Deadspin | NBA roundup: Spurs storm past Blazers in Victor Wembanyama’s return Apr 26, 2026; Portland, Oregon, USA; San Antonio Spurs forward Victor Wembanyama (1) walks off the court after a game against the Portland Trail Blazers during game four of the first round of the 2026 NBA Playoffs at Moda Center. Mandatory Credit: Troy Wayrynen-Imagn Images De’Aaron Fox scored 28 points and Victor Wembanyama had 27 in his return from concussion protocol, helping the visiting San Antonio Spurs to a 114-93 victory over the Portland Trail Blazers in Game 4 of their Western Conference first-round series on Sunday. Fox sank 11 of 17 shots from the floor and drained four 3-pointers to aid the Spurs in overcoming a 19-point deficit to seize a 3-1 lead in the best-of-seven series. Game 5 is Tuesday in San Antonio. After sitting out Game 3, Wembanyama showed why he was the NBA’s first-ever unanimous Defensive Player of the Year by recording 11 rebounds, seven blocks and four steals. Stephon Castle collected 16 points and eight assists while dealing with both an injured left hand and foul trouble. Devin Vassell added 11 points for the Spurs, who outscored the Trail Blazers by a 73-35 margin in the second half. Deni Avdija scored 26 points, Jrue Holiday had 20 and Jerami Grant added 17 off the bench for the Trail Blazers. Tied at 74 entering the fourth quarter, the Spurs opened the period on a 27-7 run. Castle set up Wembanyama for a trio of alley-oop dunks before Fox sank a pair of jumpers and a 3-pointer to give San Antonio an 87-77 lead with 7:47 left. Sixth Man of the Year Keldon Johnson converted from beyond the arc and added a pair of driving buckets to extend San Antonio’s lead to 101-81 with 4:31 remaining. Rockets 115, Lakers 96 Amen Thompson scored a game-high 23 points, Tari Eason added 20 and Houston averted elimination with a victory over visiting Los Angeles in Game 4 of their Western Conference first-round playoff series. All five starters scored in double figures for the Rockets, who played without Kevin Durant (ankle) for the third time in the series. Reed Sheppard chipped in 17 points on 4-for-7 3-point shooting while Alperen Sengun (19 points) and Jabari Smith Jr. (16 points) rounded out the balanced offensive attack. After dominating Game 3 and co-authoring the Lakers’ overtime victory, LeBron James (10 points, nine assists) and Marcus Smart (nine, five) shot a combined 5 of 17 from the floor. Deandre Ayton finished with 19 points and 10 rebounds but was ejected in the third quarter. Raptors 93, Cavaliers 89 Brandon Ingram and Scottie Barnes each scored 23 points and Toronto held off visiting Cleveland to even the best-of-seven first-round playoff series at 2-2. Barnes added nine rebounds, six assists and three blocked shots to his stat line and scored 10 fourth-quarter points, knocking down all six free throw attempts in the final 34.6 seconds. RJ Barrett added 18 points for the Raptors, and Collin Murray-Boyles scored 15 with 10 rebounds. Donovan Mitchell scored 12 of his 20 points in the fourth quarter for Cleveland. James Harden added 19 points but had seven turnovers. Jarrett Allen had three points and a game-high 15 rebounds, while Sam Merrill contributed 14 points. Celtics 128, 76ers 96 Payton Pritchard scored a career-playoff-high 32 points off the bench and Boston took a 3-1 series lead with a convincing road victory over Philadelphia. Jayson Tatum made five treys and recorded 30 points, 11 assists and seven rebounds and Jaylen Brown added 20 points and seven rebounds as the second-seeded Celtics moved one victory away from winning the Eastern Conference first-round series. Game 5 is Tuesday in Boston. Joel Embiid played for the first time in the series for the seventh-seeded 76ers after undergoing an appendectomy two-plus weeks ago. He scored 26 points on 9-of-21 shooting and collected 10 rebounds and six assists while playing 34 minutes. Tyrese Maxey scored 22 points and Paul George added 16 for the 76ers. –Field Level Media #Deadspin #NBA #roundup #Spurs #storm #Blazers #Victor #Wembanyamas #return

The debate surrounding the Impact Player rule in Indian Premier League (IPL) isn’t new, but this season has once again pushed it into sharper focus.

