arm spin, an early admission that his fast bowlers lacked both consistency and restraint. This was not merely a tactical adjustment; it was an indictment. England had misread not just the pitch, but the tempo required to conquer it.

Fleming’s Arrival: Technique as Temperament

If England’s bowlers squandered their opening advantage, Stephen Fleming ensured New Zealand did not. Long admired for elegance yet quietly haunted by unfulfilled promise, Fleming finally married temperament to technique in a defining innings.

His century was not loud, nor hurried. It was composed, almost scholarly, built on leaves as much as drives, patience as much as precision. Fleming judged length early, resisted temptation outside off stump, and trusted his footwork to neutralize both pace and spin. In doing so, he crossed a psychological threshold that had previously eluded him.

The 128 he compiled was not merely a personal liberation; it became New Zealand’s foundation. His partnership with Chris Cairns added ballast and ambition in equal measure, pushing the total to a competitive 390. Against a side that had promised so much with the ball, Fleming’s innings felt like a quiet assertion of control.

England’s Authority: Power, Depth, and False Security

England’s reply was emphatic, almost imperial. Alec Stewart’s 173 was an innings of command, less meditative than Fleming’s, more confrontational. Where Fleming accumulated, Stewart imposed. His driving pierced fields, his cuts punished width, and his willingness to attack unsettled a New Zealand attack short on penetration.

The innings carried historical weight, surpassing Les Ames’s long-standing record for an England wicketkeeper, but its deeper significance lay in its timing. It announced Stewart not merely as a dual-role cricketer, but as England’s most reliable pillar under pressure.

Atherton’s steady half-century provided balance, Graham Thorpe’s fluent 119 added elegance, and contributions from Cork, Mullally, and Tufnell transformed authority into dominance. At 521, England held a lead of 131, substantial, psychological, and seemingly decisive. The match appeared settled, its narrative complete.

It was not.

Collapse and Illusion: The Calm Before Resistance

New Zealand’s second innings began under siege. England bowled with renewed discipline, dismantling the top order and reducing the visitors to wreckage. By the close of the fourth day, the score read 29 for three; by the following morning, it was eight down with a lead barely in double figures.

At this point, the contest ceased to be tactical. It became psychological.

Nathan Astle, known for instinct and aggression, recalibrated his entire batting identity. Danny Morrison, statistically one of Test cricket’s least accomplished batsmen, found himself thrust into an existential role: survival not as contribution, but as refusal.

The Last Stand: Resistance Over Reputation

Astle’s innings was remarkable not because of what he played, but what he resisted. He dead-batted deliveries that once would have been slashed, rotated strike with intelligence, and waited, endlessly, for England to blink. Morrison, meanwhile, produced the most unlikely innings of his career: 133 balls of obstinate defiance, unadorned by flair but rich in intent.

Together they forged an unbroken stand of 106, an act less of partnership than mutual defiance. England threw everything at them: bouncers, yorkers, cutters, changes of angle and pace. Nothing fractured the resolve. Each passing over tightened the psychological noose, not around the batsmen, but around the fielding side.

England’s Unravelling: When Control Turns to Panic

As the final session wore on, England’s authority dissolved into urgency. Atherton shuffled bowlers with increasing frequency, fields grew more imaginative, then more desperate. The pitch, once a collaborator, now seemed indifferent.

What England confronted was not merely two batsmen, but the oldest truth of Test cricket: that time is a resource, and resistance its sharpest weapon. Morrison did not need elegance; Astle did not need dominance. They needed only to endure.

Cricket’s Cruel, Enduring Logic

New Zealand’s escape was not a fluke; it was a verdict. It exposed England’s early indiscipline, their misplaced faith in conditions, and their failure to recognize that domination without closure is merely illusion.

For Astle, the innings marked his evolution from hitter to cricketer. For Morrison, it offered a singular, almost poetic moment in a career otherwise defined by bowling and failure with the bat. For England, it was a lesson in humility, proof that Test matches are not won by accumulation alone, but by relentless completion.

And for the game itself, it was another reaffirmation of why cricket endures. Because it resists finality. Because it honours endurance as much as excellence. And because, even when certainty seems absolute, it always leaves room for the improbable to walk in at number eleven and refuse to leave.

