HYDERABAD, India, October 14, 2026: Sanju Samson had given India the start a record-breaking chase demanded. Eighty runs came in the powerplay, the home crowd was roaring, and a target of 248 suddenly looked less intimidating. Then the West Indies changed the match. Keemo Paul removed the dangerous opener, Gudakesh Motie struck twice in consecutive deliveries, and the visitors held their nerve through a furious middle-order response to win the fourth T20I by 24 runs and force a series decider in Bengaluru.
The result was built on two extraordinary individual performances. West Indies captain Shai Hope smashed an unbeaten 102 from 50 deliveries, his second century of the series, to power the tourists to 247/3. Paul then returned 5/41 from four overs, dismissing Samson and Ishan Kishan before taking three wickets in four balls in the penultimate over to finish India’s resistance.
India reached 223 in 19.3 overs, its innings ending when Arshdeep Singh retired hurt after an earlier shoulder problem. Samson’s 56 from 23 balls, Tilak Varma’s 43 from 25 and Nitish Kumar Reddy’s 41 from 20 demonstrated that the defending world champions had the attacking resources to threaten an enormous target. What they could not produce was the sustained sequence of partnerships necessary to finish the chase.
Hope was named Player of the Match for a century containing four fours and nine sixes. His innings included a calculated acceleration after reaching his half-century in 28 balls and a late assault in partnership with Sherfane Rutherford, who finished unbeaten on 49 from 26.
Story at a glance
India vs West Indies 4th T20I 2026: Match Summary
The BCCI’s official fourth T20I match center provides the fixture and venue record. The completed result and leading performances were also reported in The Indian Express match report.
Shai Hope’s Second Century Gives West Indies a 247-Run Mountain
India’s decision to bowl first rested partly on expectations surrounding the Hyderabad surface.
Sherfane Rutherford’s 49 Turns a Strong Total Into a Daunting Chase
Rutherford finished unbeaten on 49 from 26 deliveries, striking four fours and three sixes.
India’s Bowling Problems: Two Pacers Concede 104 Runs
India’s inability to contain West Indies was the central problem of the first innings.
India’s 80-Run Powerplay Threatens an Extraordinary Chase
Chasing 248 requires a scoring rate of 12.4 runs per over from the beginning.
West Indies’ victory levels the five-match series at 2-2, transforming Saturday’s fifth T20I at the M. Chinnaswamy Stadium into a winner-takes-all contest.
There was an additional significance to the result. Across the three ODIs and first four T20Is of the tour, this was only the second occasion on which a team successfully defended its total. In an unusually chase-friendly sequence of matches, West Indies found a way to protect 247 despite India’s explosive opening.
For Shreyas Iyer’s side, the defeat raises difficult questions about bowling execution, death-over discipline and the balance of an attack that conceded 13 wides and allowed West Indies to strike 16 sixes. For Hope’s team, it confirms that a powerful batting performance can be supported by effective changes of pace and tactical bowling even when the opposition starts strongly.
India vs West Indies 4th T20I 2026: Match Summary
| Match Detail | Result |
|---|---|
| Competition | West Indies tour of India, five-match T20I series |
| Venue | Rajiv Gandhi International Stadium, Uppal, Hyderabad |
| Toss | India won and elected to field |
| West Indies | 247/3 in 20 overs |
| India | 223 in 19.3 overs, innings closed after a retirement hurt |
| Result | West Indies won by 24 runs |
| Player of the Match | Shai Hope, 102 not out from 50 balls |
| Best bowling | Keemo Paul, 5/41 |
| Series standing | India 2, West Indies 2 |
| Final T20I | October 17, Bengaluru |
The BCCI’s official fourth T20I match center provides the fixture and venue record. The completed result and leading performances were also reported in The Indian Express match report.
Shai Hope’s Second Century Gives West Indies a 247-Run Mountain
India’s decision to bowl first rested partly on expectations surrounding the Hyderabad surface.
At the toss, Iyer anticipated some assistance for the bowlers and expected the pitch to offer bounce. The decision also gave India a chance to pursue a target under the lights.
Those calculations began unraveling almost immediately.
West Indies scored 79/1 during the opening six overs, reached 100 in 7.4 overs and maintained a scoring rate above 12 runs per over throughout its innings.
Hope provided the foundation and the acceleration, while four other batters contributed valuable runs without allowing India to regain sustained control.
Jewel Andrew and Hope Add 52 in Just 26 Balls
West Indies began aggressively through Hope and Jewel Andrew.
The opening pair added 52 before Andrew was dismissed for 21 from 16 balls, trapped lbw by Axar Patel at 4.2 overs.
Andrew struck two fours and a six, helping prevent the Indian bowlers from settling into a defensive rhythm.
The partnership also benefited from early extras as India’s pace attack struggled to maintain consistent lines.
