IPL 2020 | Bairstow and Warner’s wickets set the tone for CSK win, opines Deep Dasgupta
Deep Dasgupta has opined that the top-heavy team Sunrisers Hyderabad lost their way after losing their openers David Warner and Jonny Bairstow, which set the tone of the match against CSK. Ian Bishop reckoned that Bairstow couldn’t pick the pace of the wicket and SRH need to work on themselves.
Sunrisers Hyderabad have been a top-heavy team with Jonny Bairstow and David Warner scoring the bulk of the runs for them - both of them having already scored 280 and 284 runs respectively. But against CSK, both of them failed to fire putting pressure on the middle order, which eventually resulted in SRH being 20 runs short of the target. Bairstow did get a start, scoring 23 off 24 balls, but he couldn’t convert it into a match-winning innings as he was castled by Ravindra Jadeja, turning the match in favour of CSK.
Former India player Deep Dasgupta reckoned that losing the wicket of their openers - Warner and Bairstow - was the main reason for SRH’s loss against CSK.
“I mean obviously you’re losing early wickets because SRH is a top-heavy side they lost Bairstow and Warner very early that kind of set the tone for the rest of the innings. And we know SRH’s middle order is kind of brittle so it was always going to be tough with early wickets,” Deep Dasgupta said on ESPNcricinfo show ‘Time Out’.
Ian Bishop seemed to agree with the opinion of Dasgupta and pointed out that Bairstow couldn’t read the pace of the pitch and credited Chennai for a superb win against Hyderabad.
“At the top. I think it was 40 off the powerplay for SRH and then they lost wickets - Bairstow couldn’t fire - he couldn’t pick the pace of the pitch and they bowled well to him. They lost Warner and then they lost Manish Pandey, we talk about this being a top-heavy team. A lot of credit to CSK - let’s not take anything away from them but SRH have some work to do,” Ian Bishop said.
Get updates! Follow us on
0
0
0
0
0
0
Comments
Sign up or log in to your account to leave comments and reactions
0 Comments