Rangana Herath on New Zealand's spin triumph in India: 'It was all about accuracy'

Rangana Herath, the most successful left-arm bowler ever, was spin consultant in New Zealand's set up when two left-arm spinners, Ajaz Patel and Mitchell Santner, played big roles in the 3-0 whitewash of India this month. Herath spoke about his experience on working with the bowlers on this history-making tour.

Before New Zealand went to India, they had two losses in Sri Lanka. Let's talk about what that was like.
I was very impressed by their team environment. When you lose, you tend to talk a lot about mistakes. But in this team, what we talked most about was what we learned, how we adjusted to conditions, and how to take the good things we did to India. That's what we did after the series defeat in Sri Lanka. Although we lost, there weren't many players who were that upset. I think there's a lot to learn from that.

Everyone - the coaches and the players - were on the same page. Rather than looking too big-picture, everyone was engaged with the match situation at hand and looking to find the best solution to the problem in front of them.

In that second match in Sri Lanka, Glenn Phillips was the only spinner who took wickets - three. How did that tour affect the spinners?
When you go to Galle, some teams might think: "The pitch turns there, so the spinners have to do everything." But this team didn't have that mindset. They trusted their skill and put the emphasis on how accurate they needed to be. Sometimes spinners put unwanted pressure on themselves when they see a turning pitch. It was all about accuracy, accuracy, accuracy. Whether it spins or not, that's really important. But we did talk about things like angles of attack, and release positions, and how you'd vary them. But mostly we talked about accuracy.

What kind of advice did you have as they went to India?
So already there was an emphasis on accuracy. But one thing we knew was that India batters are quite aggressive in their approach. So the thinking for the spinners was around how to be smart when that happens. On the tactical front, what we talked about was how to set those in-out fields that close off the attacking options for batters.

Did you look at each batter and plan fields?
Whether it's a batting-friendly field or a bowling-friendly one, the first 20 to 24 balls is going to be tough for a batter. It's hard to discern the pace of the pitch, and sometimes you don't know what is happening. So the main thing we planned was around those 20 balls and employing the right fields during that period. For each batter we made some minor changes to our overall strategy. That was what a lot of the talk going into India was about.

In the Bengaluru Test you didn't need the spinners at all. In the second innings, because of the nature of the pitch, were the spinners asked to operate as holding bowlers?
No. Because we had batted and scored 400-odd and by then the pitch was helping spinners a bit. Again, the talk was about putting close-in fielders and shutting off those boundary options.

Ajaz Patel got two wickets and those were very important. He got [Yashasvi] Jaiswal, and that was key because he is a batter who attacks a lot. He comes forward and what we saw was, his strength was hitting over mid-off and mid-on. We talked to Ajaz about how to change up his line and his pace, and he did that perfectly. [Patel had Jaiswal stumped for 35.] Then he also got Rohit bowled off the edge. And then Glenn Phillips got Virat Kohli's wicket. So although the spinners didn't run through the team, they got them a really important start.

When you went to Pune and saw that pitch, what did you talk about?
We saw very quickly that it was going to turn and that we needed to play three spinners. Everyone was on the same page about that again.

Mitchell Santner hadn't been very successful in Sri Lanka, What did you think of his bowling at that point?
I think he had mostly played white-ball cricket for the past few months, and because of that, he was bowling white-ball lengths. When the pitch turns, you need to bowl fuller. Although Santner wasn't bowling short, on these kinds of pitches he becomes more effective when he pitches it up a bit more.

But then the biggest difference between Galle and Pune was that he varied his pace in Pune. That meant he had more leeway with his lengths and he could pitch it up or bowl it slightly shorter, and both could be effective. He understood the pitch really well.

From the time he started, I thought, "He's going to bowl well here." It's hard to predict someone getting five or more wickets. But he was impressive from the outset in that game [with 13 wickets].

Did a lot of the spinners' plans work out against India's batters, or was it more about building pressure?
I think we built a lot of pressure with spin. When batters have that attacking mindset, the fields that were set by Ajaz and Santner were really good. The bowlers take ownership of those fields and the captain and others are aware of what the plan is.

