Chennai – Chennai Super Kings’ run of imposing home totals finally hit a snag on Sunday, with Gujarat Titans easing to an eight-wicket win after CSK mustered only 158 for 7. Captain Ruturaj Gaikwad accepted that his side never quite understood how the Chepauk surface would behave and, by his own admission, reacted “too late”.
“We didn’t have any idea”
Speaking to the host broadcaster moments after the defeat, Gaikwad was candid. “Last three games we played here, I think we kind of got to know how it will play or we were in a situation where we felt, okay, 60% is going to play like this, 70% is going to play like this,” he said. “But this game, we didn’t have any idea about how it will play, and by the time we wanted to adapt and change, we were, I think, too late. And then after that we tried, but it just didn’t come off.”
Those words neatly summed up an afternoon in which CSK slipped to 26 for 3 inside five overs and never truly recovered. Gaikwad’s 74 from 60 deliveries kept the innings afloat, yet with little help around him the final score always felt light. Titans’ openers hammered 55 without loss in the powerplay and closed the chase with 26 balls unused.
Odd bounce, slower surface
“For the medium pacers, it was holding a bit, [and] it was two-paced,” Gaikwad said of the pitch. “Even the bounce was a bit up and down. But I felt if not [for] too many wickets up front, we would have still got to maybe 170 or 180; that would have been still competitive. But I really doubt that. Even after the powerplay, they just still kept coming, and it was a bit difficult to play some shots.”
Numbers back up his assessment. CSK managed only three boundaries in the first six overs, compared with GT’s eight. Even later, when dew might normally quicken a surface, the ball continued to grip for CSK’s medium-pacers, denying them the late-over squeeze that has worked at Chepauk many times before.
Changing tempo proved tricky
Gaikwad revealed how difficult it was to judge pace from one delivery to the next. “Well, at the first time-out [when CSK were 37 for 4], when Flem [Stephen Fleming, head coach] came out, I spoke to him that I’m trying to be positive, I’m trying to be aggressive,” he explained. “But sometimes [when] I’m waiting for a full-pace delivery, the ball is popping up a bit, and sometimes I’m waiting for slow balls or the ball to come at a pace which the last delivery came [at], but it just came off a bit too quick or [with] a bit more bounce or a bit less bounce. So I told him I’m trying to change [my approach] as much as possible, but it’s just not happening right at the moment, it was really difficult to change every ball whether what would happen. So it was just about judging or expecting that it’ll come good, it’ll come good, but it just didn’t come good.”
Learning points rather than panic
This was CSK’s fifth defeat in eight matches, leaving them sixth for the moment, yet recent scores of 209, 212 and 192 at the same ground show their approach is generally sound. The day game, played under harsher heat, may have accelerated moisture loss and exaggerated the pitch’s cracks. Titans, for their part, held a consistent length, mixed cutters judiciously and never let CSK reset.
There is now a five-day gap before Mumbai Indians visit on 2 May. That window gives CSK time to study data, re-assess their preferred batting order and, crucially, monitor the square. The surface is unlikely to change dramatically, but an extra sprinkling of grass or a heavier roller could restore the truer bounce the home team relish.
For Gaikwad and company the message is simple: understand conditions quicker, minimise early damage and let their middle-order hitters operate with freedom. Sunday proved what happens when the guesswork outweighs the game plan.
