Bengaluru, the base of defending champions Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB), was set to host the IPL 2026 final. That plan did not go through only because the BCCI cited “certain requirements from the local association and authorities that were beyond the BCCI’s established guidelines and protocols.”
As a result, the showpiece match moved to Ahmedabad. The switch created an odd storyline: RCB—arriving as the reigning champions, finishing at the top of the table, and winning Qualifier 1—took the field as the designated home side at a ground that is far from their own. Gujarat Titans (GT), who effectively treat Ahmedabad as their second home throughout the year, were named the away team.
The clash was intriguing on its own, but it carried added weight because of the way this particular season unfolded. GT had turned Ahmedabad into one of the few remaining strongholds for the league, assembling a unit that fit the venue perfectly. As the tournament progressed, the surfaces also appeared to evolve in a way that increasingly suited them—especially by offering more assistance to pace bowling.
It is not common for a side to arrive at an IPL final with this level of home comfort—more so when they are not actually the home franchise in official terms. For GT, the complication was even sharper: they were up against the one team in the competition most capable of weaponising any “home” advantage.
Josh Hazlewood entered the final after a season that had been fairly modest by his usual standards. Yet if there was any ground in India that could jolt him back into rhythm, it was this one.
All through IPL 2026, Ahmedabad stood out as the premier setting for fast bowlers to hit the lengths Hazlewood prefers—short of a good length and short. When those deliveries were attempted elsewhere, the results were often less controlled: more than 11 runs per over in Jaipur, New Chandigarh and Mumbai, along with wicket averages in excess of 45. In Ahmedabad, though, the approach has repeatedly paid off. The playing surface offers a mix of soil types, and even the black-soil strips have shown plenty of bounce.
Sunday’s final was staged on Pitch No. 6, a mixed-soil wicket. Hazlewood made his intentions clear almost immediately, producing an impact that took only two deliveries to show.
Shubman Gill has always looked comfortable batting in Ahmedabad. Close to a quarter of his T20 runs have come at this venue, where he averages 52.06 with a strike rate of 165.2. Even if you wake him at 3am and send him out with a bat, the chances are he will keep finding the middle. That confidence is especially visible when the ball is pitched in a way he can pull or when he is offered the sort of short-arm jab he favours.
But the picture changes once Hazlewood takes the ball and the delivery starts climbing in that distinctly vertical manner. Gill played the short-arm jab almost on instinct, and the extra bounce left him with little room to adjust. His bat rotated so that the face pointed upward, sending the ball high into the air—roughly toward a very straight mid-on. Rajat Patidar sprinted from mid-off to take a strong, well-timed catch. GT were 22 for 1 after 2.2 overs.
If bowling hard lengths is Hazlewood’s natural style, it is not the first thing many would associate with Bhuvneshwar Kumar. He is not built like a typical pace battering ram, and bounce is not usually his main weapon. Still, when the conditions offer it, he knows exactly how to make it matter.
B Sai Sudharsan likes to confront bounce from the batter’s side. His best work often comes square of the wicket on the off side, where he can get on top of the rising ball and cut with authority. In Qualifier 2 in New Chandigarh, he had started GT’s chase of 215 with a remarkable shot off Jofra Archer: a jumping uppercut that cleared backward point.
In the fourth over of the final, Sudharsan attempted something similar against Bhuvneshwar. However, the ball he received was a genuine bouncer, landing halfway down the pitch and continuing to climb. It denied the batter any chance to meet the bounce. The result was a top edge, and wicketkeeper Jitesh Sharma completed a moving catch—one that might have been expected for a short-fine-leg position.
GT had already lost both openers within four overs. It was only the fourth time that season that Gill and Sudharsan had both departed inside the powerplay. It had also happened three times already against RCB.
For any bowling group, removing both openers during the powerplay is always a major win. It becomes even more valuable against GT, a team that leans heavily on Gill and Sudharsan for much of the batting workload, with Jos Buttler also providing support at times during the season.
Getting those two wickets only 3.4 overs into the final was a significant breakthrough for RCB. In many ways, the contest had been shifted in their favour.
Those dismissals were also the clearest reflection of a longer process: RCB’s fast bowlers committed to a plan throughout GT’s innings. They delivered 57 balls that were short or short-of-good-length across the spell. That total ranked as the joint sixth-highest number of such deliveries in any innings that season. Notably, three of the top seven innings in that category came in Ahmedabad.
RCB’s attack quickly learned what worked. After one over of Jacob Duffy searching with fuller deliveries aimed at swing, the message was clear: pitching the ball into the surface was the key. They carried out that strategy with precision. Over the course of IPL 2026, GT had often been the side that exploited Ahmedabad’s seam movement and bounce, leaning on a carefully assembled pace unit—Mohammed Siraj, Kagiso Rabada and Jason Holder. Few teams have been able to match GT in that particular area.
RCB, however, have a pace group that is just as capable. On the biggest day of the season, they outbowled GT in the place where GT typically thrive. Maybe, just maybe, RCB were the home team after all.
