The pitch is the same.

The Indian batsmen are -- at least on paper -- the stronger of the two contesting sides.

So how do you explain the first side being 54/4 with the cream of the batting crop back in the hut inside the morning session, despite dropped catches, while the second side made 53/1 in the evening session, on a still hot deck, in fading light?

There are many explanations -- some, in fact, might sum it up in one word and say, 'incompetence'.

Click here to get at least one part of the answer:

The wagonwheels of the two innings tell a story.

Check, first, the Indian wagonwheel. The bulk of the runs -- 54 out of 161 -- is made in the third man region. The least amount of runs come in the square leg arc -- just 12.

What does that tell you about the line bowled? Just around off or outside -- the perfect line in such conditions, because it brings the edge of the bat into play. Sure, 54 runs went -- but so did ten wickets, six of them caught in the slip-gully-keeper cordon, two others bowled, one LBW.

Now check the New Zealand Manhattan -- as many runs have been scored square on the on, as have been scored to third man (16 apiece).

Straight up, it tells you that while the bowlers did look for the line around or just outside off -- the corridor -- they also strayed far too often onto middle and leg, presenting the batsmen seasonal gifts.

This has had an impact on the respective captains and the fields they set -- Fleming, knowing his bowlers were disciplined, could put his on side fielders up close, in an attacking rather than defensive position. More pressure.

Ganguly, having to cope with bowlers who bowled six different lines each over, had to set them deeper, in defensive positions. Ergo, lessening of pressure, plus the knowledge, for the batsmen, that there are runs to be had for free if they just hang in there (Note, almost 1/3 of the Kiwi total has been made in the square leg region -- an area of the pitch where, on this kind of track, there should have been next to no runs scored).

There is a lesson in here for the Indian bowlers -- shortly, we will know if they have learnt it.

When, first thing in the morning -- or rather, when play actually started, an hour before tea -- Sanjay Bangar came on to bowl, I figured, ah, okay, change of ends for Nehra.

But five overs later, Bangar is back.

I know Wright says he has grit, I know Dav Whatmore of Sri Lanka says he has determination, I know he stunned us all with some scintillating batting in recent ODIs, I even remember he took a wicket off a bad ball last evening.

But Bangar? In the first hour of play on a day when overnight rains delayed start of play by over three hours? With moisture under the deck and grass on top of it, Bangar ahead of Agarkar?

There can be only one explanation for this -- the captain reckons the Kiwis are scoring too quick, and they want to defend.

Which brings up a question -- if on a deck like this, on which a largely untried bowling attack can get the "best batting lineup in the world" out inside 60 overs for 161 runs, the best the Indian bowlers can do is defend with a ball 31 overs old on a grassy, seaming track, there is really only one thought to think, one thing to say: India will wait another 16 years for an overseas series win.

And in passing, what of Agarkar himself? If, on a track made for quicks, he is seen to be worth only 3 overs out of 33 bowled, why was he picked at all in the first place?

• Comment by Sujata Prakash

Comments: Day 1 | Day 3