Some leadership decisions in the Indian Premier League 2023 have been baffling. It is almost like captains have sometimes attempted to put together a jigsaw puzzle, but with one piece missing. On a few occasions, it is like they have forgotten where they themselves misplaced such pieces while attempting to solve the jigsaw.
Just as football and hockey see some teams manage late winners and others simply unable to win penalty shootouts, the IPL has produced some outcomes that are the result of twists in the tale. It suggests that teams must come to terms with the fact that they need to play 40 overs of smart cricket. It is not enough if they hold the edge for 38, or even 39, overs.
Cricket teams tend to be philosophical, dismissing such decisions as being the nature of T20 cricket. Of course, they do not have the time to analyse the events since they must start focusing on the next game. However, it will take longer for those outside the inner circle to really understand that the ‘nature of the game’ can make leaders sometimes ignore key weapons in their arsenal.
What was it that made Rohit Sharma, the most successful IPL captain with five titles, not only take Piyush Chawla out of the Mumbai Indians attack immediately after he claimed two wickets in one over, but also not bring him back for his fourth over in the match against Punjab Kings? Why did Hardik Pandya, the Gujarat Titans skipper, not bowl Mohit Sharma’s full quota against Rajasthan Royals?
Of course, these are not the only skippers whose decisions raised questions. For instance, what would have caused Nitish Rana, the Kolkata Knight Riders captain, to send Andre Russell to bat at No.7 against Mumbai Indians, No.8 against Delhi Capitals and No.7 against Chennai Super Kings? Do such decisions leave teams with the best chance of winning games?
Gujarat Titans vs Mumbai Indians||Preview
There are more such examples of leaders missing opportunities staring them in their face, but this is not an attempt to pick on some captains and let others escape scrutiny. The idea is to try and understand the pressures that the skippers may be feeling, and how those impact their decision-making. Come to think of it, some of these decisions have a domino effect on the fans as well.
But spare a thought for captains who have no option but to shrug their shoulders and break into wry smiles when recalling that they were the men whose decisions played a part in an adverse outcome for their teams. The hollowness of cracking under pressure, as reflected by less-than-optimal decisions, can make for very poor company.
Captaincy, especially in the blink-and-you-miss-it T20 setting, demands a great ability to handle many things at the same time. It calls for top-notch analytical skills – thinking on one’s feet, as it were – and a clear and creative mind. Relentlessly. There is very little room for error since one decision can return to cloud the mind and impact the result.
Is it the Amygdala Hijack that causes such decision-making? Perhaps not. For, such decisions do not bear any comparison with terrible events that have their roots in this phenomenon that sees an emotional response to a situation – like the Zinedine Zidane headbutt, or the Mike Tyson bite. But sports psychologists may find it fascinating to study the impact of pressure on decisions by IPL captains.
One of the arguments in favour of captains is that they hold a key bowler’s over or two for possible use at a later stage. Truth to tell, it could well be a tough call for the captain to complete a bowler’s quota of overs on the trot, even if the bowler has claimed wickets and arrested the progress of the opposition batters.
Another logical explanation that is proffered is that captains, who make decisions in the heat of battle, are sometimes spoilt for choice. That is just clutching at the straws, since there can be little justification for captains not using the full quota of their most successful bowlers or not sending their best available batters at the fall of a wicket.
Therefore, the onus is on captains to remember the resources at their disposal and pick the best option each time they are needed to make decisions. No matter how much it has evolved over the past few decades, cricket remains a captain-driven, rather than coach-driven, sport and that is good enough reason for skippers to be seen to make the best decisions.
After all, even if one piece is missing, a jigsaw puzzle remains incomplete. And it becomes worse when the piece has been tucked away elsewhere by the leader himself. More so in these times when disappointed fans, many of whom are deeply engrossed in fantasy games, waste no time in picking up tinted glasses to view these decisions from afar and cry foul.