Thank You

Faisal Caesar 

The Tempest of Swing: Wasim and Waqar’s Unrelenting Assault on New Zealand

Cricket has produced many spells of brilliance, but only rarely has it witnessed destruction delivered with such cold inevitability and theatrical menace as the combined assault of Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis against New Zealand. This was not simply a collapse; it was a disintegration engineered by pace, swing, and psychological intimidation. A chase of 127, ordinarily an exercise in patience, was transformed into an ordeal that exposed the fragility of technique when confronted by bowling at the edge of physical possibility.

What unfolded was less a cricket match than a demonstration of fast bowling as an instrument of coercion.

The Fourth Afternoon: When Certainty Began to Fracture

As play resumed on the fourth afternoon, the contest still clung to balance. Overnight rain had left moisture beneath the surface, creating a pitch that promised movement but not necessarily mayhem. New Zealand, 39 for 3, remained within touching distance of victory. Their task, on paper, was manageable.

Yet Test cricket rarely obeys arithmetic. For forty minutes, New Zealand resisted. Pads were thrust forward, bats came down late, and survival became strategy. But the atmosphere was deceptive, calm only in appearance. Beneath it, Pakistan’s captain Javed Miandad wrestled with doubt. Should he interrupt the rhythm of his fast bowlers? Should spin enter the narrative?

The hesitation lasted seconds. Then instinct prevailed. The ball was returned to Waqar—and with it, inevitability.

The Catch That Broke the Dam

Waqar’s next delivery was not dramatic in isolation, just sharp pace, late movement, and an inside edge. But cricket often pivots on moments, not margins. Andrew Jones’ edge flew to short leg, where Asif Mujtaba reacted on impulse rather than thought. The dive, the outstretched hand, the clean take, it was an act of athletic violence against hesitation itself.

In that instant, resistance collapsed into panic.

Fast Bowling as Systematic Destruction

From there, the match ceased to be competitive. It became instructional. Wasim and Waqar operated not as individuals but as a single mechanism—one shaping the batsman, the other finishing him. Swing late, seam upright, pace relentless. The ball curved in the air and jagged after pitching, a combination that rendered footwork irrelevant and judgment obsolete.

Seven wickets fell for 28 runs. Not through recklessness, but through inevitability. Batsmen were not lured into mistakes; they were denied options.

When Waqar shattered Chris Harris’s stumps, it was more than another wicket. It was history, his 100th Test wicket, achieved in just his 20th match. The statistic mattered less than the manner: stumps uprooted, technique exposed, fear confirmed.

New Zealand were dismissed for 93. A chase had become a rout; hope had become disbelief.

The Match Beneath the Climax

Yet to reduce this Test to its final act is to miss its deeper texture. The destruction was made possible by earlier battles of attrition and survival.

Miandad’s own innings in Pakistan’s first effort, 221 minutes of stubborn resistance, was a reminder of Test cricket’s moral economy. He fought while others failed, falling agonisingly short of a century, undone by Dion Nash, whose swing bowling briefly threatened to tilt the match New Zealand’s way.

For the hosts, Mark Greatbatch stood alone. For seven hours, he absorbed punishment and responded with courage. His on-drive off Wasim, full, flowing, defiant, was less a stroke than a declaration of resistance. But isolation is fatal in Test cricket. When Greatbatch fell, the innings hollowed out around him.

Then came the moment that might have rewritten the ending. Inzamam-ul-Haq, under scrutiny and short of confidence, offered a chance on 75. John Rutherford appeared to have taken it—until the ball spilt loose as he hit the turf. Momentum evaporated. Matches often turn not on brilliance, but on what is not held.

Fire, Friction, and the Mind Game

This was Test cricket without restraint. Sledging intensified, tempers frayed, and umpires became custodians of order rather than arbiters of play. Pakistan’s aggression was verbal as much as physical. New Zealand responded in kind, Dipak Patel needling Rashid Latif from close quarters, each word an attempt to destabilise concentration.

When match referee Peter Burge issued formal warnings, it felt procedural rather than corrective. The hostility was not incidental; it was intrinsic to the contest. This was cricket stripped of diplomacy.

Epilogue: Fast Bowling as Memory

When the final wicket fell, it was Wasim and Waqar who remained—figures framed not just by statistics, but by intimidation and inevitability. This was not simply a victory; it was a demonstration. A reminder that at its most primal, fast bowling does not negotiate—it dictates.

