To understand the context of why Vihari used the word not once, not twice, but thrice, on a day where India were bundled out in 63 overs, we’ll have to go back to Virat Kohli’s press conference in the aftermath of the Wellington debacle.

Naturally, the approach complemented the style of Prithvi Shaw, who delivered a masterclass on how to bat on a green top. In under six overs, India raced off to 30/0 and despite losing Mayank Agarwal early, Shaw kept counter-punching and his hell for leather approach meant that India ended lunch on 85/2 in just 23 overs with the run-rate close to 3.70. In Wellington on the morning of Day 1, in contrast, they were 78/3 at lunch, scoring at a rate of 2.82. So clearly, for a while, India seemed to be doing alright with their new approach.

If there’s one major takeaway from the first day at Christchurch, it’s that Virat Kohli and India have the concept of ‘intent’ all messed up in their heads. What the Indian batsman showed today was not intent. Rather, it was a lack of clarity in their roles, lack of trust in their own technique and ability and, most importantly, a lack of game plan and strategy with the bat. 

For starters, the behaviour of the wicket was no way as demonic as its actual outlook - there was minimal deviation off the wicket, the bounce was pretty even and unlike Wellington, there was very little movement in the air. As Vihari himself admitted in the press conference, the thick grass covering was deceptive and the pitch was indeed much better to bat on as compared to the Basin Reserve wicket. It is also expected to get better as the match progresses and hence it’s all the more flabbergasting as to why India went for a mindless, premeditated approach.

Showing intent is fine, but it does not necessarily mean that you try and hit your way out to feel better about yourself and send the opposition a message. Nor does it mean that you don’t put a price on your wicket and attempt fancy hooks and extravagant cuts. At least, not in Test cricket. Showing intent can be as simple a task as putting up a textbook defence, or frustrating the opposition by picking the gaps and rotating strike or even by leaving the ball confidently. What the Indian batsmen did today was nothing but betray the cricketing values and principles that the game stands for. 

There is a time, place, and situation for everything. Counter-punching is an art, yes. But giving yourself room and attempting a premeditated hook with three balls left for tea - like Vihari did - or trying to pull a ball on sixth stump towards mid-wicket after having just lost your partner with whom you’d built a 81-run stand - like Pujara did - is in no way justifiable and, more importantly, acceptable. Rather, it is just inept batting.

If anything, Vihari’s words in the press conference, where he admitted to taking up an aggressive approach to ‘take pressure off Pujara’, is alarming. One would assume that the bowling team are under pressure when you, as a batting unit, have put 194/4 on the board and are in the midst of an 81-run partnership. That he promised to come out and play positively in his future knocks, too, is an even bigger cause for concern.

In retrospect, all India have managed to achieve with the haphazard approach of theirs is give New Zealand the upper hand on a platter, for they let their openers settle by giving them 30 overs to bat on Day 1. Even if they managed to stop the Kiwis’ two best batsmen - Taylor and Williamson - with a softened ball, there is no way to completely justify the approach in the first innings of a match that decides the series at the end of a long overseas tour. The team, as a whole, can perhaps feel proud about themselves for doing what the captain asked of them, but for all it’s worth, as things stand, the end result is going to be no different to Wellington.