This is the question which is on my mind, after seeing the failure of Asad Pathan for the Royal Challengers Bangalore, in the heavyweight clash against the Chennai Super Kings. The definition of batting in T-20 cricket has changed since its creation, and the idea of a pinch-hitter might just get outdated once the format evolves.
T-20 matches are won with the bat more often than not, and so what is required is systematic planning. Bangalore has been lacking that severely since the last two games, as the team management has no clue which player to send at what position and that has confused the players themselves. In their last game, Zaheer Khan was sent in at No.3 and lasted just three balls. And today, Pathan hit 14 runs in 3 balls but got out soon after.
It also perhaps depends on the situation of the match. For example, in the game against Mumbai Indians, Kochi lost their first wicket in the 15th over, requiring another 43 of the last 5 overs. With Brendon McCullum being at the other end, it was Ravindra Jadeja who was sent in as a pinch-hitter and the move worked perfectly as Jadeja ended unbeaten on 25 runs off just 11 balls.
However, teams in the IPL have tried to stick with the basic combination to win matches. As a result, Chennai wins more often than not because Raina makes a good No.3 and Dhoni or Badrinath can bat at No.4. While Kolkata lost the opening game against Chennai mainly due to Yusuf Pathan sent up the order in just the 11th over, while they won against Deccan and Rajasthan due to Gambhir batting at that No.3 slot. Mumbai too has a solid No.3 in Ambati Rayudu, who takes calculated risks.
We say that 50-over cricket has learnt from T-20 cricket. But I feel it is the reverse. T-20 cricket has actually taken a cue from 50-over cricket, as the 6-over powerplay has been used by teams to conserve wickets, and from there on they build till the 15th over more often than not, and then go for the slog shots in the last 5 overs. So does that mean that someone needs to come in to up the run-rate right from the beginning, and at the same time risk the loss of another wicket?
I do not really buy with this theory as it actually adds pressure and wastes a huge number of balls bowled, which could be otherwise used by top-order batsmen to rotate the strike and hit the odd boundary. There is no better example than England winning the T-20 World Cup in 2010 due to the fact that Kevin Pietersen always batted at No.3, being their marquee player.
So the pinch-hitter might just work in an emergency situation or if there are less number of overs remaining, and there are enough wickets in hand to chase down a stiff target. Otherwise, huge scores can be made conventionally as well.
T-20 matches are won with the bat more often than not, and so what is required is systematic planning. Bangalore has been lacking that severely since the last two games, as the team management has no clue which player to send at what position and that has confused the players themselves. In their last game, Zaheer Khan was sent in at No.3 and lasted just three balls. And today, Pathan hit 14 runs in 3 balls but got out soon after.
It also perhaps depends on the situation of the match. For example, in the game against Mumbai Indians, Kochi lost their first wicket in the 15th over, requiring another 43 of the last 5 overs. With Brendon McCullum being at the other end, it was Ravindra Jadeja who was sent in as a pinch-hitter and the move worked perfectly as Jadeja ended unbeaten on 25 runs off just 11 balls.
However, teams in the IPL have tried to stick with the basic combination to win matches. As a result, Chennai wins more often than not because Raina makes a good No.3 and Dhoni or Badrinath can bat at No.4. While Kolkata lost the opening game against Chennai mainly due to Yusuf Pathan sent up the order in just the 11th over, while they won against Deccan and Rajasthan due to Gambhir batting at that No.3 slot. Mumbai too has a solid No.3 in Ambati Rayudu, who takes calculated risks.
We say that 50-over cricket has learnt from T-20 cricket. But I feel it is the reverse. T-20 cricket has actually taken a cue from 50-over cricket, as the 6-over powerplay has been used by teams to conserve wickets, and from there on they build till the 15th over more often than not, and then go for the slog shots in the last 5 overs. So does that mean that someone needs to come in to up the run-rate right from the beginning, and at the same time risk the loss of another wicket?
I do not really buy with this theory as it actually adds pressure and wastes a huge number of balls bowled, which could be otherwise used by top-order batsmen to rotate the strike and hit the odd boundary. There is no better example than England winning the T-20 World Cup in 2010 due to the fact that Kevin Pietersen always batted at No.3, being their marquee player.
So the pinch-hitter might just work in an emergency situation or if there are less number of overs remaining, and there are enough wickets in hand to chase down a stiff target. Otherwise, huge scores can be made conventionally as well.
