Krish Bhagat’s IPL journey at Mumbai Indians began in a hurry, and it was still early in his story as he returned to the attack against Chennai Super Kings on Thursday—just his second match in the league.
Bhagat’s early IPL phase and MI’s bowling calls
- Bhagat, aged 21, was in the MI XI for the game versus CSK, his second IPL appearance overall.
- Three days earlier, on his debut, he bowled four and six in the innings, finishing with figures that cost 10 runs in total to Shubman Gill, Washington Sundar and Glenn Phillips.
- Against CSK, he did not get an opportunity during the powerplay, with MI instead handing him the 16th and the 20th overs.
- In those assigned overs, Bhagat conceded 31 runs as CSK went on to post a commanding total.
- CSK’s win came by 103 runs, prompting discussion around whether MI’s faith in the youngster was timely—or whether it was simply too large a demand to place on him at the death.
Ambati Rayudu, reflecting on CSK’s batting rhythm, described the significance of overs 16 and 20 in a T20 chase, explaining that the mindset shifts quickly as the innings approaches the final stretch. He noted that for a young batter, those are among the most demanding overs to face—overs where the game can change direction with every delivery.
Mitchell McClenaghan, who had once worn the MI jersey and was alongside Rayudu, added a tactical angle to the conversation. He said a common principle in T20 cricket is to trust your most reliable bowler with the 20th over in the first innings, while expecting them to deliver the 19th in the second innings. The reasoning, he suggested, is tied to momentum—how a bowler’s spell can carry the pressure forward into the next phase of the match.
McClenaghan also pointed out the emotional swing that comes when an over goes for 15 runs or more. In his view, that kind of setback can leave a side feeling deflated in the dressing room, making the back end of the innings a moment when teams try to create a breakthrough before the final over arrives. He then highlighted the curiosity of the call that saw Bhagat bowl the last over.
Even with the focus on the death overs, McClenaghan said MI had some positive elements in their powerplay bowling. CSK reached 73 for 2 by the end of that phase, and Mahela Jayawardene—MI’s head coach—later summed it up bluntly by saying, “we lost both the powerplays.”
McClenaghan singled out the impact made during the early overs. He referenced Ghazanfar’s showing in the powerplay, where an over brought only six runs, and described it as a strong matchup depending on the opponent. He also mentioned Santner’s second over, where the bowler returned 1 for 9, as another example of MI finding useful control early.
He then discussed what MI could have attempted after taking an early wicket, including the option of bringing Jasprit Bumrah back again during the powerplay. With CSK’s middle-to-lower order short of runs, McClenaghan felt a wicket-seeking approach—especially with Bumrah attacking—could have been a logical plan, noting Bumrah’s 19 runs across two powerplay overs as part of the broader context.
McClenaghan felt the early approach looked promising and believed CSK’s batting plan factored in the matchups. He suggested that Sanju Samson initially appeared to be lining up Hardik Pandya for a period, with Samson already set and then set to face Hardik in the death. In that scenario, he speculated that the batting may have expected either a certain rhythm or a particular bowler’s style, and that Bhagat—new to the matchup and offering a different look—might have been used as a strategy point, including the idea of fuller-length deliveries and wide yorkers.
He added that if yorkers didn’t come out in the exact way, it could be due to the situation itself: the first time a young bowler is placed under that kind of pressure. He framed it as both a planning exercise and a moment that can test inexperience.
MI’s chase reshuffle: Tilak at five, Rutherford at seven
During MI’s chase, Sherfane Rutherford was sent in at number seven, while Tilak Varma—who had been the standout from the previous match—occupied number five.
Rayudu and McClenaghan both believed Tilak had the better opportunity to walk into the game and influence the outcome immediately as the innings approached the death, rather than Rutherford, whose impact was expected after he had received a few deliveries to settle.
McClenaghan said that placing Rutherford at five would be sensible in general because he is capable of hitting at the end, but he tends to do it once he is set. He argued that Tilak’s profile is different: Tilak can accelerate even without needing extended time in the middle.
As it turned out, Tilak scored 37 off 29 balls, while Rutherford was dismissed for a first-ball duck.
Rayudu then explained why Tilak’s placement felt right from his perspective. He noted that in Tilak’s best innings, a large portion of his runs arrive in the final four or five overs—citing a 64-run effort in 17 balls during the late phase against Gujarat Titans. Rayudu stressed that the start of that phase doesn’t mean Tilak must first be settled; instead, he tends to be ready even when he comes in late.
Rayudu pointed to Tilak’s awareness in high-pressure moments, mentioning his 8 off three balls against Punjab Kings as an example of how he was prepared to attack the areas he expected the bowler to target. He also described Tilak as a particularly strong player when batting at six and seven, someone who understands what is happening around him as the ball moves into the final overs.
Finally, Rayudu reinforced his preference for Rutherford to get a few balls before going big, while also arguing that Tilak doesn’t require that same runway. He suggested that in the middle overs Tilak can sometimes lose clarity about whether to build or to take risks, but once the innings reaches the last five or six overs, Tilak’s intent becomes more defined—allowing him to execute his approach with greater confidence.