A score of 52/1 after 4.2 overs gave West Indies the freedom to continue attacking rather than spend time rebuilding.
Hope then received immediate support from Shimron Hetmyer.
Shimron Hetmyer Scores 33 From 12 Balls
Hetmyer brought an even more aggressive approach to the innings.
He scored 33 from only 12 deliveries, striking four fours and two sixes at a strike rate of 275.
His innings ensured that Andrew’s dismissal did not interrupt West Indies’ momentum.
The second-wicket partnership carried the tourists from 52 to 110 in exactly four overs.
Prince Yadav eventually dismissed Hetmyer, taking a return catch in the ninth over.
By then, West Indies had reached 110/2 after 8.2 overs.
That score placed India under pressure despite having removed two of the top three batters.
Hope was already well established, and the visitors had enough batting depth to maintain an attacking approach through the remainder of the innings.
Rovman Powell Keeps the Scoreboard Moving
Rovman Powell contributed 24 from 17 balls, including two fours and a six.
His partnership with Hope added another 46 runs before he was caught behind by Samson off Arshdeep Singh.
West Indies stood at 156/3 after 12.5 overs.
The dismissal created a possible opening for India.
With a new batter arriving and the final seven overs approaching, the hosts needed a sequence of controlled overs to prevent West Indies from reaching a total above 230.
Instead, Sherfane Rutherford joined Hope and accelerated the innings again.
Sherfane Rutherford’s 49 Turns a Strong Total Into a Daunting Chase
Rutherford finished unbeaten on 49 from 26 deliveries, striking four fours and three sixes.
He and Hope added an unbroken 91 runs for the fourth wicket across the final 43 deliveries.
The partnership was crucial because West Indies had already established a powerful platform but needed to convert it into a score capable of surviving a potentially aggressive Indian chase.
The two batters achieved that by sustaining their boundary production rather than allowing India to settle into defensive lines during the closing overs.
A 91-Run Partnership That Denied India a Late Recovery
West Indies reached 200 in 16.4 overs.
That left more than three overs in which to expand an already substantial total.
Hope and Rutherford continued attacking as India struggled to execute yorkers, slower deliveries and defensive plans with the consistency required.
The partnership took the total to 247/3 at the end of the innings.
India’s inability to break the stand meant that both batters finished unbeaten.
The visitors also benefited from the fact that their final established pair could continue taking calculated risks without exposing the lower order to the Indian attack.
Rutherford’s contribution was particularly valuable because it prevented Hope from carrying the entire burden of late acceleration.
The partnership also reflected the understanding the two had demonstrated earlier in the tour.
Hope and Rutherford Have Already Hurt India in Ranchi
The pair had played a decisive role in the second T20I at Ranchi on October 9.
On that occasion, West Indies successfully chased India’s 249/5, reaching 252/4 in 18.3 overs.
Hope scored an unbeaten 102 from 45 balls, while Rutherford contributed 84 from 37.
Their attacking partnership changed a demanding chase into a six-wicket victory.
TSE’s analysis of Hope and Rutherford’s extraordinary Ranchi chase details how the pair dismantled India’s bowling plans.
Hyderabad produced a different tactical problem.
In Ranchi, the pair had to pursue a target. In Hyderabad, they needed to build a total and defend it later.
Their success in both circumstances demonstrates the flexibility of West Indies’ batting approach during this series.
Hope Reaches His Hundred With a Final-Over Six
Hope reached his half-century from 28 balls.
He then accelerated, eventually reaching three figures from 50 deliveries.
His final score of 102 not out came at a strike rate of 204.
Nine of his scoring shots cleared the boundary, while another four reached the rope.
Seventy of his 102 runs came in boundaries.
His ability to combine controlled accumulation with powerful hitting allowed him to bat through all 20 overs without losing the scoring momentum necessary in a high-scoring T20I.
It was his second T20I century in the five-match series, following the unbeaten hundred at Ranchi.
The sequence confirms an exceptional period of form for the West Indies captain.
Hope’s effectiveness has also been part of the broader tour narrative. India began the ODI series strongly, with Virat Kohli reaching a major career milestone in the opening match. TSE covered that occasion in its report on India’s first ODI victory and Kohli’s 15,000-run landmark.
India’s Bowling Problems: Two Pacers Concede 104 Runs
India’s inability to contain West Indies was the central problem of the first innings.
Mayank Yadav and Arshdeep Singh conceded 52 runs each from their four-over allocations.
Together, the two fast bowlers gave away 104 runs in eight overs, an economy rate of 13 runs per over.
Arshdeep took one wicket, while Mayank went wicketless.
The lack of control placed considerable pressure on India’s remaining bowlers.
Mayank Yadav Finishes With 0/52
Mayank’s pace gives India the potential to challenge batters through bounce and hurried strokeplay.
However, extreme speed alone cannot compensate for inconsistent direction or deliveries that allow established batters to free their arms.
