In the final league game of the IPL between the Mumbai Indians and Rajasthan Royals, Mumbai needed to pull off an impossible chase to qualify for the qualifiers, and they managed it in some style.
Chasing 190 to win, Mumbai had to get the runs in 14.3 overs to push their net run rate ahead of Rajasthan's and qualify.
An Improbable chase?
Definitely.
But it was made possible by a swashbuckling unbeaten 95 of only 44 deliveries by Corey Andersen, who this year broke Shahid Afridi's record of the fastest century scored in ODIs.
Andersen blasted the Rajasthan bowlers to all corners of the park and always kept Mumbai in the hunt.
With 8 needed to win off 2 deliveries to qualify, Ambati Rayudu smashed the first of those deliveries for a 6 off a Faulkner full toss.
Now 2 were needed to win of 1 delivery.
Rayudu hit the ball into the covers, sprinted for the first run, and then got run out in attempting the second, which would have sent Mumbai into the qualifiers and Rajasthan out of the IPL.
Scores were level.
The calculators went on a frenzy.
And the message came out that Mumbai still had a chance. They needed to hit the next ball for at least a four to win with their net run rate higher than Rajasthan's.
If the ball did not go for a boundary, and Mumbai won by running to get the 1 run required they would end up with a lower run rate and not qualify.
Essentially the match would have been over had Faulkner bowled a wide and Rajasthan would have qualified.
However, he slipped another full toss down the leg side and the new man Tare smashed it for 6 over the square leg boundary resulting in frantic Mumbai celebrations.
It was an impossible chase. The odds were totally stacked against Mumbai. Check betting odds from sources like sportsbettinginfo and you would see that it was all in Rajasthan's favor. But Andersen, with support from Rayudu, Hussey, and Tare managed the impossible!
The question really is why didn't Faulkner bowl one wide on the off side?
Would that have been against the spirit of the game?
It would have been purely tactical.
And well within the rules.
Did no one think about it?
Surely it would not have been wrong to do it.
It would have been game over for Mumbai.
Chasing 190 to win, Mumbai had to get the runs in 14.3 overs to push their net run rate ahead of Rajasthan's and qualify.
An Improbable chase?
Definitely.
But it was made possible by a swashbuckling unbeaten 95 of only 44 deliveries by Corey Andersen, who this year broke Shahid Afridi's record of the fastest century scored in ODIs.
Andersen blasted the Rajasthan bowlers to all corners of the park and always kept Mumbai in the hunt.
With 8 needed to win off 2 deliveries to qualify, Ambati Rayudu smashed the first of those deliveries for a 6 off a Faulkner full toss.
Now 2 were needed to win of 1 delivery.
Rayudu hit the ball into the covers, sprinted for the first run, and then got run out in attempting the second, which would have sent Mumbai into the qualifiers and Rajasthan out of the IPL.
Scores were level.
The calculators went on a frenzy.
And the message came out that Mumbai still had a chance. They needed to hit the next ball for at least a four to win with their net run rate higher than Rajasthan's.
If the ball did not go for a boundary, and Mumbai won by running to get the 1 run required they would end up with a lower run rate and not qualify.
Essentially the match would have been over had Faulkner bowled a wide and Rajasthan would have qualified.
However, he slipped another full toss down the leg side and the new man Tare smashed it for 6 over the square leg boundary resulting in frantic Mumbai celebrations.
It was an impossible chase. The odds were totally stacked against Mumbai. Check betting odds from sources like sportsbettinginfo and you would see that it was all in Rajasthan's favor. But Andersen, with support from Rayudu, Hussey, and Tare managed the impossible!
The question really is why didn't Faulkner bowl one wide on the off side?
Would that have been against the spirit of the game?
It would have been purely tactical.
And well within the rules.
Did no one think about it?
Surely it would not have been wrong to do it.
It would have been game over for Mumbai.
Read more about Why didn't Jame Faulkner bowl a wide?
No comments:
Post a Comment