For New Zealand, the match became a lesson etched in loss: never assume a chase is benign when swing is alive, and pace is unrelenting. For Pakistan, it reaffirmed its identity. This was what they were: creators of chaos, wielders of reverse swing, masters of pressure.

Years later, those who witnessed this Test would remember not the target, nor the conditions, but the feeling: the sense that something uncontrollable had been unleashed. It endures not as a scorecard, but as a warning of what happens when fast bowling transcends craft and becomes force.

This was not cricket played politely.

It was cricket imposed.

Thank You

Faisal Caeasr

Boxing Day 1987-88: When Hadlee Bowled, and Time Held Its Breath

The 24th Test between Australia and New Zealand had all the hallmarks of a classic: runs and wickets, records and heartbreak, controversy and theatre. Yet, what lingers most from that Melbourne summer of 1987 is not just the scorecard, but the emotional scar it carved into both nations. Before 127,000 spectators, cricket morphed into something greater—a drama of will, fate, and defiance.

The Spark of Controversy

New Zealand’s innings began with steady promise. John Wright anchored, Martin Crowe sculpted elegance, and Hadlee’s shadow loomed from the dressing room. Yet, controversy struck before tea. Jeff Dyer, the Australian wicketkeeper, claimed a catch off Jones that television replays later revealed had touched the ground. The umpires—caught between instinct and protocol—gave it out. The ghosts of injustice settled early into the Test.

John Wright, stoic and stubborn, came agonisingly close to etching his name in Boxing Day history. His 99—an innings of grit lasting more than five hours—ended a run short of immortality, echoing the cruel fates of Beck and Hadlee himself in Tests past. Cricket, ever capricious, had again denied a milestone.

The Australian Riposte

If Wright’s near-century was heartbreak, then Martin Crowe’s 82 was refinement, sculpted in silken drives. Still, the tourists’ 317 felt precarious. Enter Hadlee—an artist of destruction. His four wickets ripped through Australia, leaving them teetering at 170 for five.

And then came defiance. Peter Sleep, the unlikely hero, compiled a dogged 90, aided by the debutant Tony Dodemaide—who, armed with barely a day’s notice and borrowed kit, seized his moment with bat and ball. Their ninth-wicket stand swung the pendulum. Suddenly, Australia had a lead. Suddenly, Melbourne roared again.

Crowe’s Brilliance, Border’s Century of Catches

New Zealand’s second innings brought flashes of glory. Crowe again dazzled, racing to 79 with a dozen crisp boundaries. In reaching 34, he became only the seventh man in history to score 4,000 first-class runs in a calendar year—an accolade that placed him alongside Hutton. His dismissal, snapped brilliantly by Border, doubled as the Australian captain’s 100th Test catch. A symbolic passing: youth’s ascent marked by the veteran’s grasp.

Set 247 to win, Australia approached the chase with composure. By late afternoon on the final day, at 176 for four, victory seemed inevitable. Then Hadlee returned.

Hadlee’s Last Crusade

It was his 70th over of the match, but Hadlee bowled as though youth had returned to his limbs. The ball leapt, seamed, and swung as if it carried divine instruction. He tore through the lower order, each wicket lifting New Zealand closer to an improbable victory. The crowd—nearly 24,000 strong in the ground and millions more across Australia—watched spellbound. Quiz shows were cancelled; national attention belonged to the MCG.

With each scalp, Hadlee carved himself deeper into cricketing legend: ten wickets in the match, for the record eighth time. He surpassed Barnes, Grimmett, Lillee. Only Ian Botham remained ahead of him. One more wicket, and the record was his.

But cricket’s cruel theatre had one more twist.

Morrison’s Agony, Whitney’s Defiance

Danny Morrison, barely 21, was entrusted with the penultimate over. His inswinger to Craig McDermott—perfect, venomous—thudded onto the pads. The MCG froze, eyes fixed on umpire Dick French. Not out. Morrison collapsed onto the turf in disbelief, staring up into the endless Melbourne sky. A decision, perhaps history itself, had slipped away.

The task fell then to Mike Whitney, Australia’s No. 11 and self-confessed worst batsman. Whitney, who entered the ground expecting to pack for Perth, found himself standing between Hadlee and cricketing immortality. Helmets on, nerves jangling, he survived. Three overs of defiance. Three overs that transformed him from obscurity into folklore.

