Iyer led the recovery after Delhi lost three early wickets in the power play
For the fourth time at IPL 2020, Delhi Capitals fell short against a team. Each was different from the other, but similar in some ways. They fell short against and with the new ball. And as a result they never got to show their best side, which they did when they faced other teams in the tournament. However, on the last two occasions against Mumbai, which included the final, this side of Delhi came out despite what the wide margin of victory suggested.
In the first qualifier, their best phase came when they tied the hard hitters of Mumbai between the power play and the death overs. And in the final, the pattern continued with the bat, through an energetic partnership between Rishabh Pant and Shreyas Iyer, who once again fought back from what could have been a decisive power game in which they lost three wickets.
That they managed to turn it around was because Rishabh Pant and Shreyas Iyer showed their willingness to go beyond their comfort zones. Iyer entered a stage where Delhi was still looking to push and reverse momentum, he took over powerplay overs constantly trying to make room and pocket the limits, leading Delhi to a respectable powerplay score of 43 despite lose three fields. And unlike previous instances against MI, he had ensured that the impact of the first few lands was reduced by not falling under a shell.
It also allowed Pant to play his preferred game plan, as he has shown throughout the tournament, to give himself time before starting. It took until the 17 ball for Pant to attempt his big shot. And when he did it this time, Pant was smart in targeting his best option: Krunal Pandya’s left turn to get going with two sixes. The duo had also struggled to give society some legs in the opening stages of a 96-race resurrection act. His plans under pressure, and the execution was clear and precise. And despite not fulfilling his power play plans, many bugs from his previous encounters against MI had been fixed. They had even reached a stage where they had their best hitters in Pant and Shimron Hetmyer and a well-prepared Iyer available for the final attack. So far everything is going well despite the nervousness.
However, the charge that should have seen Delhi approach a total close to 200 never came. The final three overs yielded just 20. The killing blows came when Nathan Coulter-Nile had Rishabh Pant hooked on the thin leg shortly after his first fifty of the tournament. Pant had lost the battle in the execution of what is a force in his arsenal. This was quickly followed by Shimron Hetmyer guiding a short, slower ball from Boult to the third short man. And Iyer, who found himself on the wrong side most of the time in death overs, collected just 10 of his last 8 balls.
The how and why of this failure will undoubtedly be reflected on by the team. Some others can also be guessed. Possibly they would reflect on his game in advance against Boult when he caught some of them by surprise by shortening their lengths with the new ball. You would also think that their high-level hitters would not do well on the big occasion. What is the difference between its planning and execution? Will you need a review? What made a big difference to his vaunted attack speed in the two halves of his campaign? How are technical deficiencies corrected in talented players?
And possibly more, with the benefit of hindsight.
Because what the present had once again was a team that had its fair share of talent and knowledge to challenge, albeit in small phases, against what is now believed to be among the best T20 teams assembled.
But the gaps had also been equally marked. After the final, head coach Ricky Ponting reflected that his team was probably the youngest in the tournament. And perhaps it is because they will feel very calm.
The final had been lost. But this group had carved out new territory even before facing a ball in the final. And possibly more than a few lessons learned.
.
