Friday, December 20, 2002 Whichever team batted for 38 overs on this pitch were going to lose at least four or five wickets. The New Zealand bowlers made good use of the conditions and India lost eight wickets, when they should have been fighting to get around 220 or 250.

You just don't see enough fight these days from teams playing away. They shouldn't be capitulating as India have done. We struggle when we play away from home, but that's the challenge to show that you are a man for all seasons

I can't remember being in a team where it's got worse three innings in a row, as it has for India now. Normally, you make an adjustment. I felt that their thinking going into this Test was: you can't really change these players and they have to just believe in themselves.

That kind of an outlook was too general, there was no effort to make the technical adjustment, play forward, and once you do it, it's not hard to maintain that technique.

With the quantity of cricket being played these days, there could be a subconscious feeling that, " if I miss out today, it's ok, I can score next week. " But it's different to the likes of Mark Richardson who only plays Test cricket –these two Tests against India were his only games for the whole summer, for six months. And so he's makes the best use of every ball that he faces. That admirable attitude used to exist more often a long time ago, back in the 1980s.

Look at the way Indian batsmen got out: Sourav Ganguly was woeful; it was a horrible exhibition of leading by example. In contrast, Parthiv Patel, the 17-year old, fought it out. You have to admire him. He played the way everyone else should have played at the top of the order.

Bangar wasn't playing straight enough, and got a leading edge to slip; Sehwag was never really comfortable and is not an opening batsman in these conditions; VVS Laxman looked out of depth, with his immobile feet.

As for Harbhajan Singh, I'm sorry, but I can't understand that kind of attitude – going two feet outside leg stump to the very first ball he faced. He was lucky to have scored those five boundaries.

Sachin Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid tried hard, but the deliveries from Daryl Tuffey that got them out were the highlights of the day for me. The two balls opened up the batsmen and could have got great batsmen of any era. That was quality cricket. The rest of it was lack of resolve from the batsmen and the bowlers dominated.

The groundsman (Doug Strachan ) would have ideally liked to hand over the pitch for play tomorrow. But with the sun shining, dry outfield and crowd in, there was an obligation to start the match. That was the dilemma that faced the match officials, organizers and umpires- and they did what they thought was best. But the pitch was definitely too moist – no question about that. It was not conducive for the opening session of a Test match.

At the end of the day, you have to go by that decision. If India had won the toss, the boot would have been on the other foot and New Zealand would have struggled. So the toss was even more crucial than at Wellington, and you sympathize with Ganguly for losing two in a row.

You could say India were unlucky here at Hamilton. Their effort at Wellington, in the second innings, was worse because the conditions then were good.

On the other hand, you don't see any improvement in India - from man to man - and that's why you can write off this Test series if you are an Indian supporter.

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 be giving his expert view on India's tour of New Zealand. He was talking to Raja M.

Click here to send us your feedback on Martin Crowe's views

© Wisden CricInfo Ltd