When Hadlee’s final delivery was blocked, he did not rage. Instead, he walked down, placed an arm around Whitney’s shoulder, and offered a handshake that embodied the spirit of the game. A gladiator saluting his unlikely conqueror.

Beyond the Scorecard

The match was drawn. Australia retained the Trans-Tasman Trophy for the first time. Hadlee walked away with ten wickets, the Man of the Match, and the Man of the Series. Yet the trophy’s gleam was dulled by the aching truth: New Zealand had been denied not by effort, but by fate, officiating, and Whitney’s improbable courage.

For Australia, Border tasted his first Test series victory as captain. For Dodemaide, it was a debut etched in history—fifty runs and six wickets in the same match, a feat unmatched since Albert Trott. For Sleep, 90 runs became his legacy’s jewel.

But above all, it was Hadlee’s Test. At 36, with the weight of a nation on his shoulders, he came within a single ball of rewriting history. And in that pursuit, he transcended mere sport. He became, as Danny Morrison later said, New Zealand’s Superman.

Epilogue: A Test That Refused to Die

Nearly four decades on, the Boxing Day Test of 1987 is remembered not for who won or lost, but for how it was played: as drama, as theatre, as literature. It was about the almosts—the almost-century, the almost-victory, the almost-record.

In those almosts lay the true poetry of cricket: that triumph is fleeting, that greatness often resides not in conquest but in the chase, and that sometimes the most enduring victories are those denied.

Thank You 

Faisal Caesar 

Pakistan in New Zealand, 1995-96: Collapse, Control, and the Quiet Authority of Mushtaq Ahmed

Eight days is not long in the calendar, but in the emotional weather of a touring side it can feel like a season. Eight days after a consolation win in Australia — a victory that felt more like relief than resurrection — Pakistan found themselves again standing in borrowed light, this time under New Zealand skies. The question lingered unspoken: was Sydney a beginning, or merely an echo?

The answer arrived slowly, spun rather than struck, shaped by patience rather than force.

Pakistan began as they so often did in that era — beautifully, recklessly. Aamir Sohail and Ramiz Raja stitched together an opening partnership of 135 that seemed to quiet the ground, their bats working in gentle agreement, the ball softened, the bowlers disarmed. It was cricket played in balance, the kind that invites optimism.

Then, as if someone had leaned too heavily on the future, it collapsed.

From comfort came chaos. Ten wickets fell for 73 runs, the innings folding in on itself with the suddenness of a thought interrupted. Chris Cairns was the agent, his burst sharp and unrelenting — three wickets in 21 balls, three truths revealed in quick succession. Sohail, who had looked so settled, lost his balance and knocked over his own stumps for 88, undone not by deception but by the smallest misalignment. It felt symbolic. Control had been surrendered, and Pakistan were once again chasing themselves.

New Zealand batted with restraint, if not dominance. Craig Spearman, on debut, played with the enthusiasm of a man keen to leave a footprint — five fours, a six off Mushtaq Ahmed, a promise briefly illuminated before a top-spinner bent time just enough to deceive him. The hosts closed the first day three down, and when only Stephen Fleming fell early next morning, the Test tilted gently away from Pakistan.

There were moments when the game could have hardened beyond retrieval. Ramiz Raja dropped Chris Cairns at mid-on when he was on 30 — a simple chance, heavy with consequence. Cairns went on to make 76, adding 102 with Roger Twose, and for a while New Zealand batted as if they were laying permanent claim to the match. Then Wasim Akram intervened.

There are bowlers who operate within the game, and others who rearrange it. Wasim belonged to the latter. Once he separated Cairns and Twose, the resistance dissolved. The last six wickets fell for 65, Wasim carving through them with five for 14 in ten overs — a reminder that decline, in his case, was always exaggerated, always temporary.

New Zealand’s lead of 78 felt useful, not decisive. Pakistan understood this too. When they batted again, they did so as if chastened, as if something had been learned in the wreckage of the first innings. By the close of the second day they had moved 60 runs ahead with only one wicket lost, though Ramiz Raja was forced to retire hurt, the wrist stiff with pain and uncertainty.

What followed on the third day was not spectacular cricket, but something rarer: disciplined cricket. Pakistan batted through the entire day, hour by hour, minute by minute, refusing temptation. Ijaz Ahmed and Inzamam-ul-Haq shared a partnership of 140 that felt built not on flair but on mutual trust. Inzamam fell at slip, but the rhythm remained.

