Do Kohli and RCB need to rethink their batting approach?
In the 15th over of the Royal Challengers Bangalore innings, Mahipal Lomror mis-hit Mitchell Marsh towards long-off. Even as the non-striker, Virat Kohli, sprinted, Lomror practically walked the run.
It was an instructive moment. Lomror had hit three sixes and a four in RCB's previous 17 deliveries, and was looking mainly for boundaries. Kohli had hit a total of five boundaries, all fours, in 40 balls. He had tried to hit two boundaries in 20 balls since the powerplay.
These slowdowns post the powerplay - especially against spin - are not new. Kohli relies on his placement and running between the wickets to stay north of a run a ball. Six of the eight twos Royal Challengers' batters scored on this small ground came off Kohli's bat.
Kohli's approach, and RCB's, is informed by two things. One, there have hardly been any contributions from outside their big three of Kohli, Faf du Plessis and Glenn Maxwell this season. Two, a general propensity to just hang in and rely on the opposition's mistakes.
Superficially at least, the approach wasn't hurting them. Coming into this match against Delhi Capitals, RCB had won five matches out of nine. Four of those wins had come batting first. Their only loss batting first came when they posted their biggest total: 212.
In one of those four wins batting first, in the reverse fixture against Capitals in Bengaluru, Kohli scored quicker and got out in the 11th over. RCB struggled later, scoring just 42 in their last six overs. Since then, they have tended to bat conservatively and relied on du Plessis and Maxwell to do the heavy lifting. Their bowlers and slowing-down pitches have made the approach look good.
Interviewed during the innings break on Saturday, Kohli said he and du Plessis had initially assessed - before Mahipal Lomror's unbeaten 29-ball 54 lifted RCB past the 180 mark - that 160 was going to be a good total because they weren't finding length balls easy to hit.
As it turned out, Capitals chased down 182 in just 16.4 overs. On the day, RCB came up against a team with power in their batting and not too much to lose, in conditions with a bit of dew about.
Du Plessis said RCB's assessment at around the 12-over mark was that 185 was par, but they needed 15 more to provide some cushion for the dew, which he said took the spinners out of the game. He definitely didn't feel RCB had maximised their innings. They scored just 32 in five overs immediately after the powerplay despite having been 51 for 0 at the end of it.
It might sound opportunistic to bring their approach up the one time they have lost, but the question has been raised even when they've won. In all likelihood, the pitch began to improve for batting midway into the first innings. Lomror hardly mistimed any of his big hits. If you have been batting since the start and have seen slowness in the pitch, you won't know if the pitch has improved until you try finding out by taking a risk or two. The winning captain David Warner said the bowlers told him the ball was skidding onto the bat in the back end of RCB's innings.
RCB are not being unmindful. They feel this is the best way to get the most out of their batting, which doesn't go as deep as, say, Chennai Super Kings'. It has largely worked for them so far even though it is not how successful T20 teams tend to bat.
This loss has come at a time when a win would have taken them to No. 3 on the table. Just outside the top four after the loss, RCB are still a good shot to make the playoffs. But despite the success they have seen so far, there might still be a case for them to tinker with their approach. There are two reasons for it. Lomror is showing he has the goods so perhaps the top three can value their wickets a little less. And if RCB do make it to the playoffs, they are likely to get fresher pitches and night games where dew is a bigger factor.
If RCB do end up finding that higher note towards the end of the tournament, it will be evidence that their initial approach came from being pragmatic and not just conservative.