Against Hope and the other West Indies attackers, Mayank struggled to control the scoring rate.
His four overs cost 52 runs, with two wides and a no-ball included in the bowling record.
The performance contrasts with some of the encouraging displays that originally strengthened his international credentials.
TSE examined his emergence in its report on Mayank’s impact against Zimbabwe.
The lesson from Hyderabad is not that Mayank lacks the speed or talent to succeed internationally.
It is that pace must be combined with disciplined execution against players comfortable attacking fast bowling.
Arshdeep Singh Takes a Wicket but Concedes 52
Arshdeep removed Powell but could not prevent West Indies from maintaining an aggressive scoring rate.
His four overs cost 52 runs, including six wides.
That is a significant issue when the opposition is already scoring freely.
A wide contributes an extra run and does not count as a legal delivery, allowing the batting side an additional scoring opportunity.
Against a lineup containing Hope, Hetmyer and Rutherford, repeated extras can make an already difficult defensive task considerably worse.
Arshdeep’s later shoulder discomfort added another concern as India approached the series decider.
His availability for Bengaluru should depend on the team’s subsequent medical assessment rather than speculation immediately after the match.
Prince Yadav Provides India’s Best Economy Rate
Prince Yadav was the most economical of India’s regular four-over bowlers.
He finished with 1/36, taking Hetmyer’s wicket and conceding nine runs per over.
In a match where West Indies scored at 12.35 per over, those figures represented a relatively successful performance.
However, one economical spell could not offset the runs conceded elsewhere.
Axar Patel took 1/45, while Nitish Kumar Reddy conceded 39 from three overs.
Naman Dhir’s only over cost 19 runs.
India Concede 18 Extras, Including 13 Wides
West Indies received 18 extras in total.
Thirteen came from wides, one from a no-ball and four from leg-byes.
The 14 illegal-delivery extras were particularly costly because they either added runs directly or created opportunities for additional scoring.
That gives India’s bowling performance a problem beyond the number of boundaries conceded.
The hosts struggled to execute their plans while also extending the innings through extras.
India’s 80-Run Powerplay Threatens an Extraordinary Chase
Chasing 248 requires a scoring rate of 12.4 runs per over from the beginning.
India responded with an explosive start.
Samson led the assault, racing to 50 from 20 balls and helping his side reach 80/2 after the mandatory six-over powerplay.
The hosts had scored one run more than West Indies managed in their own powerplay.
The difference was the wickets lost.
West Indies reached 79/1, while India stood at 80/2.
Those extra dismissals would become increasingly significant as the required scoring rate climbed.
Sanju Samson Smashes 56 From 23 Deliveries
Samson produced India’s most explosive innings.
He struck six fours and four sixes, scoring 56 at a strike rate of 243.47.
His fifty came from just 20 balls, including five fours and four sixes.
The opening partnership with Abhishek Sharma reached 60 in only 4.1 overs.
India’s first 50 runs had arrived in 19 balls.
At that stage, the home side had made a strong start toward an exceptionally demanding target.
Samson’s dismissal therefore carried consequences beyond the loss of one batter.
It removed the player most effectively generating the boundary rate India needed.
Samson had previously produced an important innings against Afghanistan in September. TSE’s report on his 57 in India’s series-clinching victory provides further context for his value as an aggressive top-order batter.
Keemo Paul Strikes Twice in His First Spell
Paul dismissed Samson at 4.1 overs, with Hetmyer completing the catch.
He then removed Ishan Kishan for six at 4.4 overs, caught by Jewel Andrew.
India slipped from 60 without loss to 67/2.
Those wickets immediately interrupted the opening momentum.
Although India continued scoring quickly during the powerplay, losing two attacking players reduced the number of established batters available for the middle overs.
Paul’s success also provided the West Indies attack with a method of responding to India’s aggression.
Instead of merely attempting to restrict scoring after the explosive opening, the visitors used attacking deliveries to remove batters who could sustain the chase.
Shamar Springer Removes Shreyas Iyer as India’s Chase Slows
India captain Shreyas Iyer scored 16 from 11 balls before Shamar Springer dismissed him in the ninth over.
Jewel Andrew completed the catch.
India slipped to 97/3 after 8.2 overs.
The wicket represented another interruption at a stage when India required a settled partnership to keep pace with the target.
Abhishek Sharma continued batting, but the loss of Iyer left the home side increasingly dependent on its remaining middle-order options.
At the halfway point, India were 115/3.
They needed 133 runs from the final ten overs.
That required a scoring rate of 13.3 runs per over.
India had enough batting resources to make the chase mathematically possible, but the target was becoming more demanding with every quiet over.
Gudakesh Motie Takes Two Wickets in Two Balls and Changes the Match
The decisive middle-over intervention came from left-arm spinner Gudakesh Motie.