This is also the fourth year of the Impact Player rule. Despite strong calls from players to scrap it, the IPL has made it clear there will be no review before the 2027 season.

The balance between bat and ball, always a delicate balance in T20 cricket, now appears to have tipped decisively in one direction.

Former India cricketer Sanjay Manjrekar believes the shift is no longer subtle, but stark.

“Yes, that’s the burning topic. Everyone’s talking about it. I can recall at least five batters [in IPL 2026] scoring not just hundreds, but hundreds off around 50 balls, striking at 200. I’ve felt strongly for a number of years about the balance between bat and ball, and I think we’ve now gone beyond a certain limit,” Manjrekar said on Sportstar’s Insight Edge podcast.

For Manjrekar, the concern is not limited to purists longing for the past. Even the modern T20 audience, conditioned to expect high-scoring thrillers, is beginning to feel the excess.

“Even T20 fans, not just traditional Test cricket followers, are starting to feel slightly disillusioned by the sheer dominance of bat over ball.”

The pitch problem

At the heart of this imbalance, he argues, lies the nature of Indian pitches. “Let’s start with one fact: the IPL is played on Indian pitches. While not every ground is high-scoring, venues like Lucknow and occasionally Chennai have maintained some balance. But most grounds, including the new one in Chandigarh, are heavily skewed in favour of batters.”

The issue is not just flatness, but predictability. “Why do I say that? Because on Indian pitches, once the ball lands, it does very little. It comes on straight, which makes batting much easier. Even on flat pitches in Australia, South Africa, or England, the ball still does something occasionally. That’s not the case here.”

Unintended consequences

Layered onto these conditions is the Impact Player rule, which Manjrekar believes has amplified the imbalance. “Reason number two is the Impact Player rule. I think it has impacted bowlers far more negatively than it has benefited batters. Imagine this rule in New Zealand, where the ball swings. Bringing in a seam bowler could balance things. But in India, it hasn’t worked that way.”

Interestingly, he admits he initially welcomed the rule. “When it was introduced, I was actually excited. I thought we’d see more specialist players, an extra pure batter or bowler, raising the overall quality. So the players who I used to call bits and pieces, I don’t do that anymore, because that term is misunderstood. So I would say, non-specialists.”

The effect is visible in team composition and intent. “You now have pure batters like Ashutosh Sharma coming in at No. 8. When you have batting depth till No. 8, players at the top can go all out because they know there’s cover.”

That safety net, he suggests, has fundamentally altered risk-taking. “Imagine a scenario where the overs were reduced to 20, you know, from 50 and teams could only use seven batters and the innings ended after five wickets. It would be a completely different game.”

Grounds stuck in another era

Then comes a structural issue that often escapes scrutiny: ground dimensions. “Many were built decades ago, with dimensions suited to a different era of cricket. The game has evolved, but the grounds haven’t.”

If anything, the problem has worsened. “Boundaries need to be longer. Instead, in some cases, like at Wankhede, they’re brought in further for advertising boards. It’s ridiculous. You see shots reaching the boundary in seconds, with no real fielding contest. You don’t see the chasing, you know, the old-fashioned somebody running after the ball and people going, ‘oh, is he going to stop it?’ It’s just four or six.”

Is the middle order being exposed or protected?

While some argue that the Impact Player rule masks weak middle orders, Manjrekar sees it differently. “Not necessarily. Teams with strong middle orders, like RCB, still see contributions from those players. The bigger issue is how conditions favour batters so heavily.”

He even questions whether certain T20 staples remain relevant in current conditions. “In fact, someone suggested whether we even need the six-over PowerPlay in these conditions. With a hard new ball and only two fielders outside the circle, teams at the top are maximising this phase.”

What can be fixed?

