Chennai Super Kings (CSK) clinched their fifth title in the Indian Premier League (IPL) following a thrilling win over Gujarat Titans (GT) in the epic final that held at Narendra Modi Stadium in Ahmedabad on Monday.
In the rain-affected contest, the match remained fiercely contested until the very end. Mohit Sharma showcased his skills and appeared poised to lead Gujarat to victory with an excellent start in the final over. Defending 13 runs, Mohit began with four consecutive yorkers against Ravindra Jadeja and Shivam Dube, allowing only three runs to be scored. His execution against the formidable Super Kings team was precise, displaying clarity and confidence in his approach.
But things went south for him as Jadeja smacked for a six over long-on and four past short fine leg in the remaining two balls helping CSK chase down the revised target and clinch the coveted trophy. Cricket legends Sunil Gavaskar and Virender Sehwag heavily criticized Gujarat Titans captain Hardik Pandya for the team’s defeat reckoning that Hardik disrupted Mohit’s rhythm by interrupting him for a discussion, which ultimately proved costly for GT and led to their loss in the game.
Gavaskar opined that when a bowler is in a good rhythm and mentally focused, nobody should interfere or distract them. He suggested that it would have been better for Hardik to simply acknowledge Mohit’s good bowling from a distance rather than approaching him and engaging in a conversation.
“He bowled that first 3-4 deliveries absolutely brilliantly. Then for some strange reason some water was sent to him, in the middle of an over. Then Hardik came and spoke to him. When the bowler is in that rhythm and he is mentally also there, nobody should have said anything to him. Nothing at all. From a distance just say well bowled. Going to him, talking to him, that wasn’t the right thing to do. Suddenly Mohit was looking here and there,” said Gavaskar as quoted by India Today.
During a conversation with Cricbuzz, Sehwag echoed Gavaskar’s sentiments and raised doubts about the significance of disrupting the bowler’s rhythm and wasting their time when they are performing their role effectively. Sehwag proposed that it would have made more sense to approach the bowler if they had conceded runs in that specific over.
“When some is bowling well and is delivering with yorkers, why will you go and have a word with him? He knows that the batter needs 10 from 2 and that he needs to stick with yorkers. Then why will you waste his time? Had Mohit been hit for runs, then he could have gone and had a word, but when the bowler is doing his job you want to get done with the over quickly. It also could be that the captain might have come with a concern about whether the bowler would want any changes in the field for the last two balls. But still, if I would have been there, I wouldn’t have disturbed him,” explained Sehwag.
