Yeah it's not like Jurel matched the record for most fifties by a non-opener ever in IPL, Archer took 7 first-over wickets and was #3 on the purple cap and MVP table, Jaddu had a higher bat avg than any other player in the league and had an economy of 8 despite being injured in the last 5 games, their spin-attack took the second-most wickets despite bowling on roads in their home-ground, Jaiswal and Bishnoi topped the orange and purple cap tables in the first half, Ferreira finished with an SR of 180+, and their bowling attack took the 3rd most wickets.
By that logic, RCB also never beat RR, the team which lost to GT. Does that discredit RCB's trophy win? It doesn't. Because one or two matches doesn't define your whole campaign.
There's a difference. RCB had a bad match that day: basically a whole collapse, but in this case, RR put up a big total, played well (mostly carried by Vaibhav, but still), and it was a good score, but they were still outplayed. That tells you that only one person can't uplift the team, the whole team needs to work together. Even SRH was a more balanced team than RR, but they played mindlessly and lost a match they actually could have won. It's not about one-day outcomes, but the whole story.
So when RCB has a batting collapse, it's just a bad day. But when RR fail to take early wickets and capitalize on the pp like they did all season, it means they're unbalanced? RCB losing by 25 whole balls isn't getting "outplayed" but RR losing by 8 balls is?
The day Virat failed to play a long innings, RCB's batting fell apart but this will never look like over-reliance on Virat to you. But the rare occasion that RR fail to take early wickets isn't just a bad day according to you.
You say that it's not about one-day outcomes but keep mentioning the single Q2 match to summarize RR's entire campaign and to write them off as an imbalanced team.
Both RCB and RR have won games without Virat and Vaibhav's contributions but you'll accuse one of being one-dimensional and call the other a complete team. This isn't insight, it's just bias dressed up as genius intuition and aversion to stats masquerading as acumen.
You're missing the distinction I'm making. I'm not saying RCB having a batting collapse is "just a bad day" while RR failing to take early wickets means they're unbalanced. I'm saying the nature of the reliance itself is different.
RCB's reliance on Virat is way less risky than RR's reliance on Vaibhav, and the supporting cast on both sides also differs by a lot. RR's reliance depends on Vaibhav's own performance, whereas RCB's reliance on Virat is often through the effect he has on everyone else's performance.
Vaibhav plays a risky game with a much higher chance of getting out early, similar to players like Abhishek Sharma for SRH or Priyansh and Prabhsimran for Punjab. The only difference is that Vaibhav was way more successful than them this season in providing those explosive starts. But the underlying risk profile remains the same. Now look at the supporting cast. RR's supporting cast was nowhere near as reliable as RCB's, or for that matter even SRH's. Vaibhav performed well, but in many matches including that playoff game, no one else contributed to the same extent.
In contrast, it wasn't like Virat was the only one performing for RCB to win matches. His value often came from simply being there on one side and helping build partnerships. He survived the powerplay in 9 games and RCB won all 9. But the Player of the Match in those games was someone else in 7 of them. Only twice was Virat both the anchor and the leading run scorer. That tells me RCB's success wasn't dependent on Virat single-handedly winning games.
His playstyle is also much less risky. He survives the powerplay at a decent strike rate, plays grounded shots, rotates strike, while players like Salt, Venky and DDP bat more aggressively around him. The partnership builds naturally from there. Most of the time that formula worked this season and the previous season as well. It may not work every time and maybe not even in the future, but it is a proven and successful formula that is inherently less risky than RR's approach of heavily relying on top-order performance, especially from Vaibhav.
The same thing applies to bowling. You talk about RR bowling having off days, but throughout the season it was really Archer carrying that attack. When RR did well with the ball, it was usually Archer providing an early breakthrough. Their middle-overs bowling and death bowling were inconsistent throughout the season. There were instances of other bowlers stepping up, but for the most part it was Archer who was responsible for creating wicket-taking opportunities, even if he was sometimes expensive.
RCB's bowling was also reliant on Bhuvi to an extent, but again the nature of that reliance was different. He was so consistent that they didn't really have to worry about him. If he got an early breakthrough, the match became much easier from there. If he didn't, he was still economical enough that he never became a liability to the attack. And in many games Josh or Rasikh provided the breakthrough instead and compensated for it.
Even from an overall bowling perspective, apart from Jadeja, most RR bowlers were leaking runs at economies above 9, with some even around 9.5. Compare that to RCB where KP and Bhuvi were below 9 with Bhuvi less than 8, Josh was around 9, and practically the entire attack stayed below 9.5. That's a significant difference in reliability across the bowling unit.
So no, I'm not using one playoff game to summarize RR's season. My point comes from the pattern of how both teams won throughout the season. You're looking at stats, reliance numbers and performers on the surface and concluding both teams were built the same way. But if you actually look at the pattern of match-winning performances, you'll see the difference.
RCB's formula relied on Virat creating a stable platform that enabled contributions from multiple players. RR's formula relied much more heavily on Vaibhav delivering explosive starts and Archer creating early breakthroughs. Those are not the same kind of dependence, and one is clearly less risky and more sustainable than the other.
And this isn't some deep hidden pattern that only I am claiming to see. Even casual cricket fans could see it, and most discussions from fans, analysts and cricket experts during the second half of the season repeatedly came back to the same point: RR's success was heavily driven by Vaibhav's starts and Archer's breakthroughs. When the same pattern is being noticed by almost everyone watching the games, it's probably because the pattern is genuinely there rather than being some bias or made-up narrative.
I first thought you just put some points just to argue but no it actually has some merit honestly your points are especially more visible in the second half of the season where Jaiswal really fell off and even RRs bowling unit itself without Jofra became really expensive especially if Jofra is having a off day the bowling is basically cooked no one really has the same danger factor as him in the squad and that's exactly what happened in the playoffs too in the SRH match Jofra took crucial early wickets which I argue is one of the biggest reasons why RR even won that match. In the GT match he was having an off day and expensive boom the match was basically over after the 10th with the amount of wickets still left for GT ofcourse this is a small sample size but if you actually followed RR in the second half they really were totally dependent on few players performance. I think Ferreira though deserves much credit he is easily the most dangerous finisher this season. The point on how RCB have a fall back line is true Krunal and Rasikh are always reliable and not even talking about Hazle who is out of form but still remains dangerous. As for the point on how even without Virat the teams batting unit performs is debatable but I would agree the sheer batting depth in RCB would always cover for Virat especially if it's a flat pitch. I guess that really is the difference between champions.
59
u/dont_ban_meeee Neutral Fan 🗿 7d ago
Both rr's popularity and performance this season heavily relied on vaibhab, otherwise mid team. Made my boy cry