He bowled just two overs, conceded 13 runs and took two wickets.
His wickets came on consecutive deliveries in the 12th over.
Abhishek Sharma fell for 29 from 24 balls at 11.3 overs, caught by Springer.
Naman Dhir was then stumped first ball by wicketkeeper Hope.
India fell from 130/3 to 130/5.
That sudden double strike transformed the chase.
Abhishek Sharma’s Dismissal Removes Another Set Batter
Abhishek had scored 29 from 24 balls, including three fours and a six.
His strike rate of 120.83 was significantly below what India needed across the innings.
Yet his dismissal still mattered because he had spent time at the crease and could potentially have accelerated later.
Motie removed that possibility.
Abhishek’s attacking potential was clear earlier in the season when he scored a 30-ball century against Afghanistan, a performance examined in TSE’s report on India’s T20I series sweep.
Hyderabad demonstrated the other side of his role.
When the required rate is already high, a top-order batter who spends time at the crease must eventually convert that platform into boundaries.
Motie’s dismissal prevented Abhishek from doing so.
Naman Dhir Falls for a Golden Duck
Dhir lasted only one delivery.
Hope completed the stumping as Motie struck for the second consecutive ball.
The wicket was especially costly because India had already lost three batters and needed someone to support Tilak Varma.
Instead, the hosts suddenly required another rebuilding partnership.
Motie’s figures of 2/13 from two overs were exceptional in a contest where both teams exceeded 220.
His economy rate was just 6.50.
That efficiency was nearly six runs per over below the rate at which West Indies had scored.
Motie’s contribution was therefore both attacking and defensive: he removed two batters while denying India the scoring pace necessary to remain comfortable in the chase.
TSE had previously covered Rutherford and Motie’s contributions in franchise cricket through its Caribbean Premier League analysis involving the pair.
Tilak Varma and Nitish Kumar Reddy Revive India’s Hopes With a 70-Run Stand
India’s response to the collapse came from Tilak Varma and Nitish Kumar Reddy.
The pair added 70 runs for the sixth wicket, lifting the total from 130/5 to 200/6.
Tilak scored 43 from 25 balls, including two fours and three sixes.
Nitish added 41 from 20 deliveries, striking a four and four sixes.
Their partnership brought India back into a contest that had threatened to slip away after Motie’s double strike.
Tilak Varma Provides the Stability India Needed
Tilak balanced attacking intent with the responsibility of batting through the middle overs.
His 43 came at a strike rate of 172.
That scoring pace was valuable, particularly after India had lost two wickets without adding a run.
However, the scale of the target meant that even a strike rate above 170 could leave considerable work for the remaining batters.
India needed sustained boundary hitting from both ends.
Tilak helped provide that platform, but he could not finish the chase.
Nitish Kumar Reddy Attacks at 205
Nitish’s 41 came from only 20 balls at a strike rate of 205.
His four sixes helped keep India’s required rate within reach during the later middle overs.
He also demonstrated the value of a player capable of contributing substantial runs from the lower middle order.
But his batting performance came after he had conceded 39 runs from three overs with the ball.
That contrast illustrates one of India’s selection challenges.
Batting depth is useful, but a team defending against or containing aggressive opponents also requires credible overs from its supporting bowlers.
TSE examined the broader structural question in its analysis of India’s all-rounder development and the IPL Impact Player rule.
Hyderabad provided another example of why a T20I side needs more than a collection of aggressive batters.
India Reach 200 but Still Need 48 From 18 Balls
Tilak was dismissed by Romario Shepherd at 16.6 overs, with Rovman Powell taking the catch.
India had reached 200/6.
That left 48 runs required from the final three overs.
The equation demanded 16 runs per over.
It remained possible with a set batter and several recognized hitters available.
But India no longer had the same batting resources that had made the opening powerplay so threatening.
Nitish was still present, yet the lower order had already begun appearing at the crease.
West Indies needed one more successful attacking spell to end the contest.
Paul delivered it.
Keemo Paul’s Five-For: Three Wickets in Four Balls Finish India’s Resistance
Paul returned to bowl the 19th over with India needing an increasingly unlikely finish.
Nitish Kumar Reddy was still attempting to keep the chase alive.
At 18.2 overs, Paul dismissed him for 41, with Powell completing the catch.
India were 212/7.
Paul then bowled Prince Yadav for a first-ball duck on the next delivery.
The score remained 212/8.
Two balls later, Axar Patel was caught by Rutherford for three.
India slipped to 213/9 at 18.5 overs.
Paul had taken three wickets in four deliveries, ending with figures of 5/41.
How Paul Changed His Bowling Plan
Paul explained after the match that West Indies had focused on yorkers and slower deliveries.
He said:
“Obviously we have a simple plan: try and nail the yorkers, and if it doesn’t work, go in for the wicket. Slower balls were gripping tonight.”