If given the power to intervene, Manjrekar points to both ideal and practical solutions. “Two or three things come to mind. First, reconsider the six-over PowerPlay. It’s pragmatic.”

Longer boundaries would help, but aren’t always feasible. “Ideally, I’d like longer boundaries, but not all grounds allow that. Some venues are simply too small. After watching recent games, especially at Wankhede Stadium in Mumbai, I feel some grounds just aren’t suited for T20 anymore… Same with [Chinnaswamy Stadium] in Bengaluru… They’ve become bowler graveyards.”

He offers a telling example. “Take Vaibhav Sooryavanshi’s hundred [against Sunrisers Hyderabad], for instance. At least four sixes he hit would’ve been catches if the boundaries were even slightly longer. That would bring some sanity back to the game.”

One unintended casualty of the current ecosystem is the genuine all-rounder.

“Yes, it does,” Manjrekar says when asked if the Impact Player rule hurts them. “For example, Shivam Dube showed his value in the T20 World Cup and Asia Cup by contributing with both bat and ball. In the IPL, he barely bowls.”

The broader issue, he feels, is the loss of in-game adaptability.

“In hindsight, I’d like to see teams forced to adapt when bowlers struggle, instead of relying on substitutions. That unpredictability adds to the charm.”

Published on Apr 27, 2026

#Sanjay #Manjrekar #Impact #Player #rule #short #boundaries #reducing #venues #bowler #graveyards">

Sanjay Manjrekar on why Impact Player rule, short boundaries are reducing venues to bowler graveyards The debate surrounding the Impact Player rule in Indian Premier League (IPL) isn’t new, but this season has once again pushed it into sharper focus.This is also the fourth year of the Impact Player rule. Despite strong calls from players to scrap it, the IPL has made it clear there will be no review before the 2027 season.The balance between bat and ball, always a delicate balance in T20 cricket, now appears to have tipped decisively in one direction.Former India cricketer Sanjay Manjrekar believes the shift is no longer subtle, but stark.“Yes, that’s the burning topic. Everyone’s talking about it. I can recall at least five batters [in IPL 2026] scoring not just hundreds, but hundreds off around 50 balls, striking at 200. I’ve felt strongly for a number of years about the balance between bat and ball, and I think we’ve now gone beyond a certain limit,” Manjrekar said on Sportstar’s Insight Edge podcast.For Manjrekar, the concern is not limited to purists longing for the past. Even the modern T20 audience, conditioned to expect high-scoring thrillers, is beginning to feel the excess.“Even T20 fans, not just traditional Test cricket followers, are starting to feel slightly disillusioned by the sheer dominance of bat over ball.”The pitch problemAt the heart of this imbalance, he argues, lies the nature of Indian pitches. “Let’s start with one fact: the IPL is played on Indian pitches. While not every ground is high-scoring, venues like Lucknow and occasionally Chennai have maintained some balance. But most grounds, including the new one in Chandigarh, are heavily skewed in favour of batters.”The issue is not just flatness, but predictability. “Why do I say that? Because on Indian pitches, once the ball lands, it does very little. It comes on straight, which makes batting much easier. Even on flat pitches in Australia, South Africa, or England, the ball still does something occasionally. That’s not the case here.”Unintended consequencesLayered onto these conditions is the Impact Player rule, which Manjrekar believes has amplified the imbalance. “Reason number two is the Impact Player rule. I think it has impacted bowlers far more negatively