Twenty-Two Runs Buried Under 155 Not Out: Re-Excavating India A's New Zealand Scorecards

The first page of my notebook on that tour opens with an empty cell. Devdutt Padikkal's four innings add to 311 runs at 77.75. Three innings are printed — 199, 80, zero. Where is the fourth? You derive it from the aggregate: 311 minus (199 + 80 + 0) equals 32. One innings, one number, absent from every summary sheet — and yet it is the number that proves a middle stratum existed between the tour's biggest score and its smallest.

The first rule of excavation is that what is not written has to be computed.

But the real story in this scorecard is not a missing cell. It is a missing asterisk. Work backwards from the totals and Yashasvi Jaiswal's 177 runs contain 155 from a single innings — 87.6 per cent. The other three innings produced 22 runs. Strip out the one not-out knock and the average of 59 collapses to roughly 7.3. Dhruv Jurel is sharper still: 105 of his 108 runs, 97.2 per cent, came in one innings; the rest yielded three runs.

The tape was buried under three seasons of noise, and what surfaced this time was numerical discomfort. The headline promises an arc from 199 to a golden duck. The body never delivers that arc. It delivers two unrelated innings, in two different matches, with a selection question wedged between them.

Context: two four-day games and a selection window

The base material is India A's tour of New Zealand, built around two unofficial four-day matches. Hagley Oval is named. Conditions are gestured at. Fragments survive: a team total of 346, a collapse to 160 for 6, a top-order stumble at 10 for 2, a first-innings lead of 78. Notice what does not survive: who won either match, who batted first, which innings was played while the ball swung, which day the pitch dried. Not one sentence.

That is the ordinary limitation of a tour report card. Of the 38 information points in the source document, 32 are fact or data and only six are attributed opinion — roughly 16 per cent. There is no thesis to defend. The value sits in aggregation, the weakness sits in explanation.

Why do two four-day games matter this much? Because an A tour runs inside the same window as the senior series. Before the full side plays, these matches are the only long-format evidence available: a batter gets two innings against a new ball, a seamer gets to bowl thirty overs in a spell rather than six. The uncertainty around Rishabh Pant's fitness — asserted in a single sentence, with no citation, and the most time-sensitive claim in the document — is precisely what makes these scorecards immediately relevant. If the keeper's slot is open, Jurel's 105 carries extra weight. If Pant returns, that 105 has to be split into score and circumstance.

The economy of the sample is brutal here. Two matches means two to four innings per batter. At that size an average is a volatile object. One innings can move it further than any cricketing truth can move. I have written this in notebooks for years: at youth and A level, an average without an innings count and a not-out count beside it is half information, half noise.

I opened my old notebooks before writing this, because I have watched A-tour footage for years. The habit formed in 2026, tracking England's under-17 side across seven matches, still holds — write the conditions in front of every innings. New ball, swing, day, spell. Without that list, an average is only a number.

Core: what the scorecard looks like when laid out in columns

Stratum one: the dominance of a single innings

• Padikkal — 311 runs, four innings, average 77.75; best 199 is 64.0 per cent of the aggregate; without it, 112 runs at roughly 37.3.
• Jaiswal — 177 runs, four innings, three dismissals, average 59; 155 not out is 87.6 per cent; the remaining three innings produced 22 runs, roughly 7.3.
• Jurel — 108 runs, three dismissals, average 36; 105 is 97.2 per cent; the remainder is three runs, roughly 1.5.
• Sudharsan — 143 runs, four innings, zero not-outs, average 35.75; best 91 is 63.6 per cent; the other three innings produced 52 runs, roughly 17.3.
• Sundar — 60 runs, three dismissals, average 20; best 52 is 86.7 per cent; the remainder is eight runs.

The biggest find in that table is not a headline name. It is Sudharsan. Four innings, 143 runs, no not-outs — meaning every innings was terminated — and a 91 made from 10 for 2. The number is unremarkable. The profile is not. It is the only one in the group where the contribution is spread rather than stacked. The innings at 10 for 2 was played against a new ball; a 199 can grow in easier conditions. Different conditions cannot share one scale.

The source document treats Sudharsan as the least significant of the top four. That is an inversion, and if it is not flagged the entire batting section sends a false signal.

Stratum two: Padikkal, the only volume-backed case

Padikkal is the only batter with both a big score and a secondary contribution — 199 and 80 in the same series. Remove the 199 and his average still stands at about 37.3, the second-highest surviving figure in the group. That is why he cannot be dismissed as the beneficiary of one innings. At least two separate innings support the aggregate, and even a zero becomes part of a stratification rather than its refutation.

