In T20s, death not a factor

Their profligacy though had little impact on India winning their first two league matches on a canter. So far, Dhoni, by his own admission, has trusted his gut feel in terms of choosing his death-bowling options. The albatross is going nowhere soon but is it really weighing the Indian team down as much as it’s made out to be?

This is a format where even the death-over ‘specialists’ concede big runs in the last couple of overs every other day. Unlike India, most other teams in the competition do have specialists to call upon. Lasith Malinga, Dale Steyn and Saeed Ajmal have already shown the benefits of possessing nerveless finishers with the ball for their respective teams.

But if having a death bowler is a luxury, then not having one could mean more flexibility, like India have proved so far. Dhoni, in contrast to many of his counterparts, in a way has more of a free hand in dealing with his bowling options.

So dependent are Sri Lanka on Malinga to deliver the finishing touches that their captain is urged to hold him back even if the marauding pacer has started well with the new-ball. The same goes for the likes of Kyle Mills, Mitchell Starc and Steyn. And it did cost Australia dearly when they had to bring on their part-timers against Umar Akmal’s flashing blade in a bid to keep Starc’s two overs up their sleeve.

Dhoni, however, never has to think too far ahead, considering he anyway isn’t aware of the identity of his death bowlers till the very end. It also gives him the advantage of going for the jugular and continuing with the ones who are in the midst of a good spell, like he did with Ravichandran Ashwin against the West Indies, bowling him out by the 12th over. Or by giving Kumar a third over after he had conceded only two runs of his opening two.

In a format where there are no rights or wrongs, India’s renowned deficiency could well have given way to a winning formula.

(Bharat is a principal correspondent, based in Mumbai.) 

bharat.sundaresan@expressindia.com