Ijaz, given life on 81 when Parore spilled a chance, turned reprieve into declaration. After lunch, he moved with a new certainty, stepping beyond the nervous nineties into his fourth Test hundred. It took almost five hours. It included 13 fours and two sixes. More importantly, it carried authority — the quiet authority of a man no longer asking permission.

Salim Malik steadied the middle, Ramiz Raja returned, bruised but unbowed, to craft another half-century. When Pakistan were finally dismissed for 434 on the fourth morning — Waqar Younis and Mushtaq Ahmed having added a brisk 41 for the ninth wicket — the lead stood at 357. The match had been pulled back from the edge and reshaped entirely.

New Zealand chased bravely, if briefly. Spearman and Young added 50, delaying the inevitable with optimism, but once Mushtaq found his way through, the innings lost its spine. The score slipped to 75 for five, and when captain Lee Germon was run out at 101 for six, the Test seemed already to belong to memory.

Roger Twose resisted, as he had all match, gathering another half-century from the wreckage. But resistance without belief rarely alters outcomes. On the final morning, Pakistan required little more than an hour to close the door.

Mushtaq Ahmed finished with seven for 56 — his best in Test cricket — completing a match haul that brought his tally to 28 wickets in three Tests. This was no longer promise. This was arrival. Waqar Younis, relentless as ever, claimed his 200th Test wicket in his 38th match, bowling Nash and marking another milestone in a career that seemed to accumulate them without ceremony.

There was one final footnote. Danny Morrison, who had already equalled Bhagwat Chandrasekhar’s record of 23 Test ducks in the first innings, postponed infamy by scoring a single before falling to Mushtaq. Even records, it seemed, were waiting their turn.

Pakistan left the ground as winners, but also as something else — a team that, for once, had not relied solely on chaos or brilliance. This was a victory spun into being, patiently, deliberately, by a leg-spinner who understood that Test matches are not seized in moments, but shaped over days.

And in that understanding, Pakistan may have found something far more enduring than a win.

Thank You 

Faisal Caesar 

The Lost Art of Resistance: Justin Greaves and the Day Test Cricket Remembered Itself

In an age where Test cricket increasingly borrows the impatience of limited-overs formats, the idea of batting for survival—once the game’s highest form of discipline—often feels antiquated. Defensive mastery, the ability to dull the ball, drain the bowlers, and stretch time until it bends, has become a rarity. Innovation, aggression, and risk-taking dominate modern narratives; attrition is frequently dismissed as anachronistic.

Yet at Christchurch, Test cricket briefly reclaimed its oldest truth. And the reminder came from a West Indies side many believed had forgotten how to play the longest format.

The Long Stand That Rewrote Momentum

Set an unprecedented target of 531 at Hagley Oval, West Indies appeared destined for defeat when they slipped to 92 for 4. What followed instead was an innings steeped in patience and resolve, anchored by Justin Greaves—a knock that resisted not just the bowling, but the assumptions of the era.

Greaves’ effort was monumental in both scale and symbolism. Facing 388 deliveries—more than half the balls he had encountered in his 12-Test career—he ground New Zealand’s attack into exhaustion. West Indies batted 163.3 overs in the fourth innings, their longest such occupation in 95 years, to secure their first points of the 2025–27 World Test Championship.

Initially playing second fiddle in a vital 196-run stand with Shai Hope, Greaves emerged as the fulcrum once Hope (140) and Tevin Imlach departed in quick succession. From that moment, the innings became his - unmistakably.

A Double Hundred Carved in Stone

Greaves’ maiden Test double century arrived fittingly late—in the penultimate over—when he sliced Jacob Duffy over backward point. It was only his second boundary of the final session. Teammates rose in unison, acknowledging an achievement built not on flourish but fortitude.

Finishing on 202 not out, Greaves transformed an innings that began with flair into one of pure steel. He absorbed blows to the body, suppressed instinctive attack, and batted with a single-minded clarity rarely seen today. Cramps forced multiple interventions, yet even the lure of personal milestones failed to provoke recklessness.

This was defence not as retreat, but as control.

Roach, the Veteran Ally

If Greaves was the architect, Kemar Roach was the immovable pillar. In his comeback Test at 37, Roach produced the finest batting display of his career: 58 not out off 233 balls, astonishingly scoring just five runs from his final 104 deliveries.