That explanation is important because it connects the bowling performance to the behavior of the pitch.
West Indies had noticed that the surface was not consistently allowing the ball to come onto the bat.
Slower deliveries could therefore disrupt the timing of batters attempting big shots.
Paul combined that variation with a willingness to attack the stumps and create catches.
He was not simply bowling slower in the hope that India’s batters would make mistakes.
He was using conditions that made changes of pace more difficult to hit cleanly.
Why Five Wickets Were More Important Than Paul’s Economy Rate
Paul conceded 41 runs from four overs.
His economy rate was 10.25, a figure that would not necessarily stand out in a low-scoring T20I.
But this was a match in which West Indies had scored at 12.35 per over and India were chasing at an enormous required rate.
Paul’s five wickets removed the batters capable of continuing the chase.
He first dismissed Samson and Kishan, then returned to eliminate Nitish and the lower order.
That spread of wickets demonstrates his importance at different phases of the innings.
He was effective in the powerplay and decisive at the death.
TSE previously examined Paul’s all-round contribution during the 2026 Caribbean Premier League in its report on his performance for Jamaica Kingsmen against the Patriots.
Why Shamar Springer’s Contribution Also Matters
Paul’s five wickets will dominate the bowling statistics, but Shamar Springer played an important supporting role.
He took 1/40 from four overs, dismissing India captain Iyer.
That wicket came at a useful time, preventing the hosts from building a stable partnership after their powerplay losses.
Springer’s contribution helped maintain pressure between Paul’s early breakthroughs and the decisive intervention from Motie.
Romario Shepherd also played a part by dismissing Tilak at the end of the 17th over.
That wicket ended India’s most productive recovery partnership.
The West Indies bowling performance therefore cannot be attributed exclusively to one player, even though Paul produced its outstanding individual figures.
Arshdeep Singh Retires Hurt as India Finish on 223
After Paul’s late wickets, India’s lower order continued attempting to score.
Arshdeep Singh made five from four deliveries before retiring hurt.
He was experiencing discomfort in his left shoulder and received attention at the crease.
With nine wickets already down, his retirement ended India’s innings at 223 after 19.3 overs.
Mayank Yadav remained unbeaten without scoring.
The result was a 24-run victory for West Indies.
India’s scorecard recorded nine conventional dismissals and one batter retired hurt. The innings should therefore not be described as ten wickets taken by West Indies bowlers.
Paul claimed five, Motie two, Springer one and Shepherd one.
India vs West Indies Fourth T20I: Complete Batting Scorecards
West Indies Batting
| Batter | Dismissal | Runs | Balls | 4s | 6s | Strike Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shai Hope (c, wk) | Not out | 102 | 50 | 4 | 9 | 204.00 |
| Jewel Andrew | lbw b Axar Patel | 21 | 16 | 2 | 1 | 131.25 |
| Shimron Hetmyer | c & b Prince Yadav | 33 | 12 | 4 | 2 | 275.00 |
| Rovman Powell | c Samson b Arshdeep Singh | 24 | 17 | 2 | 1 | 141.17 |
| Sherfane Rutherford | Not out | 49 | 26 | 4 | 3 | 188.46 |
| Extras | 4 leg-byes, 1 no-ball, 13 wides | 18 | – | – | – | – |
| Total | 20 overs, 3 wickets | 247 | – | 16 | 16 | 12.35 runs/over |
Did not bat: Romario Shepherd, Keemo Paul, Roston Chase, Shamar Springer, Shamar Joseph and Gudakesh Motie.
Fall of wickets: 52/1 (Andrew, 4.2), 110/2 (Hetmyer, 8.2), 156/3 (Powell, 12.5).
India Batting
| Batter | Dismissal | Runs | Balls | 4s | 6s | Strike Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sanju Samson (wk) | c Hetmyer b Paul | 56 | 23 | 6 | 4 | 243.47 |
| Abhishek Sharma | c Springer b Motie | 29 | 24 | 3 | 1 | 120.83 |
| Ishan Kishan | c Andrew b Paul | 6 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 200.00 |
| Shreyas Iyer (c) | c Andrew b Springer | 16 | 11 | 2 | 0 | 145.45 |
| Tilak Varma | c Powell b Shepherd | 43 | 25 | 2 | 3 | 172.00 |
| Naman Dhir | st Hope b Motie | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| Nitish Kumar Reddy | c Powell b Paul | 41 | 20 | 1 | 4 | 205.00 |
| Axar Patel | c Rutherford b Paul | 3 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 60.00 |
| Prince Yadav | b Paul | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| Arshdeep Singh | Retired hurt | 5 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 125.00 |
| Mayank Yadav | Not out | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 |
| Extras | 4 byes, 3 leg-byes, 1 no-ball, 16 wides | 24 | – | – | – | – |
| Total | 19.3 overs | 223 | – | 15 | 13 | 11.43 runs/over |
Fall of wickets: 60/1 (Samson, 4.1), 67/2 (Kishan, 4.4), 97/3 (Iyer, 8.2), 130/4 (Abhishek, 11.3), 130/5 (Dhir, 11.4), 200/6 (Tilak, 16.6), 212/7 (Nitish, 18.2), 212/8 (Prince, 18.3), 213/9 (Axar, 18.5). Arshdeep retired hurt with the score at 223 after 19.3 overs.