than it has benefited batters. Imagine this rule in New Zealand, where the ball swings. Bringing in a seam bowler could balance things. But in India, it hasn’t worked that way.”Interestingly, he admits he initially welcomed the rule. “When it was introduced, I was actually excited. I thought we’d see more specialist players, an extra pure batter or bowler, raising the overall quality. So the players who I used to call bits and pieces, I don’t do that anymore, because that term is misunderstood. So I would say, non-specialists.”The effect is visible in team composition and intent. “You now have pure batters like Ashutosh Sharma coming in at No. 8. When you have batting depth till No. 8, players at the top can go all out because they know there’s cover.”That safety net, he suggests, has fundamentally altered risk-taking. “Imagine a scenario where the overs were reduced to 20, you know, from 50 and teams could only use seven batters and the innings ended after five wickets. It would be a completely different game.”Grounds stuck in another eraThen comes a structural issue that often escapes scrutiny: ground dimensions. “Many were built decades ago, with dimensions suited to a different era of cricket. The game has evolved, but the grounds haven’t.”If anything, the problem has worsened. “Boundaries need to be longer. Instead, in some cases, like at Wankhede, they’re brought in further for advertising boards. It’s ridiculous. You see shots reaching the boundary in seconds, with no real fielding contest. You don’t see the chasing, you know, the old-fashioned somebody running after the ball and people going, ‘oh, is he going to stop it?’ It’s just four or six.”Is the middle order being exposed or protected?While some argue that the Impact Player rule masks weak middle orders, Manjrekar sees it differently. “Not necessarily. Teams with strong middle orders, like RCB, still see contributions from those players. The bigger issue is how conditions favour batters so heavily.”He even questions whether certain T20 staples remain relevant in current conditions. “In fact, someone suggested whether we even need the six-over PowerPlay in these conditions. With a hard new ball and only two fielders outside the circle, teams at the top are maximising this phase.”What can be fixed?If given the power to intervene, Manjrekar points to both ideal and practical solutions. “Two or three things come to mind. First, reconsider the six-over PowerPlay. It’s pragmatic.”Longer boundaries would help, but aren’t always feasible. “Ideally, I’d like longer boundaries, but not all grounds allow that. Some venues are simply too small. After watching recent games, especially at Wankhede Stadium in Mumbai, I feel some grounds just aren’t suited for T20 anymore… Same with [Chinnaswamy Stadium] in Bengaluru… They’ve become bowler graveyards.”He offers a telling example. “Take Vaibhav Sooryavanshi’s hundred [against Sunrisers Hyderabad], for instance. At least four sixes he hit would’ve been catches if the boundaries were even slightly longer. That would bring some sanity back to the game.”One unintended casualty of the current ecosystem is the genuine all-rounder.“Yes, it does,” Manjrekar says when asked if the Impact Player rule hurts them. “For example, Shivam Dube showed his value in the T20 World Cup and Asia Cup by contributing with both bat and ball. In the IPL, he barely bowls.”The broader issue, he feels, is the loss of in-game adaptability.“In hindsight, I’d like to see teams forced to adapt when bowlers struggle, instead of relying on substitutions. That unpredictability adds to the charm.”Published on Apr 27, 2026 #Sanjay #Manjrekar #Impact #Player #rule #short #boundaries #reducing #venues #bowler #graveyards