It was, at times, painful to watch—and glorious for that very reason. Under a baking Christchurch sun and on an increasingly docile surface, Roach played with the desperation of a man who understood time as his greatest weapon.

New Zealand’s frustration was unmistakable. Missed chances piled up: a dropped catch on 30, a missed run-out on 35, and a near-holing-out on 47—each reprieve deepening their misery. Even potential dismissals off Michael Bracewell slipped away, aggravated by reviews already squandered.

When the Pitch Offered Nothing—and Time Offered Everything

New Zealand entered the fourth innings already understaffed, with Matt Henry and Nathan Smith injured. By the final sessions, they were operating with two weary quicks—Zak Foulkes and Jacob Duffy—and two part-timers, all bowling beyond comfort without meaningful assistance from the surface.

Fields tightened, bodies crowded the bat, but breakthroughs refused to come. Even as Hope fell to a moment of brilliance from Tom Latham, and Imlach succumbed shortly after, the moment for decisive separation had passed.

By the final hour, West Indies—needing 96 from 15 overs—made their calculation. The impulse to chase gave way to realism. Defence became doctrine.

Numbers That Tell a Story

The scoreboard alone struggled to capture the magnitude:

202 made Greaves the fourth West Indian—and seventh overall—to score a fourth-innings double century.

He became the first visiting batter ever to do so in New Zealand.

His 388 balls are the most faced by any West Indies batter in a fourth innings, surpassing George Headley’s 385 in 1930.

West Indies’ 457 for 6 is the second-highest fourth-innings total in Test history, behind only England’s 654 for 5 in 1939.

Voices from the Middle

Greaves described the innings simply as resilience—a word echoed repeatedly within the dressing room.

“Once you get in, stay in; it’s a good pitch,” coach Floyd Reifer told him.

“So for me, being there at the end was really important. Anything for the team.”

Roach, whom Greaves credited as his guide through the closing stages, embodied that team-first ethic. Captain Roston Chase later confirmed the decisive call—to shut shop—was taken when survival clearly outweighed ambition.

New Zealand captain Tom Latham was gracious in defeat, acknowledging not just his team’s missed chances and injuries, but the quality of resistance they encountered.

 “Sometimes you have to give credit where it’s due,” Latham said.

 “The way West Indies played that fourth innings was pretty outstanding.”

Why This Draw Will Matter

In the end, West Indies did not win the match—but they won time, belief, and respect. The manner of this draw may prove more valuable than many victories: proof that Test cricket still rewards patience, that resistance remains an art, and that endurance can still command awe.

Christchurch did not produce a result. It produced something rarer—a reminder of what Test cricket looks like when courage outlasts momentum.

And on that long, sunburnt day, Justin Greaves reminded the game how to remember itself.

Thank You

Faisal Caesar 

A Test of Resistance: New Zealand’s Stirring Revival in India

When New Zealand slumped to 175 for eight at tea on the opening day, the prospect of them squaring the series seemed so remote as to belong to fantasy. India had dominated the First Test, their batting and spin far superior; New Zealand looked a side carrying fatigue, doubt, and the oppressive weight of subcontinental conditions. And yet, out of this gloom emerged a partnership that rekindled the steel so often associated with New Zealand cricket in the 1980s.

The First Revival: Bracewell and Morrison’s Act of Defiance

The ninth-wicket stand of 76 between John Bracewell and Danny Morrison did more than lift the total; it resurrected belief. With a mixture of audacity and resourcefulness, Bracewell swept and pulled as though batting in another universe, reaching a half-century before stumps. Morrison stood with him, determined, unflinching. Their partnership—a New Zealand record against India—became the first major plot twist in a match that repeatedly defied expectation.

Bracewell’s innings that evening was the opening chapter of a performance that would later define the match.

India’s Reply: Control Gained, Control Lost

India began with the assurance of a side accustomed to dictating the tempo at home. Kris Srikkanth, playing with a kind of joyous abandon, took on Richard Hadlee in a spirit that skirted self-sacrifice. Dilip Vengsarkar, in his 100th Test, played the perfect foil—quiet, composed, allowing Srikkanth to unfurl strokes of dominance.

On a pitch that offered something to every type of bowler, India looked poised to dwarf New Zealand’s total. Srikkanth’s brutal treatment of Bracewell—three soaring sixes—made that dominance feel absolute.