What did you see as the strengths of each of New Zealand's main spinners - Santner, Patel and Phillips?
They bowl three different lengths between them. Ajaz isn't very tall - he and I are about the same height. He tries to toss the ball up over the batter's eyeline and bowl a little fuller - between 4 and 4.5 metres from the stumps.

Santner because of his height has the option to bowl a greater variety of lengths, on that pitch in Pune especially.

Glenn has his own rhythm. He gets to the crease quickly, and because he bowls a lot of white-ball lengths, he knows how to set a field to that as well. We stressed that they should stick to their strengths. Glenn had a lot of protection. It wasn't quite a one-day field, but he had more protection than the others.

Going into the last innings of that Pune match, India needed 359. How did you approach that?
We thought that it was a big target for them to chase, so we had a lot of confidence, especially because our spinners had bowled well in the first innings. My experience is that even 200 is a big total in a fourth innings, so we were confident.

Again, Santner and Ajaz varied their pace well. I think that was the difference between New Zealand's bowlers and India's.

Ajaz didn't get a lot of wickets in this match, though it was a helpful pitch. What do you think was the reason for that?
On any surface, not everyone is going to get wickets. Ajaz is the main spinner in this team, but sometimes when someone [else] is getting wickets, you have to change your approach also. Sometimes when one bowler is getting wickets, the other person builds pressure. I think Ajaz is someone who looks at what role he has to play in any situation. He's got a lot of knowledge about cricket, and I think he adapted his game to what he needed to do at the time. At the time the attacking option was Mitchell Santner, and there was understanding there.

Going into the third Test, New Zealand had already won the series. There must have been some serious confidence in the team going to the Wankhede?
A lot of players who play Test cricket want to win a Test in India. As someone who played for Sri Lanka I had that dream too, but I wasn't able to get there. The New Zealand players were also like that. After we won the second match, they never got overconfident. It was more about it being a fresh start, and that this was a new surface, and that we had to adapt again. That was the mindset and that was fantastic. There was no guarantee about winning that third one as well.

Ajaz got a lot of wickets in the third Test. Talk us through his first spell.
Ajaz is super interesting, because in the previous Test he'd played at the Wankhede, he'd taken all ten wickets in the first innings, and four wickets in the second. The difference between the previous pitches and this one is that on the Wankhede, you have the red soil, and when it turns there, it turns very sharply. Ajaz has a lot of revolutions on the ball, and so almost all his balls were very effective. Because he tosses it up, he especially gets that very sharp turn.

In the last innings India had to get 147. You've defended a lot of low scores yourself. What did you say to the bowlers?
I had been talking to them in general about the fourth innings being incredibly tough for batters. Even when we had had to chase 107 in the fourth innings in the first match, R Ashwin and Ravindra Jadeja had made it difficult. So we talked about 147 being a big score to chase. The emphasis was again on accuracy and relying on the help from the surface, which was turning.

After Matt Henry got Rohit out, Ajaz was getting big turn, but he bowled Shubman Gill with one that didn't turn - that's what happens when you put the ball in the right spot. We had the trust that the pitch would do the rest if we did the right things.

Ajaz is in many ways a similar player to you. What did you speak to him about?
A lot of our talk was about how to be effective whether or not the pitch offers turn - how to adjust your angles of attack, how to change your release positions, how to bowl well, even in New Zealand. All the spinners in this group had an open mind, and that came out of them already having a lot of trust in their skills.

What was the feeling like in the dressing room when those wickets were falling?
I was in the dressing room and downstairs during that period, and when Rishabh Pant was batting well, I also did have a doubt about whether they could win.

But winning 3-0 was a huge joy. It was like when I was playing and we beat Australia 3-0 [in Sri Lanka in 2016]. It's something that happens very rarely.

Did you learn anything from being part of this series?
Players were very accountable in this environment. When things went wrong, players accepted responsibility and they looked for solutions. That was really impressive. As a coach, being part of an environment like that was really valuable. It was a boon to my coaching career as well.