Complete Bowling Scorecards
India Bowling
| Bowler | Overs | Maidens | Runs | Wickets | Economy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mayank Yadav | 4 | 0 | 52 | 0 | 13.00 |
| Arshdeep Singh | 4 | 0 | 52 | 1 | 13.00 |
| Prince Yadav | 4 | 0 | 36 | 1 | 9.00 |
| Axar Patel | 4 | 0 | 45 | 1 | 11.25 |
| Naman Dhir | 1 | 0 | 19 | 0 | 19.00 |
| Nitish Kumar Reddy | 3 | 0 | 39 | 0 | 13.00 |
West Indies Bowling
| Bowler | Overs | Maidens | Runs | Wickets | Economy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roston Chase | 4 | 0 | 43 | 0 | 10.75 |
| Shamar Joseph | 2.3 | 0 | 47 | 0 | 18.80 |
| Romario Shepherd | 3 | 0 | 32 | 1 | 10.66 |
| Keemo Paul | 4 | 0 | 41 | 5 | 10.25 |
| Shamar Springer | 4 | 0 | 40 | 1 | 10.00 |
| Gudakesh Motie | 2 | 0 | 13 | 2 | 6.50 |
The Four Turning Points That Decided the Fourth T20I
| Stage | Match Situation | Why It Mattered |
|---|---|---|
| West Indies opening 12.5 overs | 156/3 | Hope and the top order established an attacking platform |
| West Indies final 7.1 overs | 91-run unbeaten Hope-Rutherford partnership | India failed to restrict the finishing surge |
| India 4.1 and 4.4 overs | Samson and Kishan dismissed | Paul removed two aggressive batters after the opening stand |
| India 11.3 and 11.4 overs | Motie removes Abhishek and Dhir | Two wickets in two balls leave India 130/5 |
| India 18.2-18.5 overs | Paul takes three wickets in four balls | The remaining chase collapses |
The most important distinction is between the total West Indies scored and how the visitors defended it.
Hope and Rutherford created the advantage, but Paul and Motie prevented India from converting an encouraging chase into a victory.
Without those bowling contributions, 247 could still have been vulnerable.
India reached 80 during the first six overs and 200 before the end of the 17th. Both figures demonstrate how dangerous the home batting lineup remained despite the wickets lost.
The West Indies attack ultimately succeeded because it removed batters at moments when India needed stable partnerships.
Shreyas Iyer Admits India Failed to Execute Bowling Plans
India captain Shreyas Iyer identified the bowling performance as the central weakness.
Speaking after the defeat, he said:
“We didn’t execute our lines and lengths well.”
Iyer acknowledged that the approach to the chase had been encouraging, particularly during the opening overs.
But he also recognized that India’s bowlers had allowed West Indies to accumulate too many runs.
He emphasized the importance of execution, mindset and responding more effectively to the conditions.
The captain also noted that the pitch became more difficult to score from as the match progressed.
That observation matters because it helps explain why India’s early scoring rate could not simply be sustained throughout the innings.
West Indies used changes of pace, grip and the field placements effectively as the surface became less predictable.
Nevertheless, India cannot attribute the defeat entirely to conditions.
Both teams played on the same pitch, and India’s bowlers conceded 247 before West Indies demonstrated how tactical bowling could disrupt the chase.
Did India Make the Wrong Decision at the Toss?
India won the toss and chose to field.
With a powerful batting lineup and a high-scoring venue, pursuing a target was not an unreasonable strategy in principle.
But West Indies’ total transformed the tactical equation.
India needed to score at 12.4 per over for the entire innings.
Even an 80-run powerplay did not create a substantial cushion because wickets had fallen and 168 runs were still required.
The result does not prove that batting first would automatically have produced an Indian victory.
It demonstrates that the decision to bowl first placed exceptional importance on containing the opposition.
India did not achieve that objective.
Shai Hope Praises West Indies’ Complete Performance
Hope’s post-match reaction reflected both satisfaction with the victory and recognition of the conditions.
He said:
“Surface was holding more than we thought.”
The West Indies captain explained that the team initially expected the pitch to become easier for batting.
Instead, it remained two-paced, with slower deliveries and spin becoming increasingly difficult to hit during the later stages.
That assessment supports the tactical choices made by Paul and Motie.
