Bumrah’s Slower Ball Under Scrutiny After IPL Drop in Effectiveness

Jasprit Bumrah’s slower ball once felt like a disguised weapon that even elite batters struggled to read—delivered with the same arm speed, yet arriving with different intent. In this IPL, though, that “toy” no longer looks quite as sharp. The numbers have been unusually bleak for a bowler whose craft has long depended on deception and tight execution: 46 slower balls bowled, 74 runs conceded, and not a single wicket. For a spinner-free fast bowler whose plans often revolve around creating doubt, it’s a rare dip—and it has weighed on Mumbai Indians in an otherwise forgettable season.

Bumrah’s IPL slump by the numbers

The impact is visible not just in the slower-ball figures, but across Bumrah’s current returns. He has taken only three wickets in 10 matches, with an economy rate of 8.89 and a bowling average that has climbed to 109.67. Those figures do not reflect the standards he has set for himself over multiple seasons, and they have been felt directly by Mumbai Indians.

What Sunil Gavaskar pinpointed

Sunil Gavaskar, speaking on Star Sports, offered a blunt read of what has changed. In his view, Bumrah still seems to be working hard, but he appears to be experimenting too much—creating opportunities to strike while also losing the edge that typically turns chances into wickets. Gavaskar also suggested a drop in pace and a shift in the slower-ball length.

• Bumrah appears to be trying “extra things,” which may be costing him the clean, repeatable effect of his variations.
• He is generating wicket-taking situations, but luck has not been cooperating.
• His pace has dropped compared to his usual tempo.
• The slower ball’s usual length has become fuller.
• The delivery that once threatened the stumps is now drifting toward the leg side.

That diagnosis goes to the core of the issue: the slower ball may still be arriving, but it has lost both bite and precision. And while there are reasons a bowler like Bumrah will keep returning to the variation, the payoff seems to have reduced this season.

Why the slower ball used to break games

To understand why the current returns look so uncharacteristic, it helps to recall how Bumrah’s slower ball has worked at its best—when it threatens the stumps first, forces commitment, and then turns indecision into dismissal. There are several high-profile examples from international cricket and major stages where that “trigger” created sudden reversals.

• Boxing Day Test, MCG (2018): Shaun Marsh, pressing for a breakthrough before lunch, was beaten by Bumrah’s slower-ball disguise—same action, different pace—leading to an lbw decision as India seized control.
• Lord’s (2021): Ollie Robinson was undone on Day Five when Bumrah used a change of pace from around the stumps to get him lbw.
• ODI World Cup final (2023): Steve Smith failed to pick the slower ball and was lbw.
• T20 World Cup semifinal: Harry Brook was beaten by the variation.
• T20 World Cup final: Rachin Ravindra and Mitch Santner were both affected by Bumrah’s slower-ball trigger.
• Pakistan’s Mohammad Rizwan: He was deceived twice—first in Ahmedabad and then in New York.
• IPL examples referenced: Ryan Rickelton struggled to read the variation in Ahmedabad, while Roston Chase was also foxed in Kolkata.

Across these instances, the pattern was consistent: the slower ball arrived when batters least expected it, and it left them with no clear answer. In this IPL, that layer of surprise appears thinner.

Technical drift, overcomplication, and disrupted rhythm

Gavaskar also highlighted the technical and mental side of the problem. The shift he pointed to—moving from a stumps-targeting slower ball to a fuller, leg-stump line—matters because of what batters are able to do. When the ball is fuller and on the leg side, batters get more room to free their arms and open up angles, even when they have mistimed the shot. The slower ball used to work best when it was simple, sharp, and placed precisely enough to force a commitment toward the stumps.

There was also the question of overcomplication. Gavaskar suggested Bumrah is trying too many things at once, and that this approach is hurting him. In attempting to stay ahead of batters who have become more prepared, Bumrah may have added layers—different lengths and slight pace changes—but the concern is that those additions have diluted the clarity that once defined the delivery. Importantly, the slower ball appears to be landing in hittable territory more often than before, and it has been used too frequently.

• The slower ball’s effectiveness has traditionally depended on threatening the stumps first; a fuller, leg-stump line can ease the batter’s decision-making.
• Gavaskar believes Bumrah is “overdoing things,” and that he should return to what works best.
• Trying new variations has occasionally placed the slower ball in a hittable zone.
• He has used the slower ball more than he needed to—especially in overs where changes in pace were not essential.
• Even the unusual no-balls (six or seven this season) point toward a disrupted rhythm; Gavaskar added that Bumrah is not typically known for bowling many no-balls.

For a bowler built on control, rhythm is everything. And rhythm, once disturbed, can affect everything from repeatable arm speed to the exact length that makes a slower ball dangerous.

Familiarity factor in T20 cricket

Another inevitable element is that Bumrah is no longer a mystery. His release, cues, and patterns are studied constantly—by analysts and by rival captains and coaches—through years of data and match exposure. Batters are not only reacting now; they are anticipating. In today’s hyper-analytical T20 ecosystem, even micro-signals can be decoded. On flatter decks, the margin for error becomes even smaller, and a slower ball that used to cause mishits may now travel more easily.

So, is it right to label this IPL as the start of a decline? Gavaskar urged caution. He believes it could take only one or two matches for Bumrah to regain his wicket-taking form. Once the wickets return, he expects Bumrah to be back on track.

Gavaskar also noted that Bumrah has handled adaptation cycles before. When yorkers were targeted, he shifted toward hard lengths. When batters lined those up, he moved to angles and seam. The slower ball itself has historically been a response to batters getting comfortable. This season could be another phase where the weapon has been read—and now it may simply need sharpening again.

Slower-ball breakdown from Bumrah’s IPL campaign

The following slower-ball list details how Bumrah’s slower ones have gone against different opponents, including the ball numbers, runs conceded, and whether wickets were taken.

• LSG: 1.5 (0), 3.3 (6), 3.5 (1), 13.3 (NB+2), 18.4 (0) — 5 slower balls, 59 runs conceded, 0 wickets.
• CSK (Match 1): 14.4 (0) — 1 slower ball, 10 runs conceded, 0 wickets.
• SRH: 1.4 (6), 5.2 (4), 13.1 (1), 13.4 (0), 13.5 (4), 17.4 (1) — 6 slower balls, 61 runs conceded, 0 wickets.
• CSK (Match 2): 4.3 (6) — 1 slower ball, 16 runs conceded, 0 wickets.
• GT: No slower balls used.
• PBKS: 1.3 (0), 1.5 (0), 5.5 (0), 12.2 (4), 14.1 (4), 14.3 (1), 14.6 (0) — 7 slower balls, 79 runs conceded, 0 wickets.
• RCB: 3.2 (4), 3.4 (2), 5.5 (1 + wide), 16.1 (1), 16.3 (0) — 5 slower balls, 69 runs conceded, 0 wickets.
• RR: 1.2 (1), 1.3 (1), 1.4 (6), 1.6 (0), 6.3 (1), 6.5 (1), 9.1 (0), 9.3 (wide+1), 9.5 (0), 9.6 (1) — 10 slower balls, 120 runs conceded, 0 wickets.
• DC: 5.3 (0), 5.5 (1), 5.6 (0), 12.1 (0), 12.5 (0), 15.2 (1), 15.4 (wide+1) — 7 slower balls, 63 runs conceded, 0 wickets.
• KKR: 4.3 (4), 11.2 (1), 11.5 (1), 17.1 (4) — 4 slower balls, 40 runs conceded, 0 wickets.

Total: 46 slower balls, 74 runs conceded, 0 wickets.