But cricket changes course in a heartbeat.

Vengsarkar’s casual dismissal off the off-spinner altered the tenor of the innings. And then Hadlee returned. After just the wicket of Arun Lal in his first thirteen overs, he finally confronted Srikkanth again. The Indian opener, now cautious and approaching his century, was undone by a perfectly disguised leg-cutter, the ball feathering the leading edge on its journey to gully.

India’s collapse thereafter carried the inevitability of a falling structure whose foundation had cracked unseen. Hadlee devoured the tail with ruthless precision, extending his staggering list of five-wicket hauls to 34, and—almost implausibly—giving New Zealand a lead. It was only two runs, but symbolically it was seismic: a team crushed in the First Test had just wrestled control.

The Third Innings: A Battle Against Moderation

Yet New Zealand were not out of peril. Despite Mark Greatbatch’s resolve and Andrew Jones’s discipline, there hung a perpetual fear: that they might leave India a target too small to defend. Their 76-run third-wicket stand promised stability, but the innings repeatedly faltered. At 181 for eight, with India prowling, the Test hung in precarious equilibrium.

And then, as in the first innings, the script turned again.

Bracewell and Smith: A Second Resurrection

Bracewell joined Ian Smith, and together they authored another act of defiance—a 69-run stand that would prove terminal for India’s hopes. Smith, attacking the second new ball with unrestrained relish on the fourth morning, swept past fifty—his first against India, only his third in Tests. Their morning surge—47 runs in the first hour—planted doubt deep into Indian minds.

With New Zealand eventually setting a target of 282 in a minimum of 130 overs, the psychological equation shifted. On a surface growing slower, turning more, darkening in temperament, 282 looked far more formidable than its digits.

And looming always was the shadow of Hadlee.

India’s Final Innings: Strangled by Craft and History

Srikkanth’s decision to pad up to the very first ball—a sharp in-cutter from Hadlee—proved fatal and strangely symbolic. That dismissal signalled that India were now batting in New Zealand’s world: a world of unyielding discipline, clever angles, relentless persistence.

The pitch began to offer generous turn, and this was the moment Bracewell relished most. His off-breaks—old-fashioned in flight, but wicked in their bite—brought instant reward. In his first two overs he removed Sidhu and Vengsarkar, slicing into the Indian top order as though he had been waiting all match for precisely this stage.

Arun Lal resisted for two hours, but elsewhere Azharuddin’s uncertain prodding at Bracewell told a more accurate story: India, so long masters of spin, were now victims of its cunning. Hoist with their own petard indeed.

Kapil Dev offered a brief flicker of counter-attack, a gesture of pride rather than conviction. But by the time the final morning arrived, the match had long since slipped from India’s hold. Twenty-one minutes into the day, Narendra Hirwani swept Bracewell high to Chatfield, and it was done.

New Zealand had secured only their second win on Indian soil—a triumph born not of dominance but of resilience, character, and perfectly timed bursts of brilliance.

Epilogue: A Match Defined by Two Men

This Test will long be remembered as John Bracewell’s masterpiece and another chapter in Richard Hadlee’s legend.

Bracewell:

Scores of 52 and 32; bowling figures of 2 for 81 and a match-winning 6 for 51.

His fingerprints were on every turning moment of the contest.

Hadlee:

For the ninth time in his career, he collected ten wickets in a Test, sculpting the Indian innings with the precision of a master craftsman.

Together, they took New Zealand from despair to triumph in a match shaped by low scores, shifting momentum, and the unwavering spirit of a team that refused to yield.

Richard Hadlee’s Masterclass at Brisbane: A Reflection on a Singular Triumph

Three decades ago, the cricketing world was graced by the presence of an extraordinary generation of all-rounders—players whose names have since become etched into the mythology of the game. Imran Khan, Ian Botham, Kapil Dev, and Richard Hadlee represented a golden era of cricket, where individual brilliance often turned the tide of a match. For New Zealand, a team perennially burdened by the limitations of its cricketing resources, Hadlee was not just a talisman; he was the fulcrum around which the Kiwis’ aspirations revolved. Nowhere was this more evident than during the unforgettable Test match at Brisbane in November 1985, where Hadlee’s bowling brilliance dismantled Australia with an almost poetic ruthlessness.

