"Impact player needs to go away": Sachin Tendulkar
New Delhi, May 31
Legendary Indian cricketer Sachin Tendulkar believes the Indian Premier League's Impact Player rule should be scrapped, arguing that it creates an imbalance in T20 cricket by allowing teams to add an extra batter to already strong line-ups.
He feels bowlers are already under significant pressure in the format, and the rule further tilts the game in favour of batters.
"I feel there are a few things which, on a personal note that I can say, I think the impact player needs to go away. I feel that when in a T20 format, you just have to play 20 overs, and then you are adding one more batter to that line-up. Where bowlers are already being challenged, I find that imbalance, " Tendulkar said as per ESPNcricinfo.
Tendulkar proposed a change to the T20 powerplay rules to give fielding teams more tactical control. He suggested retaining the current field restrictions for the first four overs, but allowing the fielding captain to choose when to use the remaining two powerplay overs later in the innings.
During those two overs, only two fielders would be permitted outside the circle, providing captains with a strategic option to counter aggressive batting and better influence the course of the game.
"[In] the powerplay of six overs with field restrictions, only two fielders are allowed outside the ring. Let the first four overs be the batters' powerplay with the same field restrictions, and post that, the remaining two powerplay overs should be determined by the fielding captain as and when he wants to take. Those two consecutive overs will also get one fielder extra outside the ring at any stage of the game. So you [the fielding side] are able to control the game better," he added.
Tendulkar also advocated allowing one bowler to bowl up to five overs in a T20 innings instead of the current four-over limit. He argued that teams should be able to use their best bowler for an additional over, especially when top batters can remain at the crease throughout the innings.
He also felt the change would help restore balance between bat and ball and give captains a stronger weapon to counter high-scoring batting line-ups.
"One bowler should be allowed to bowl five overs. Because invariably, the best bowler of the side is going to bowl that fifth over. Wouldn't you want to see the best bowler bowl more? The top batters are batting sometimes even 20 overs. Why shouldn't the best bowler be bowling five overs?" he concluded.
— ANI
Reader Comments
Sachin's powerplay suggestion is smart but impractical. Imagine the chaos in deciding when to take those 2 overs — could backfire badly if you misread the pitch or conditions. However, the impact player rule definitely needs rethinking. It's killing bowling talent in domestic cricket.
I actually like the impact player rule! It adds more drama and makes run chases more exciting. But I agree with giving the fielding captain more control over powerplay — that could make tactics more interesting. Best of both worlds perhaps? 🤔
Respect Tendulkar's opinion always but the impact player has brought new strategies. Teams who use it wisely in bowling situations actually help bowlers too! But 5 overs for one bowler? That would destroy rhythm of others. Not convinced.
Finally someone with authority saying what many fans think! The impact player has made flat pitches even more punishing for bowlers. Love the idea of captain deciding powerplay overs — would separate great captains from average ones. Jai Maharashtra! 🙌
But isn't T20 supposed to be about entertainment and high scores? We already have Test matches for bowlers. MI fans might miss impact player though — helped them win so many close games! Interesting debate but IPL won't change until TRPs drop significantly.
Master blaster speaks sense as always. The imbalance is real — in last season, teams scoring 220+ still lost! Powerplay flexibility would make captains think like chess players. And Bumrah
We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.