What is missing is strike rate. How many balls did 199 take, how long did he hold the innings, in which phase did he accelerate. Without that, nobody can say whether the innings served the team's need or a personal tally. His bowling — two wickets for 11, average 5.5 — is a part-time spell and cannot be evidence for a spin selection.

Stratum three: Jaiswal's 155 and the 22 outside it

The source document's most confident projection concerns Jaiswal: he can look to gain confidence. The arithmetic says that projection rests on the least representative innings in the dataset.

The 155 came on the final day, when the ball had stopped swinging, the bowlers were into second and third spells, and the result was settled. The three innings that actually resemble Test conditions in New Zealand — new ball, movement, discomfort — produced 22 runs. The document describes the mode of dismissal for one player only, and that player is Jaiswal: out to a swinging new ball. No other dismissal is characterised.

A final-day not-out is the least valuable predictive evidence in first-class cricket, because the opposition's objective has changed. Bowlers are tired, the captain is thinking about the result, fields are set to stop runs. Runs scored in that environment belong in the wicket column; they should not be the foundation of a forecast.

None of which means Jaiswal should be dropped. A left-handed opener who bats out the last day for 155 not out has already answered questions about temperament. The question is technical: what happens in his first thirty balls when the ball moves at the top. This series did not answer that. It sharpened it.

Stratum four: Jurel's 105 and a larger signal

Jurel's batting is extreme concentration — 97.2 per cent in one innings. A 105 built from 160 for 6 is a genuine innings. Outside it, three runs across the other innings and three dismissals.

One arithmetic wrinkle deserves a flag. A hundred and eight divided by three dismissals equals 36, which reconciles. But 105 plus 3 equals 108, so the entire aggregate is consumed by two innings — leaving no room for a third dismissal. The most likely explanation is a not-out zero. The document carries no not-out markers anywhere, so that remains inference, not proof.

The durable signal for Jurel is not his batting. The source praises his keeping in a separate clause, and keeping does not decay across two matches. With Pant's fitness unresolved, that is the more reusable evidence.

Stratum five: Rahul's 23 balls are not a sample

KL Rahul made four runs off 23 balls, a strike rate of 17.4. One innings, 23 deliveries. In statistical terms this is not a sample; it is an event.

The document softens it immediately — one of the most senior batters, expected to come good. That sentence rests on reputation, not on these 23 balls. Two different things are being blended: accumulated standing and current form. That blend is the most dangerous habit in reading A-tour scorecards, because reputation never appears in a scorecard column.

Stratum six: two spinners, two kinds of silence

Washington Sundar: 60 runs at 20; three wickets for 136 at 45.33; economy 2.72. The economy reveals the workload — 136 divided by 2.72 is exactly 50 overs. Fifty overs for three wickets is a holding job, not a breaking job. Not with the new ball, but in the middle, defending a lead of 78. The role was defined and executed. The document does not explain it.

Manav Suthar: 22 runs at 22, one innings, apparently not out; 16 overs for no wicket. The document pre-defends him — he was always going to play a limited role in New Zealand conditions. That is unfalsifiable, because a bowler who was never given an opportunity cannot be shown to have failed. He also cannot be shown to have succeeded. Sixteen wicketless overs are a fact; without conditions attached they are a record, not a judgment.

Stratum seven: the second layer inside the pace numbers

• Mukesh Kumar — five wickets for 87, average 17.4. The arithmetic confirms 5 for 87 is his only innings: the series' best bowling figure is a single spell.
• Mohammed Siraj — four for 118, average 29.5, economy 3.37 across roughly 35 overs. Again one innings. At 3.37 an over, expensive — yet framed as delivering in clutch moments.
• Akash Deep — three for 141 at 47, two for 93 at 46.5. The 141 came in 58.3 overs, which is an economy of 2.41: extremely economical, at a strike rate of 47 runs per wicket. Failing to provide breakthroughs is fair and incomplete, because 2.41 builds pressure at the other end.
• Anshul Kamboj — four for 103 at 25.75, best 3 for 52, the most efficient return per game. A second line reads two for 33 at 16.5, with 10 plus 23 equalling 33. Whether those two lines belong to one match or two, and which one carries the 3 for 52, cannot be settled from the document. That ambiguity is worth naming rather than smoothing.

Both bowling superlatives in the source rest on one spell each. Two bowlers can be judged on two spells. They cannot be compared on them.

