Chennai Super Kings find themselves under mounting pressure in the IPL 2026. Sitting on 12 points from 13 league matches, the franchise’s postseason hopes are hanging by a thread—another defeat would effectively end CSK’s playoff contention. While the team’s momentum picked up during the latter part of the tournament, the campaign began badly, leaving them with little margin for error as the points race tightens.
Key takeaways
- CSK are on 12 points from 13 matches in IPL 2026 and face elimination from the playoffs race with one more loss.
- Former CSK batter Subramaniam Badrinath questioned IPL auction decisions, citing issues in how retentions were handled.
- Badrinath highlighted a major retention call involving Ravindra Jadeja at ₹18 crore and criticised how the decision shifted within a year.
- He also questioned retaining Matheesha Pathirana for ₹12 crore, arguing the fast bowler’s injury record made the risk obvious.
- Shivam Dube and Ruturaj Gaikwad were included in Badrinath’s criticism over form and impact.
Badrinath targets CSK’s retention choices
Speaking in a YouTube conversation, Subramaniam Badrinath—who won the IPL twice with CSK (in 2010 and 2011)—took aim at the way auction and retention strategy has been executed. His central argument was that the logic behind retaining certain players at high values did not match the outcomes that followed.
He specifically referenced what he described as a ₹30-crore mistake, putting Ravindra Jadeja and Matheesha Pathirana under the spotlight. For Jadeja, Badrinath said CSK committed ₹18 crore to retain him, implying that such a price should reflect a long-term plan and belief in his availability and role for the full cycle.
Badrinath then pointed to CSK’s subsequent change of direction. He claimed that despite the confidence implied by the retention fee, the franchise traded Jadeja to Sanju Samson through its own decisions in the second year. “If you retain a player in the mega auction for such a huge amount, it means you’re confident he’ll be there for three years. Yet you changed your mind in the second year itself,” Badrinath said, adding that the process did not appear to be followed properly.
On Pathirana, Badrinath questioned the wisdom of keeping the player for ₹12 crore. He argued that the franchise should not have been surprised by the likelihood of missing time, stating that Pathirana’s injury-prone reputation was widely known and that it made the retention risk hard to justify. He further claimed that the same situation is now being experienced elsewhere with the player, framing it as a repeat outcome from the original decision.
Criticism extends to Dube and Gaikwad
Badrinath also did not spare other CSK names, including Shivam Dube and Ruturaj Gaikwad. On Dube, he suggested the franchise had invested heavily but that the bowling groups across the league had found a way to manage him. In Badrinath’s view, it has become easier for opponents to plan against Dube, which has limited the impact CSK expected.
Regarding Gaikwad, Badrinath said his captaincy had raised concerns across the season. He noted that Gaikwad spent much of the previous campaign sidelined due to injury and argued that this carried into the current season, where his batting returns have been described as poor—adding that it, in turn, has affected his leadership performances on the field.
