India lifted the T20 World Cup with a thumping total of 255 for 5, built on Abhishek Sharma’s blistering 50 from just 18 balls. The left-hander, who had already collected three ducks in the tournament, rattled up 92 runs with Sanju Samson in the powerplay alone. It was far from flawless, yet it was exactly what India needed on the biggest night.
“He [is] like all good players,” du Plessis said. “When he was up against South Africa, they bowled all the slower balls to him, took the pace off, [went] really wide. He’s now seen what teams do – they have the two fielders on the off side, whether it’s two there or a point or a cover. Tonight, he knew what the plan was going to be and he just moved across and had the closest thing to hit the ball to the left side.”
“So that shows you something he’s worked on: it’s tactically, how do I counter it when they go wide and slow to me?”
The former South Africa captain was speaking on the TimeOut show, joined by Anil Kumble and Martin Guptill. All three agreed Abhishek had read New Zealand’s intentions almost before the ball was bowled.
Kumble expanded on the point, noting that the second over from off-spinner Glenn Phillips was the only real moment of restraint. “That’s his game plan ‑ he likes pace,” Kumble said. “And as Faf mentioned, New Zealand had a very clear plan: bowl slower and wider with that extra cover there. Abhishek moved away from the line to counter that and looked to play straight, which is something he does well. And he looked to hit straight and then whenever it was a bit short, he took them on. So, yes, really good innings. He survived that one over of offspin [from Phillips], which again, he defended.
“He was literally playing with a dead [straight] bat. So, it was not like he was looking to play across, although there was not much spin. He looked to play straight and once he got through that six or seven balls in that first two overs, then he was on a roll.”
Statistically, the off-spinner had been his nemesis all event, Abhishek averaging under 10 while striking at only 107. New Zealand sensed an opportunity, beginning with Phillips and Matt Henry before switching to seam from both ends. That switch proved costly: 80 runs disappeared in the following four overs.
“Now, Abhishek has faced two or three balls against the offspinner. And then it seamed from both ends, which is exactly, if you ask him what he wants, he got that today,” du Plessis observed, underlining how the Kiwis abandoned the very match-up that had troubled the opener earlier.
The tactical choice puzzled Kumble, particularly after New Zealand had omitted specialist off-spinner Cole McConchie to fit in seamer Jacob Duffy. “He [Phillips] should have followed up because even Matt Henry bowled a good first over,” Kumble said. “He got hit for a six, but then Glenn Phillips followed it up with a nice over. And then suddenly, Mitch Santner thought that he…”
The former India coach stopped mid-sentence, but the implication was clear: New Zealand’s brains trust may have tried to cover too many bases. Four different bowlers operated inside six overs; none found a consistent length.
Guptill, chatting between studio segments, suggested the surface offered “just enough” grip for Phillips and Santner, had they been allowed to settle. Instead, India were 92 without loss by the time the field spread; New Zealand never truly recovered.
Abhishek’s earlier struggles meant he entered the final with modest numbers, yet he left with the Player of the Match award — proof that a single, well-timed innings can still tilt a world tournament. His approach was simple: pick the gap, trust the bat-swing, and keep the fielders guessing. The method felt uncomplicated because it was.
For India, it rounded off a campaign dominated by their power-hitters. For New Zealand, it was a reminder that good plans are only as effective as the commitment to them.
