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