Stratum eight: checking the arithmetic

I reconciled every average against the stated runs and wickets. The figures hold, which suggests they were derived from scorecards rather than invented:

• Padikkal 311 / 4 = 77.75 ✓; bowling 11 / 2 = 5.5 ✓
• Jaiswal 177 / 3 = 59 ✓, exactly three dismissals, so 155 not out is the sole unbeaten innings
• Jurel 108 / 3 = 36 ✓
• Sudharsan 143 / 4 = 35.75 ✓, zero not-outs
• Rahul 4 / 2 = 2 ✓, 23 balls at a strike rate of 17.4
• Sundar 60 / 3 = 20 ✓; 136 / 3 = 45.33 ✓; economy 2.72 implies exactly 50 overs
• Suthar 22 / 1 = 22 ✓, meaning the innings was not out
• Akash Deep 141 / 3 = 47 ✓; 93 / 2 = 46.5 ✓
• Mukesh 87 / 5 = 17.4 ✓, so 5 for 87 is his only innings
• Siraj 118 / 4 = 29.5 ✓, economy 3.37

Internal consistency proves the figures came from one source. It does not prove the source is right. All 38 points carry no citation. This is self-compiled scorecard data, and the only verification path is a cross-check against the official scorecards of the two unofficial four-day matches.

Stratum nine: the absences that change the read

No match results. We get 346, 160 for 6, 10 for 2, a lead of 78 — and never who won. For a piece asking how the players fared, the outcome variable is missing.

No control group. Not one New Zealand A bowler's figures appear. We cannot tell whether India's batters were good or the opposition attack was thin. The instrument gives a reading with no scale.

No conditions per match. Only one venue is named. Swing, pitch age and match state are the main confounders on a New Zealand tour and are essentially unaddressed.

No strike rates for anyone except Jaiswal's 155 not out, so tempo and intent are unjudgeable.

No overs or economy for Padikkal, Kamboj and Mukesh, only wicket tallies.

Unscoped superlative: leading run-scorer of the series — India A only, or both squads? Unverifiable from the data given.

Pant's fitness is asserted without attribution and is the single claim most likely to expire.

The contrarian angle: a forecast built on the innings that should be discounted hardest

The document's most confident conclusion is about Jaiswal, and it stands on the least representative innings in the dataset. On the final day, with the ball no longer moving and the bowlers tired, 155 not out means the match was saved. It does not mean Test batting is ready. The three innings played in genuinely Test-like conditions produced 22 runs.

When inning order is not printed, readers reconstruct it backwards — and the last innings is always the one they see first. That is how a single-innings average becomes a single-innings myth.

The second inversion is Sudharsan. Four innings, 143 runs, no not-outs, a 91 from 10 for 2. That is the most replicable profile in the group, because every innings was played to a conclusion. He is the least discussed of the top four. The order of praise and the order of evidence have come apart, and the gap is not theoretical. It is a comfort of narration.

The third inversion is linguistic. The stance is nominally neutral; the language is uniformly charitable. Failures are excused by conditions — Suthar's limited role is a pre-emptive defence that cannot be tested. The one genuinely poor showing, Rahul's four off 23, is cushioned with reputation. Only Jaiswal's struggle is characterised at all. And the title's rise-and-fall promise is mentioned once and never interrogated.

The fourth is the missing control group, which does more than leave a gap — it misdirects. If New Zealand A's seamers also averaged in the forties, then India's batting and bowling numbers are ordinary, not exceptional. Praise without calibration is praise aimed at expectation rather than at the scorecard.

The fifth is timing. A document written mid-tour cannot deliver end-of-tour conclusions. Internal cues place it between the second and third four-day matches. Every judgment here is a snapshot.

Every spreadsheet is a dig site; every column, a stratum. This one contains a clear seam between the single-innings layer and the multi-innings layer, and the document never draws it. Drawn, Padikkal stays on top, Sudharsan rises, and Jaiswal sits in a separate box labelled: different conditions, verdict deferred.

Forward

The scorecard could not answer three selection questions. It only sharpened them. Jaiswal's opening partner — Sudharsan's spread contribution, or Rahul's standing? Three and four — Padikkal, whose 311 hides an unprinted stratum of 32. The keeper — Jurel, if Pant's fitness is genuinely uncertain. Third seamer — Akash Deep's parsimonious 2.41, Kamboj's efficiency per game, or Mukesh's one spell? Second spinner — Suthar's 16 wicketless overs, or Sundar's 50 overs of containment?

The question the piece never asks is the one that matters most: against whom are we measuring? Without New Zealand A's parallel numbers, India A's figures are a mirror — reflection without depth. On the next tour I would want two things logged from day one: the entry state of every innings, and the opposition's matching columns.

The market calls it a breakout; I call it an excavation reaching daylight. What surfaced this time was not a new star. It was a methodological warning. Between the 199 and the golden duck lies an unprinted stratum of 32 runs, and it says what the rest of the data says: nobody in this series fully rose, and nobody fully fell. Our scorecard was simply incomplete.