Hope also emphasized the value of a strong opening partnership and the confidence gained from performing well in all phases of the match.
His decision to use Motie when India still had established batters at the crease was particularly important.
The spinner’s two-over spell was short but decisive.
Hope selected a bowler whose method suited the surface and received two wickets in consecutive deliveries.
Why Hope Was Player of the Match Despite Paul’s Five Wickets
Paul’s five-wicket haul was essential to defending the target.
Continue the Cricket Story
CricketHope and Rutherford Destroy India in Ranchi T20I As a 249-Run Target Becomes a Walk in the Park
Big Bash LeagueBig Bash League 2026-27 Curtain-Raiser: BBL16 Goes Global as Eight Reinvented Teams Chase Perth’s Crown
A Celebration of 5000 ODIsA Celebration of 5000 ODIs Match 53: Pathan Has Pakistan Reeling at 27/3, but Yousuf’s 81 Breaks India’s Champions Trophy HopesBut Hope’s century established the position from which West Indies could attack India with the ball.
The captain remained unbeaten through the innings, scored 102 at a strike rate of 204 and contributed significantly to both the opening platform and the final 91-run stand.
He also captained the bowling effort, including the timing of Motie’s introduction.
The Player of the Match award therefore recognizes a performance that combined batting production, wicketkeeping and leadership.
Paul remains the outstanding individual bowler, and his figures were central to the result.
The two achievements are complementary rather than competing explanations for victory.
Keemo Paul Credits Yorkers, Slower Balls and Calm Execution
Paul’s explanation after the match was notably practical.
He emphasized the importance of committing to a clear plan and adapting when the original delivery was not appropriate.
His approach involved attempting yorkers, attacking the wicket when necessary and taking advantage of slower balls gripping the surface.
He also praised Motie’s contribution and the confidence within the West Indies squad.
The remarks underline an important difference between defensive and attacking death bowling.
When India needed a large number of runs, West Indies could have attempted to protect the boundary on every delivery.
Instead, Paul continued seeking wickets.
That strategy proved decisive because wickets reduced India’s remaining scoring options and prevented the final overs from becoming a sustained assault.
What the Result Means for the Series: India and West Indies Level at 2-2
The five-match series has now become a one-game contest.
India won the opening T20I at Lucknow by eight wickets.
West Indies replied at Ranchi with a six-wicket victory, completing its record chase of 250.
India regained the series lead at Indore, defending 223 and winning by 14 runs.
West Indies answered at Hyderabad with a 24-run victory after posting 247/3.
| Match | Date | Venue | Result | Series Standing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st T20I | Oct. 6 | Lucknow | India won by 8 wickets | India 1-0 |
| 2nd T20I | Oct. 9 | Ranchi | West Indies won by 6 wickets | 1-1 |
| 3rd T20I | Oct. 11 | Indore | India won by 14 runs | India 2-1 |
| 4th T20I | Oct. 14 | Hyderabad | West Indies won by 24 runs | 2-2 |
| 5th T20I | Oct. 17 | Bengaluru | Scheduled | Series decider |
The official Cricket West Indies fixtures confirm that the final T20I will be played at the M. Chinnaswamy Stadium, Bengaluru, on Saturday, October 17.
Why Hyderabad Changed the Balance of the Series
Before the fourth match, India held a 2-1 advantage and needed one victory to claim the series.
West Indies faced the prospect of losing the contest with one match remaining.
Hope’s century and Paul’s five wickets prevented that outcome.
The psychological and tactical balance has changed.
India must now respond to a defeat in which its bowling was expensive and its batting failed to sustain a promising start.
West Indies can approach the decider knowing it has already defeated India in two different ways during the series: by completing a huge chase at Ranchi and defending a massive total at Hyderabad.
That range of winning methods is an encouraging sign.
Only Two Successful Defenses in Seven Matches
The combined ODI and T20I results reveal an unusual pattern.
The first three ODIs were won by chasing sides.
The first two T20Is also went to the chasing teams.
India’s victory at Indore was the first successful defense of the tour.
West Indies followed with the second at Hyderabad.
That means five of the first seven limited-overs matches were won by the side batting second.
The pattern offers useful context for the upcoming decider, but it should not automatically determine the toss decision.
Conditions, the pitch, team selection and weather may differ in Bengaluru.
Each captain will need to assess those factors on the day rather than assume the previous results guarantee a particular advantage.
Three Questions India Must Answer Before Bengaluru
Can India Reduce the Number of Extras?
India conceded 18 extras, including 13 wides, during the West Indies innings.
In a high-scoring match, conceding unnecessary runs can place additional pressure on the chase.
The bowling attack must find a more dependable balance between attacking deliveries and defensive execution.
That requires accurate yorkers, disciplined slower balls and clear field plans.
How Should India Use Its Spin Options?
Motie’s 2/13 demonstrated that spin could still be highly effective on the Hyderabad surface.
