How India produced the perfect blueprint for chasing a revised target after rain

The DLS Method is considered the fairest system yet to decide matches interrupted/affected by the weather. It takes into account the resources left at the batting side’s disposal when targets are revised, just as it happened at the Pallekele International Cricket Stadium on Sunday.

India had reached six without loss in three deliveries, chasing Sri Lanka’s 161 for nine in the second T20 International, when it bucketed down. The downpour lasted no more than five minutes, but its intensity was such that in several other countries, play might have had to be abandoned entirely. Sri Lanka isn’t, fortunately, one of those countries.

The DLS Method

Unlike many in the “developed” world who invest in sleek covers and excellent drainage, Sri Lanka have perfected a unique system — of draping the entire ground in waterproof covers. What this means is that while the multi-protected pitch is immune to water seepage, the outfield too will not pose an issue once the rain stops. Hence, India’s chase was in a position to resume after a 70-minute interruption, their new target 78 in eight overs.

When Yashasvi Jaiswal and Sanju Samson came out to bat for a second time, India needed 72 runs in 45 deliveries, with all 10 wickets remaining. That might have appeared somewhat befuddling. After all, Sri Lanka had scored at just over eight an over for the duration of their innings; yet, India were required to score at nearly 10. One of the reasons for that was India had all 10 wickets in hand. Therefore, their required rate was considered reasonable through the number-crunching that the DLS Method necessitates.

The bizarre 1992 rule

One might argue the fairness or otherwise of this system, but there is no denying that this is definitely more acceptable than the diabolical rule in vogue during the 1992 World Cup in Australia and New Zealand. On that occasion, the chasing side was effectively penalised for having bowled well in the first half of the game. If the team batting second, for example, were to have only 48 overs to chase a target, then the runs scored from the two least productive overs of the team batting first were the ones that were disregarded.

That left South Africa with a heartbreaking conundrum in their semifinal against England. At one stage late in the game, the African nation, playing its first World Cup and having just returned to the international fold after nearly two and a half decades in the wilderness, needed 22 runs off 13 deliveries. A 20-minute stoppage for rain led to the loss of two overs; their revised target was a ridiculous 22 off one delivery. That’s right, 12 deliveries lopped off, but not a single run reduced.

The “culprit”, for want of a better word, was Meyrick Pringle, the paceman who had turned in an impeccable spell of 9-2-36-2 during England’s innings. Unfortunately, it’s those two maidens that came back to haunt South Africa because the reduction in the target, according to the playing conditions, was to be proportionate to the lowest-scoring overs of the team batting first. Two maidens meant zero runs were reduced; hence, 22 off 13 became 22 off one. One of the cruelest endings to a cricket match.

Daunting but not impossible

Compared to that, 78 off eight overs was a massive improvement. Seventy-two off 45 deliveries, which was India’s goal on resumption, was daunting but not impossible, like 22 off 1. And yet, 72 off 45 wasn’t as straightforward as India made it appear.

A couple of tight overs could so easily have sent the required rate soaring exponentially. It almost happened, too. Sanju Samson has attracted sympathy aplenty, with numerous conspiracy theories being floated for his non-inclusion in the playing XI, notwithstanding the fact that he has been picked as the second wicketkeeper, behind Rishabh Pant, and that unless the latter is indisposed or rested, Samson will have to bide his time.

Only pressure point

This Sunday, Samson was fitted into the playing XI after Shubman Gill woke with spasms in his neck. India had other options but because Samson has opened in the past, they brought him in to partner Jaiswal. The Kerala right-hander’s innings lasted exactly one ball as he was bowled through the gate by Maheesh Theekshana right at the start of the second over. It was an over that produced only two runs, signalling the first, and it as it turned out, only pressure point of the Indian chase.

Jaiswal had made his intentions clear with two fours in the 80-minute first over straddling the rain break bowled by Dasun Shanaka, but Sri Lanka had staunched the bleeding thanks to Theekshana. In the most obvious choice available to him, Charith Asalanka brought Wanindu Hasaranga on for the third over. Another six tight deliveries, and India would have left themselves a mountain to climb.

A better prepared Jaiswal

Leggie Hasaranga is ranked No. 3 in the ICC charts for T20I bowlers. Just 24 hours previously, as India’s batters were taking Sri Lanka apart, Hasaranga stood tall with one for 28 from his four overs. He had dismissed Jaiswal with his first delivery, a ripping googly that beat the batter all ends up and had him stumped. Surely, he had the upper hand?

Surely not. Better prepared this time around, Jaiswal stood in his crease and committed himself to the sweep, powerfully clattering Hasaranga flat over deep backward square for six. It was premeditated, but with minimum risk because Jaiswal had worked out the percentages. Much like Suryakumar was to do later when his first four boundaries were all off sweeps, three of them on the trot against Theekshana.

Carefree but not careless

Chasing 10 an over is hardly a massive challenge these days, but a chase of that proportion doesn’t call for blind slogging. Jaiswal and Suryakumar showcased intelligence in their choice of strokes more than the balls they chose to attack. The sweep was a safe bet because both play it well; dancing down the track wasn’t particularly advisable because the ball was turning, though in one glorious playback to the Sourav Ganguly era, Jaiswal shimmied down the pitch and deposited Hasaranga over wide long-on.

India swapped bravado for common sense; the populist and lazy description might be “throwing caution to the wind” but that’s not what Jaiswal and his captain did. They were carefree but not careless, uninhibited but not slogging with gay abandon. If there is a more perfect blueprint for how to retain one’s equilibrium under mounting pressure, that hasn’t been unfurled yet.