mwasimuddin125 0

The debate surrounding the Impact Player rule in Indian Premier League (IPL) isn’t new, but this season has once again pushed it into sharper focus.
This is also the fourth year of the Impact Player rule. Despite strong calls from players to scrap it, the IPL has made it clear there will be no review before the 2027 season.
The balance between bat and ball, always a delicate balance in T20 cricket, now appears to have tipped decisively in one direction.
Former India cricketer Sanjay Manjrekar believes the shift is no longer subtle, but stark.
“Yes, that’s the burning topic. Everyone’s talking about it. I can recall at least five batters [in IPL 2026] scoring not just hundreds, but hundreds off around 50 balls, striking at 200. I’ve felt strongly for a number of years about the balance between bat and ball, and I think we’ve now gone beyond a certain limit,” Manjrekar said on Sportstar’s Insight Edge podcast.
For Manjrekar, the concern is not limited to purists longing for the past. Even the modern T20 audience, conditioned to expect high-scoring thrillers, is beginning to feel the excess.
“Even T20 fans, not just traditional Test cricket followers, are starting to feel slightly disillusioned by the sheer dominance of bat over ball.”
The pitch problem
At the heart of this imbalance, he argues, lies the nature of Indian pitches. “Let’s start with one fact: the IPL is played on Indian pitches. While not every ground is high-scoring, venues like Lucknow and occasionally Chennai have maintained some balance. But most grounds, including the new one in Chandigarh, are heavily skewed in favour of batters.”
The issue is not just flatness, but predictability. “Why do I say that? Because on Indian pitches, once the ball lands, it does very little. It comes on straight, which makes batting much easier. Even on flat pitches in Australia, South Africa, or England, the ball still does something occasionally. That’s not the case here.”
Unintended consequences
Layered onto these conditions is the Impact Player rule, which Manjrekar believes has amplified the imbalance. “Reason number two is the Impact Player rule. I think it has impacted bowlers far more negatively than it has benefited batters. Imagine this rule in New Zealand, where the ball swings. Bringing in a seam bowler could balance things. But in India, it hasn’t worked that way.”
Interestingly, he admits he initially welcomed the rule. “When it was introduced, I was actually excited. I thought we’d see more specialist players, an extra pure batter or bowler, raising the overall quality. So the players who I used to call bits and pieces, I don’t do that anymore, because that term is misunderstood. So I would say, non-specialists.”
The effect is visible in team composition and intent. “You now have pure batters like Ashutosh Sharma coming in at No. 8. When you have batting depth till No. 8, players at the top can go all out because they know there’s cover.”
That safety net, he suggests, has fundamentally altered risk-taking. “Imagine a scenario where the overs were reduced to 20, you know, from 50 and teams could only use seven batters and the innings ended after five wickets. It would be a completely different game.”
Grounds stuck in another era
Then comes a structural issue that often escapes scrutiny: ground dimensions. “Many were built decades ago, with dimensions suited to a different era of cricket. The game has evolved, but the grounds haven’t.”
If anything, the problem has worsened. “Boundaries need to be longer. Instead, in some cases, like at Wankhede, they’re brought in further for advertising boards. It’s ridiculous. You see shots reaching the boundary in seconds, with no real fielding contest. You don’t see the chasing, you know, the old-fashioned somebody running after the ball and people going, ‘oh, is he going to stop it?’ It’s just four or six.”
Is the middle order being exposed or protected?
While some argue that the Impact Player rule masks weak middle orders, Manjrekar sees it differently. “Not necessarily. Teams with strong middle orders, like RCB, still see contributions from those players. The bigger issue is how conditions favour batters so heavily.”
He even questions whether certain T20 staples remain relevant in current conditions. “In fact, someone suggested whether we even need the six-over PowerPlay in these conditions. With a hard new ball and only two fielders outside the circle, teams at the top are maximising this phase.”
What can be fixed?
If given the power to intervene, Manjrekar points to both ideal and practical solutions. “Two or three things come to mind. First, reconsider the six-over PowerPlay. It’s pragmatic.”
Longer boundaries would help, but aren’t always feasible. “Ideally, I’d like longer boundaries, but not all grounds allow that. Some venues are simply too small. After watching recent games, especially at Wankhede Stadium in Mumbai, I feel some grounds just aren’t suited for T20 anymore… Same with [Chinnaswamy Stadium] in Bengaluru… They’ve become bowler graveyards.”
He offers a telling example. “Take Vaibhav Sooryavanshi’s hundred [against Sunrisers Hyderabad], for instance. At least four sixes he hit would’ve been catches if the boundaries were even slightly longer. That would bring some sanity back to the game.”
One unintended casualty of the current ecosystem is the genuine all-rounder.
“Yes, it does,” Manjrekar says when asked if the Impact Player rule hurts them. “For example, Shivam Dube showed his value in the T20 World Cup and Asia Cup by contributing with both bat and ball. In the IPL, he barely bowls.”
The broader issue, he feels, is the loss of in-game adaptability.
“In hindsight, I’d like to see teams forced to adapt when bowlers struggle, instead of relying on substitutions. That unpredictability adds to the charm.”
Published on Apr 27, 2026

#Sanjay #Manjrekar #Impact #Player #rule #short #boundaries #reducing #venues #bowler #graveyards">Sanjay Manjrekar on why Impact Player rule, short boundaries are reducing venues to bowler graveyards