India used Axar Patel for four overs, but the remainder of its bowling relied heavily on pace and part-time options.
The selectors and coaching staff must evaluate whether the preferred balance remains appropriate for Bengaluru.
That question becomes more relevant if the next surface offers grip or variable pace.
It does not automatically establish that one particular player must be selected.
Can India’s Middle Order Maintain Momentum After Early Wickets?
Samson gave India a powerful start, while Tilak and Nitish later built a productive partnership.
The problem was the prolonged loss of momentum between those contributions.
The wickets of Kishan, Iyer, Abhishek and Dhir left India 130/5.
Against a target of 248, that collapse created an exceptionally difficult finishing task.
India needs its middle order to combine attacking intent with enough stability to prevent a short sequence of dismissals from deciding the chase.
This is not the first time India’s T20 batting structure has come under scrutiny. TSE previously examined its difficulties against England in its analysis of India’s wider T20I challenges.
Three Questions West Indies Must Answer Before Bengaluru
Can Hope Continue Carrying the Top Order?
Hope’s second century has been central to the series.
His form gives West Indies a significant advantage, but the team should not assume that its captain will score a hundred in every match.
Contributions from Andrew, Hetmyer, Powell and Rutherford remain important.
The most sustainable batting model is one in which Hope receives enough support to build a large total or chase without carrying the entire responsibility.
Can the Bowlers Execute Under Different Conditions?
Paul and Motie benefited from a surface that gripped as the innings progressed.
Bengaluru may present different conditions.
West Indies must therefore prepare bowling plans capable of functioning even if slower balls do not grip as strongly.
That may require changes in pace, length, field placement and the timing of specialist bowling options.
Can West Indies Control Their Own Extras?
India received 24 extras, including 16 wides and a no-ball.
Those contributions helped the hosts remain competitive despite losing wickets regularly.
The visitors cannot assume they will always take nine wickets while defending another enormous total.
Reducing wides and improving consistency will be important if the decider produces a lower-scoring contest.
The Sports Encounter Verdict: Hope Built the Total, Paul Protected It, and Motie Broke the Chase
West Indies won because its most important players delivered at different stages.
Hope established the innings with an unbeaten century.
Rutherford helped turn a strong position into 247/3.
Paul removed the batters threatening to make that score insufficient.
Motie delivered the decisive middle-over interruption, taking two wickets in consecutive balls while conceding only 13 runs in two overs.
India’s response demonstrated enough attacking quality to make the contest competitive.
Samson’s 56 from 23 balls was an exceptional innings. Tilak and Nitish provided an important recovery, and 223 is ordinarily a formidable T20 total.
But India had already conceded too many runs, and its chase repeatedly lost the batters capable of maintaining the required scoring rate.
For Iyer, the defeat is a warning about bowling execution and the importance of building complete partnerships during a chase.
For Hope, it is confirmation that West Indies can defeat the world champions through different methods.
The series is now level at 2-2.
One match remains.
Hope’s hundred gave West Indies a mountain to defend. Paul’s five wickets ensured India could not climb it. Bengaluru will decide who takes the series.
India vs West Indies Fourth T20I: Frequently Asked Questions
Who Won the Fourth T20I Between India and West Indies?
West Indies defeated India by 24 runs in Hyderabad on October 14, 2026.
What Was the Final Score?
West Indies scored 247/3 in 20 overs. India finished on 223 after 19.3 overs, with the innings ending when Arshdeep Singh retired hurt.
Who Was Player of the Match?
West Indies captain Shai Hope received the award for his unbeaten 102 from 50 balls.
How Many Sixes Did Shai Hope Hit?
Hope hit nine sixes and four fours during his century.
How Many Wickets Did Keemo Paul Take?
Paul took five wickets for 41 runs in four overs, dismissing Samson, Kishan, Nitish, Prince Yadav and Axar Patel.
Who Was India’s Leading Run-Scorer?
Sanju Samson scored 56 from 23 balls, including six fours and four sixes.
What Were Gudakesh Motie’s Bowling Figures?
Motie took two wickets for 13 runs from two overs, dismissing Abhishek Sharma and Naman Dhir on consecutive deliveries.
How Many Runs Did Sherfane Rutherford Score?
Rutherford remained unbeaten on 49 from 26 balls, including four fours and three sixes.
Why Did Arshdeep Singh Retire Hurt?
Arshdeep experienced discomfort in his left shoulder and retired hurt near the end of India’s innings. A confirmed injury diagnosis or recovery timeline was not available in the supplied match record.
What Is the India vs West Indies T20I Series Score?
The five-match series is level at 2-2 after West Indies won the fourth T20I.
When and Where Is the Fifth T20I?
The final match is scheduled for Saturday, October 17, 2026, at the M. Chinnaswamy Stadium in Bengaluru, India.