The Brisbane pitch, cloaked in slightly overcast conditions, offered a glimmer of hope to the visitors. New Zealand skipper Jeremy Coney, a shrewd and thoughtful leader, sensed an opportunity and elected to field first—a decision that would soon pay dividends. For Australia, the weight of expectation was considerable, even against an underdog like New Zealand. Yet Hadlee, armed with his unerring accuracy, subtle variations, and a profound understanding of seam movement, exposed the fragility lurking beneath Australia’s batting order.

The Spellbinding Opening Salvo

Hadlee’s performance across the two days of the Test was a masterclass in fast bowling—controlled aggression paired with surgical precision. On Day One, the Australians ended at a seemingly salvageable 146 for four, but all four wickets belonged to Hadlee. Each dismissal was a testament to his mastery. Andrew Hilditch fell to an ill-advised hook shot, a victim of Hadlee’s ability to lure batsmen into errors. David Boon’s demise, courtesy of a sharp edge to slip, highlighted Hadlee’s skill in exploiting even the slightest lapse in technique. Allan Border’s dismissal after lunch—caught at cover—was the result of Hadlee’s relentless pressure forcing an uncharacteristic mistake from Australia’s finest. By the day’s close, Hadlee had already shaped the narrative of the match.

Day Two: A Symphony of Destruction

If Day One belonged to Hadlee the craftsman, Day Two revealed Hadlee the destroyer. Resuming at 146 for four, Australia collapsed spectacularly, adding just 33 runs to their overnight score. Hadlee’s rhythm was sublime, his control unwavering. Kepler Wessels, who had shown glimpses of resilience, fell LBW to a ball that cut in sharply—a dismissal that shattered Australia’s hopes of recovery. What followed was a procession of middle-order batsmen, each undone by Hadlee’s relentless probing.

One dismissal, in particular, encapsulated Hadlee’s genius. Greg Matthews, a capable southpaw, was deceived by a delivery that appeared to move away before sharply cutting back to clip the bails. It was a moment of artistry, a ball that swung with the subtlety of a whisper before striking with the force of a hammer.

Hadlee’s final figures—nine for 52—spoke of utter dominance. Yet, as fate would have it, the tenth wicket eluded him. Geoff Lawson’s dismissal came via a sharp running catch by Hadlee himself, handing Vaughan Brown his maiden Test wicket. In a gesture of magnanimity that underscored Hadlee’s character, he later reflected, “Some people walked up and asked me why I didn’t drop the catch. But the game of cricket is not like that. You take every opportunity you get.”

This unselfish act epitomized Hadlee’s approach to cricket—a blend of individual brilliance tempered by respect for the team and the game itself.

The Inevitable Triumph

New Zealand’s response with the bat was as emphatic as Hadlee’s spell with the ball. John Reid and Martin Crowe, two of New Zealand’s most accomplished batsmen, constructed centuries of immense poise, guiding their team to a monumental 553 for seven. Hadlee, never content to contribute with the ball alone, played a blistering cameo of 54 runs off 45 balls, further cementing his all-round brilliance.

Trailing by 374, Australia never looked capable of mounting a challenge. While Allan Border’s heroic, unbeaten 152 offered a glimpse of defiance, it was ultimately an act of futility. Hadlee, once again, returned to claim six for 71 in the second innings, finishing with match figures of 15 for 123.

The Legacy of Brisbane

New Zealand’s victory by an innings and 41 runs was not merely a historic triumph—it was a seismic statement. This was New Zealand’s first-ever Test win on Australian soil, a feat that underscored the significance of Hadlee’s performance. His 15 wickets in the match rank among the greatest individual efforts in Test cricket history. More than the statistics, however, it was the manner of Hadlee’s bowling—his elegance, intelligence, and ferocity—that elevated the performance to something timeless.

Reflecting on the match, Hadlee described it as a “fairy tale,” a phrase that resonates with the mythical quality of his achievement. In truth, it was less a fairy tale and more a masterstroke—an exhibition of cricketing artistry that transcended the limitations of the moment.

For New Zealand, a cricketing nation often overshadowed by its more illustrious rivals, Brisbane 1985 remains a touchstone of pride. For Hadlee, it was the crowning glory of a career defined by brilliance and integrity. And for cricket itself, it was a reminder of the power of one man to transform a match, a series, and a legacy.

Thank You 

Faisal Caesar