But the batsmen failed too... This view in my view, is totally wrong. It is not something that can be said in cricket without enormous qualification. What did the batsmen fail at? The simple answer to this question is that the batsmen failed to chase the runs that the bowlers set them. Now, if the bowlers were poor, then it follows that they conceded too many runs.
This basic dependency, which is the central fact of cricket is often lost when cricket matches are assessed. If a batting side is chasing 300 in 50 overs in conditions where 260 is par against a bowling attack which is accurate and has few weak links, then surely this must matter.
Let me put it another way. When the performance of the Indian openers is judged, then while chasing 260, reaching 0/55 or 0/60 in the first 15 overs would be a fine performance. Doing this against 300, leaves the remain batsmen nearly 8 an over to get over 30 overs. The result is that a few quiet overs force the openers to take risks which they would otherwise not take.
Unless a batting line up fails to produce par scores in a given set of conditions, I don't think there is much that can be said about it. With the possible exception of Ambati Rayudu, and some tweaking in the approach adopted by Shikhar Dhawan, I saw nothing to suggest that the others aren't good enough to play ODI cricket for India. With Kohli and Dhoni in India's ranks, Rahane, Rohit Sharma, Shikhar Dhawan and Suresh Raina, accompanied by R Ashwin and Ravindra Jadeja form a batting bench which most teams in the world would be proud to have, especially with the formidable Cheteshwar Pujara available to join at short notice.
On wickets that are not flat, it is extremely difficult to score 6 an over against accurate bowling. A fine illustration of what might be considered "accurate" bowling was given by Kyle Mills, the experienced ODI specialist who takes the new ball for New Zealand. One sequence against Ravindra Jadeja in the final ODI illustrated this especially well. Mills delivered three balls on a good length just out side off stump from over the wicket (Mills is a right arm bowler). Jadeja stepped away and hit the first one over cover for four. He let the next one go. He tried the same thing against off the third ball, and was out caught in the outfield at deep cover. Mills kept his line and length, knowing fully well that the batsman would have to take a risk to get the boundary, and that the odds were in his favor if he kept making the batsman take risks. Now, this meant not bowling deliveries that could be hit to boundary easily - short and wide balls outside off stump and balls on the batsman's pads. India's bowlers either lacked control, or were too eager to attack the batsman and provided both of these types of deliveries with great regularity. They also attempted the bouncer very often. It is a ball which requires great skill to deliver and India's bowlers have shown themselves to be bad at it. They got the yorker wrong too often as well, in both directions.
If a bowler is bowling to his field, he should concede either 0 or 1 off any given delivery. More runs than this should require the batsman to either play an exceptional shot, or to take a risk and play an inventive shot. Most often, 2 or more runs are scored off a delivery because it has been delivered poorly.
There are a number of telling statistics that can be gleaned for the data available from the five games.
Runs behind square: It's hard to hit a straight ball behind square. One has to either drift on to the pads, or offer something wide for it to be hit there. Balls in what are conventionally considered "good areas" (which are also areas protected by conventional field placings), tend to be hit in an arc between cover and mid-wicket. The only way a good ball should go for more than 1 run behind the wicket is if it is hooked or pulled. Despite the fact that New Zealand went into this series with a stated policy of challenging the Indian batsmen on the hook, they managed to score more runs behind square than India's. The two games in which these stats matched are also the two matches in which India score at least as many runs as New Zealand at at least the New Zealand's scoring rate.
If we look at a smaller subset of this measure - the runs scored by each team behind square in the first 15 overs other than in singles, the difference is even more telling. Jesse Ryder scored 41 runs behind square in the 1st 15 overs of New Zealand batting over 5 games. 27 of these came on the leg side. Other than Ryder, New Zealand's top order is not exactly full of big hitters. Martin Guptill and Kane Williamson are good players (especially the latter), but they are not Adam Gilchrist or Sachin Tendulkar.
India's batsmen scored at 5.64 runs per over during this series. Never in the history of ODI cricket has a team scored at that rate and not won a single game.
300 was not a par score on any of the pitches in which games have been played. The new fielding restrictions do not favor run scoring except on flat wickets where hitting a ball from outside off to square leg can be done easily with alarming regularity without too much risk. On wickets where the bowlers are not helpless, where bowling a good line and length commands respect, the new fielding restrictions have increased the number of scoreless deliveries without really affecting the number of boundaries scored. It has rewarded teams with more accurate bowling attacks and penalized teams with less accurate ones. This is a good thing, whatever MS Dhoni may say. Any rule which increases the reward for deliberate skill and increases the penalty for lack of it, is good for the contest between bat and ball.
The conditions are not skewed in favor of the bat in ODI cricket to such an extent that they can take a chance or two every over as they do in T20 cricket. It is why ODI cricket is more interesting than the 20 over game. Flat wickets, such as the ones at Bangalore or Indore nullify accurate bowling. Better wickets (yes, I think they are better) like the ones at Wellington or Pune (remember the 1st game, where Mitchell Johnson's pace and Clint McKay's accuracy counted for something?) don't nullify this difference. They make it extremely difficult for a batting line up to make up for the inaccuracy of a bowling line up.
If India's batsmen had to chase totals set by New Zealand against India's bowlers, they would have done it easily. Probably all five times. India's bowlers conceded 1441 runs in 1440 balls in the series. The fast bowlers conceded 6.56 runs per over. New Zealand's fast bowlers conceded 5.81 runs per over. Their most experienced bowler - Kyle Mills, conceded 4.37 runs per over. Mohammad Shami and Varun Aaron both conceded over 7 runs per over for the series.
It is true that India's pace attack is inexperienced. Lets leave aside the fact that Ishant Sharma has been played for 6 years now. But if inexperience is to be excused, then lets conclude that India lost 0-4 due to inexperience. Lets not lazily go after the batsmen without examining what it is they failed at.
India conceded so many runs when they bowled that it made Brendon McCullum's job relatively simple. He needed bowlers who could bowl to their fields. On the wickets available in New Zealand, that was enough. New Zealand won because McCullum's bowlers kept bowling to their field.
Its that simple. Unfortunately, I suspect that Rayudu and Rahane will get dropped at some point this year, while Aaron, Ishant and others will continue to make India's squad. You may ask why I write so often about the problems with India's bowling when there aren't any options. I can only say that I try to describe games accurately. To do so, one cannot set aside real problems just because there are no answers to those problems for India. By being accurate, it is at least possible to protect what quality we have.
Ajinkya Rahane, Rohit Sharma and Shikhar Dhawan are far better batsmen than Mohammad Shami, Bhuvneshwar Kumar and Varun Aaron are bowlers. The group of batsmen is not nearly as responsible for India's results in South Africa and New Zealand as the bowlers. It is wrong in a cricketing sense to say that "they are also responsible" because that's not how cricket works.
What are the batsmen being held responsible for? For failing to chase down scores that are well above par, against attacks that are far superior than India's. None of the clauses in this answer is either trivial or optional.
India needs to work out a squad for the 2015 World Cup. I'd suggest that the batting is fine. The bowling is not. With a decent attack the batsmen who played in South Africa and New Zealand (and even more, Cheteshwar Pujara and Yuvraj Singh, should the latter regain his form after a full year of cricket in 2014) could win the 2015 World Cup. But with the bowlers who played in South Africa and New Zealand, even a line up consisting of the 6 best batsmen in the world right now would find it difficult to win games consistently.