David Miller’s IPL moment didn’t end the way Delhi Capitals would have wanted. With the equation tight in the closing stages against Gujarat Titans, the South African batter’s decision not to take a run on the penultimate ball swung the contest—DC ended up falling short by a single run in a finish that turned him from potential hero into the main talking point. Sunil Gavaskar, however, believes Miller’s mindset was understandable, noting that he seemed to back himself to at least find a boundary or two on the final delivery.
Key takeaways
- DC lost to Gujarat Titans by one run in a match where the final two deliveries proved decisive for David Miller.
- Miller refused to take a single on the second-last ball, despite Delhi needing two runs from the last two overs.
- On the final delivery, Miller failed to make contact, and the attempted run led to Jos Buttler running out Kuldeep Yadav.
- Gavaskar said Miller’s approach wasn’t wrong given his form and the confidence he showed during the over.
- Kevin Pietersen argued Miller likely expected at least a single on the last ball, with the alternative being a big strike.
Miller’s late decision and the decisive run-out
The decisive phase involved Kuldeep Yadav at the other end, with Miller denying him the strike even though DC required two runs from the last two balls. When the final delivery came from Prasidh Krishna, Miller couldn’t connect cleanly. An attempted single followed, and that attempt ultimately resulted in Jos Buttler running out Kuldeep Yadav, handing Gujarat their first win of the campaign.
Gavaskar: questionable in hindsight, but understandable in context
Sunil Gavaskar acknowledged that, looking back, Miller should have given Kuldeep the strike on the penultimate ball. Still, he resisted the idea that the batter’s intent was fundamentally flawed. Gavaskar pointed to how Miller had been striking effectively earlier in the over, suggesting Miller believed he could produce the required outcome on the last ball.
“Yes, he was backing himself to hit the winning runs, but having seen the way Kuldeep Yadav nudged that ball for a single off the first ball, maybe he should have given Kuldeep the strike,” Gavaskar said after the match. “He should have given the strike. This is all being wise after the event, but the fact remains that the way he had been hitting the previous over and that over as well, he believed that he could do it, simple as that. So you can’t fault him for that. He had the confidence that he could do it, but it didn’t come off because the ball that Prasidh Krishna bowled was an absolutely superb delivery.”
Pietersen: Miller was thinking in ‘worst-case’ terms
Kevin Pietersen also weighed in on the debate. He suggested that once Miller denied Kuldeep the strike, his thinking was that he would either secure at least a single off the last delivery—or, if it came off, deliver something more damaging with his batting power. Pietersen felt that because Miller had already pushed DC to a position where they could contest the finish, it would be unfair to pin the result solely on his final decision.
“I think purely based on the fact that he thought that from that last delivery, he would guarantee to get one at least. And if not one, he would strike it out of the ground because he’s that good at striking the ball out of the ground. So that’s where his mind would have been. Does he want to risk Kuldeep or Kuldeep getting out?” Pietersen said. “Yes, they’ve tied the game, and yes, they’ve got the super over, but he thought from that final delivery, I’ll definitely get one. The worst case is one. I’m not going to miss it. Best case, I’ll get a 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. That’s where he was at.”
