Mumbai Indians’ 103-run defeat to Chennai Super Kings on Thursday has quickly turned into a debate about overs 16 and 20 – and, more to the point, about the rookie who bowled them. Krish Bhagat, 21 years old and only in his second IPL outing, shipped 31 runs in those two overs. CSK were already in charge, but it felt as though the decision to back the youngster sealed MI’s fate.
“ As a batting unit, your 16th over is like when you start going for it [entering the death overs], and then your 20th, obviously, you’re throwing everything at it,” Ambati Rayudu said on the TimeOut show moments after the game. “ As a young boy, that’s two very, very tough overs.”
Rayudu’s point is straightforward: the death overs are brutal even for seasoned quicks, so what chance did a debutant have? Alongside him on the desk, former MI left-armer Mitchell McClenaghan nodded in agreement. “ One of the keys, I guess, over the last few years in IPL cricket, in T20 cricket, is that in the first innings, you want your best bowler to bowl the 20th over. And then in the last innings, you want them to bowl the 19th,” he said. “ Reasons being momentum going into a break can actually flow on into the next innings. Don’t ask me why. It’s just something that happens in the changing room. You know, you come in deflated if you’ve got an over that’s gone for 15-plus. And in the back end, obviously, you want to try and get a wicket before that last over. So it was interesting [that Bhagat bowled the last over].”
Let’s rewind briefly. Three days earlier, on debut, Bhagat had bowled the fourth and sixth overs, giving away just ten runs to Shubman Gill and company. He never touched the death. Against CSK, though, Hardik Pandya held him back entirely until the business end. It felt like faith – or a hunch – rather than a plan.
Powerplay calls also came under the microscope. CSK rattled up 73 for 2 in those first six overs, and MI head coach Mahela Jayawardene later admitted “we lost both the powerplays”. Yet McClenaghan saw a couple of bright notes. “ We saw [AM] Ghazanfar was impressive in the powerplay [six runs in one over]. He was a good match-up [against Sanju Samson]. Or even Mitch Santner to bowl the second over [1 for 9],” he said. “ And then also, once you’ve taken a wicket in those first couple of overs, bringing [Jasprit] Bumrah back again, when you know the middle to lower order of CSK is short [of runs], to try and get one more wicket in the powerplay with Bumrah attacking would have been a good option as well [Bumrah gave 19 runs in two powerplay overs].”
That leads neatly to the elephant in the stadium: could Bumrah, MI’s trump card, have taken the 20th instead of Bhagat? The numbers say yes. The feel of the match – CSK finishing 206 for 6 – says yes too. But hindsight is a wonderful, occasionally smug, companion.
MI’s captain had an alternative vision. Perhaps, as McClenaghan hinted, Hardik felt a lesser-known bowler might ruffle a well-set Sanju Samson in the slog. “ That looked pretty good. Santner and Ghazanfar. I think Sanju just lined up Hardik initially [38 from two overs],” he added. “ So, obviously, that’s also a confidence thing maybe. The fact that Sanju is well-set and he is going to be facing Hardik Pandya in the death. Maybe Hardik felt that a new bowler [Bhagat], different style, lesser known, maybe he would try. I just felt that he didn’t try too many yorkers in the dead. Maybe it is not his strength. [But] the way the field was set, I think he was trying to execute wide yorkers, and they were just coming out as that fuller length. So I think he was definitely trying and it was an obvious plan.”
It did not work, and there is every chance Bhagat sleeps uneasily on it. But in a tournament that moves this fast he is likely to get another go soon. The question is whether MI double down on the experiment or retreat to the comfort of Bumrah-at-the-death tactics. With almost nothing between mid-table sides right now, those 24 deliveries could define a season.
As for the batting debate – whether Tilak Varma and Sherfane Rutherford should swap places – that argument will rumble on too. For the moment, though, MI’s immediate problem is simpler: work out who bowls those “two very, very tough overs” next time, and, crucially, why.
