Two bouncers in an over in the IPL

Teams need to get their heads around the new rule, quickly...

I’ve long been of the opinion that short-pitched bowling in T20 cricket isn’t as effective as a lot of people think. Generally, short-pitched bowling has double-digit economy in the shortest formats and while it does produce wickets at a decent balls per wicket figure, the trade-off isn’t often worth it.

Further, most bowlers who don’t have the ability to bowl in excess of 135+ kph at a bare minimum have very poor data bowling the short ball. It’s just not a weapon for them. A list of pacers with a potent short ball at the highest level is a very short one, so those pacers who lack express pace should really use it simply as the occasional surprise element in order to avoid predictability, or against batters who are perceived to be weak against the short ball.

Look at Harshal Patel as an example yesterday in PBKS’ loss to RCB in the IPL. Needing to defend 17 from 8, he tried the bouncer against Dinesh Karthik, who cleared the ropes.

In my view, there were two mistakes here. One was obvious - a bouncer to a good player of the short ball with fine leg up was a strange choice of ball to bowl. Secondly, it was a strange choice of ball to bowl considering the game state - defending 17 off 8, a lower-variance option than the short ball made a lot more sense - avoiding conceding a boundary at that point in the innings was vital in order to RCB a tough task in the final over of the match.

Of course, we don’t know why Harshal Patel bowled that ball. Did he have any input from strategists in advance of the game about where he might bowl to DK? It would seem unlikely based on his choice. This is really where a good strategist can earn their money - while the player takes the credit or criticism for their option, the influence of a good strategist in these circumstances cannot be understated. I find it continually very strange that there is not a highly competitive market among teams to recruit the best strategists in cricket.

Two bouncers per over for pacers should not be thought of as a target, but more of an option to keep batters honest. Previously, with only one bouncer allowed per over, once a bowler had bowled their bouncer, the batter knew that they couldn’t face another one in that over - now they can.

What this does achieve is a scenario where batters are now more susceptible to fuller lengths than short balls, such as a good length, because the length that batters face is much more unpredictable than when only one bouncer was allowed in the over. If a bowler possesses express pace and has already bowled a bouncer, the batter still cannot know if the next ball that they’re going to face is a short ball which could be aimed at their head, or a fuller length which could hit the stumps. Batters now have a lot more uncertainty with this new rule.

Given the above, it’s unsurprising to see a good length be pretty successful in the 2024 IPL so far. Until teams, and specifically bowlers, get their heads around these new rules, expect to see a continued high economy from pacers bowling too many short balls when their skillset doesn’t align to doing so.

Anyone interested in discussing how I can help their team with strategic consultation and data-driven analysis, or contribute to any media work, can get in touch at sportsanalyticsadvantage@gmail.com.