The IPL 2025 Qualifier 2 had all the hallmarks of a nail-biting classic: power-hitting, twists and turns, drama, and some truly bizarre decisions. But within all of the mayhem, one thing has left the cricket establishment scratching its head: why were Hardik Pandya and Mitchell Santner not bowled their full quota of overs? In a game that screamed out for control and experienced calmness, both bowlers were limited to two overs each.
The Case for Hardik: A Bowler Built for That Wicket
Hardik Pandya is no stranger to the pressure cooker of playoff cricket, especially on that pitch. He has bowled countless overs at this venue in those GT days of old, and if we know anything about Pandya−he knows the surface. His first over of Qualifier 2 was right on the money: hard lengths, variations, and the classic Pandya calm. Sure, he did go for a few in his second, but that’s T20 cricket for you, sticking to your plans is well more crucial than one dodgy over.
What’s puzzling is that he wasn’t given the chance to come back. And they probably would have been justified in giving him a third over—had Trent Boult not dropped an absolute sitter—he would have had figures to at least give him a third over. Notably, he just disappeared from the attack like he was never planning on bowling more. It’s the same as leaving your best weapon sheathed during a battle.
Santner: A Spinner You Should Trust in Big Games
Mitchell Santner is the underrated spin magician. Two overs, great control, fast and slow. Why did we not see any more Santner? That was probably related to Shreyas Iyer being in the middle (and Iyer being a known good player of spin), but to ask yourself, in high-stress scenarios, if you can’t trust a bowler of his international quality and experience, who can you trust?
He was more than economical. He was bowling intelligently. Flighting the ball just enough, changing his pace, and taking batters into difficult angles. Santner was giving control in a game that had very little control. But, instead of utilizing the two-pronged attack of pace off the ball at one end and Santner at the other end, he sat in the dugout for the back half of the innings. This is not a hindsight call – fans and pundits alike were left scratching their heads in the moment.
Read Also: Just a Captain Left Staring into the Lights
Topley in the 13th? The Turning Point Nobody Saw Coming
There was a moment that left the game genuinely tilted, and it was the 13th over—Reece Topley. Topley is a wonderful bowler, but he had a night where he looked like he had just come out of a net session. Topley had no rhythm, control, or confidence and was an odd option at this crucial stage of the innings. Everyone expected Hardik or even a little sneaky over from someone like Tilak, not Topley.
The more pressing issue was not the over itself, but what it represented: loss of leadership. Plans were thrown down the toilet, and instead of supporting the bowlers that had delivered results, the leaders threw caution to the wind ~eyes closed. The opposition regained the momentum from that over and effectively wrote the script for the rest of the innings. It was a classic case of reactive versus proactive thinking.
So here is the question: In a format where one over can turn everything on its head, can teams afford to sit quality weapons in the middle of battle? Will the IPL captains trust pedigree over gut feeling when the pressure is on? Let us know.
To catch up on the most current news on all of your favorite thrilling cricket updates, visit Six6slive to access our comprehensive Latest News, insightful analysis, and updates. Connect with the action now to make sure you never miss out!