This is also the fourth year of the Impact Player rule. Despite strong calls from players to scrap it, the IPL has made it clear there will be no review before the 2027 season.<\/p>\n
The balance between bat and ball, always a delicate balance in T20 cricket, now appears to have tipped decisively in one direction.<\/p>\n
Former India cricketer Sanjay Manjrekar believes the shift is no longer subtle, but stark.<\/p>\n
\u201cYes, that\u2019s the burning topic. Everyone\u2019s talking about it. I can recall at least five batters [in IPL 2026] scoring not just hundreds, but hundreds off around 50 balls, striking at 200. I\u2019ve felt strongly for a number of years about the balance between bat and ball, and I think we\u2019ve now gone beyond a certain limit,\u201d Manjrekar said on Sportstar\u2019s Insight Edge<\/i> podcast.<\/p>\n
For Manjrekar, the concern is not limited to purists longing for the past. Even the modern T20 audience, conditioned to expect high-scoring thrillers, is beginning to feel the excess.<\/p>\n
\u201cEven T20 fans, not just traditional Test cricket followers, are starting to feel slightly disillusioned by the sheer dominance of bat over ball.\u201d<\/p>\n
The pitch problem<\/b><\/p>\n
At the heart of this imbalance, he argues, lies the nature of Indian pitches. \u201cLet\u2019s start with one fact: the IPL is played on Indian pitches. While not every ground is high-scoring, venues like Lucknow and occasionally Chennai have maintained some balance. But most grounds, including the new one in Chandigarh, are heavily skewed in favour of batters.\u201d<\/p>\n
The issue is not just flatness, but predictability. \u201cWhy do I say that? Because on Indian pitches, once the ball lands, it does very little. It comes on straight, which makes batting much easier. Even on flat pitches in Australia, South Africa, or England, the ball still does something occasionally. That\u2019s not the case here.\u201d<\/p>\n
Unintended consequences<\/b><\/p>\n
Layered onto these conditions is the Impact Player rule, which Manjrekar believes has amplified the imbalance. \u201cReason number two is the Impact Player rule. I think it has impacted bowlers far more negatively than it has benefited batters. Imagine this rule in New Zealand, where the ball swings. Bringing in a seam bowler could balance things. But in India, it hasn\u2019t worked that way.\u201d<\/p>\n
Interestingly, he admits he initially welcomed the rule. \u201cWhen it was introduced, I was actually excited. I thought we\u2019d see more specialist players, an extra pure batter or bowler, raising the overall quality. So the players who I used to call bits and pieces, I don\u2019t do that anymore, because that term is misunderstood. So I would say, non-specialists.\u201d<\/p>\n
The effect is visible in team composition and intent. \u201cYou now have pure batters like Ashutosh Sharma coming in at No. 8. When you have batting depth till No. 8, players at the top can go all out because they know there\u2019s cover.\u201d<\/p>\n
That safety net, he suggests, has fundamentally altered risk-taking. \u201cImagine a scenario where the overs were reduced to 20, you know, from 50 and teams could only use seven batters and the innings ended after five wickets. It would be a completely different game.\u201d<\/p>\n
Grounds stuck in another era<\/b><\/p>\n
Then comes a structural issue that often escapes scrutiny: ground dimensions. \u201cMany were built decades ago, with dimensions suited to a different era of cricket. The game has evolved, but the grounds haven\u2019t.\u201d<\/p>\n
If anything, the problem has worsened. \u201cBoundaries need to be longer. Instead, in some cases, like at Wankhede, they\u2019re brought in further for advertising boards. It\u2019s ridiculous. You see shots reaching the boundary in seconds, with no real fielding contest. You don\u2019t see the chasing, you know, the old-fashioned somebody running after the ball and people going, \u2018oh, is he going to stop it?\u2019 It\u2019s just four or six.\u201d<\/p>\n
Is the middle order being exposed or protected?<\/b><\/p>\n
While some argue that the Impact Player rule masks weak middle orders, Manjrekar sees it differently. \u201cNot necessarily. Teams with strong middle orders, like RCB, still see contributions from those players. The bigger issue is how conditions favour batters so heavily.\u201d<\/p>\n
He even questions whether certain T20 staples remain relevant in current conditions. \u201cIn fact, someone suggested whether we even need the six-over PowerPlay in these conditions. With a hard new ball and only two fielders outside the circle, teams at the top are maximising this phase.\u201d<\/p>\n
What can be fixed?<\/b><\/p>\n
If given the power to intervene, Manjrekar points to both ideal and practical solutions. \u201cTwo or three things come to mind. First, reconsider the six-over PowerPlay. It\u2019s pragmatic.\u201d<\/p>\n
Longer boundaries would help, but aren\u2019t always feasible. \u201cIdeally, I\u2019d like longer boundaries, but not all grounds allow that. Some venues are simply too small. After watching recent games, especially at Wankhede Stadium in Mumbai, I feel some grounds just aren\u2019t suited for T20 anymore… Same with [Chinnaswamy Stadium] in Bengaluru… They\u2019ve become bowler graveyards.\u201d<\/p>\n
He offers a telling example. \u201cTake Vaibhav Sooryavanshi\u2019s hundred [against Sunrisers Hyderabad], for instance. At least four sixes he hit would\u2019ve been catches if the boundaries were even slightly longer. That would bring some sanity back to the game.\u201d<\/p>\n
One unintended casualty of the current ecosystem is the genuine all-rounder.<\/p>\n
\u201cYes, it does,\u201d Manjrekar says when asked if the Impact Player rule hurts them. \u201cFor example, Shivam Dube showed his value in the T20 World Cup and Asia Cup by contributing with both bat and ball. In the IPL, he barely bowls.\u201d<\/p>\n
The broader issue, he feels, is the loss of in-game adaptability.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn hindsight, I\u2019d like to see teams forced to adapt when bowlers struggle, instead of relying on substitutions. That unpredictability adds to the charm.\u201d<\/p>\n
Published on Apr 27, 2026<\/p>\n<\/div>\n