Hardik Pandya's Direct Remark Following GT's Inability To Pursue 131 vs. DC

GT were down to 32 for 4 at one point when chasing a modest 131 to win, which was made possible by Mohammad Shami's outstanding four-wicket haul.
"Was Not Able To Finish...": Hardik Pandya's Honest Response After GT Fail To Chase 131 vs DC

Hardik Pandya, the frustrated Gujarat Titans captain, accepted responsibility for the team's failure to win the match on Tuesday, claiming early wickets put them under pressure and he was unable to find any momentum in the latter stages. GT was once down to 32 for 4 while chasing a modest 131 to win, thanks in large part to Mohammad Shami's outstanding four-wicket haul, but Pandya's 53-ball 59 not out kept them in the game. After that, Rahul Tewatia hit a 7-ball 20 that included three consecutive sixes, but Ishant Sharma (2/23) maintained his composure to keep the defending champions at 125 for 6.

"Of course, on any given day, we would have taken 129. Rahul brought us back into the game with those final two wickets. Despite my best efforts, I was unable to profit. It all comes down to the fact that I was unable to finish the game "During the post-game presentation, Pandya said.

We wanted to get a few huge overs in the middle, but at that point, we were unable to find our groove. For Abhinav (Manohar), it was unfamiliar as well. "I just think we lost this game because I couldn't find my rhythm and we kept dropping wickets early on, which placed us under pressure," the player said. We like to go deep and get a few big overs that we were unable to get. Gujarat lost three wickets during the powerplay as Delhi's quicks made an early breakthrough.

Great marks to their bowlers as well, and full responsibility goes to my team because I was unable to complete the game. I ought to. It was a wicket.

"Full marks to both of their bowlers, and full ownership for my side when I was unable to complete the game. Should have. Pandya remarked that the wicket was adequate.

"I believe the wicket pressure was more of a factor. The wicket didn't seem to be very important. The pace was a little slower than usual for us. However, they bowled incredibly well.

"We lost a few early wickets, forcing us to take our time. In the middle, we struggled to maintain the rhythm. It was necessary to have an intent since it is challenging to maintain one if you keep losing wickets. With the new ball, Shami was deadly as he destroyed the Capitals' top order (4/11 in 4 overs).

I'm sad about him. If you bowl that way and your team reaches 129, I believe the batters will be disappointed. The ball didn't appear to have done much. The only explanation, in my opinion, is that Mohammed Shami's skill set and his ability to make the ball talk.

"Other than that, I believe the wicket did not provide much support for quick bowlers. But full credit for the manner in which he bowled four consecutively to keep us in the game.

As I said, I was one of the batters who did not complete the game, and we let him down.

Warner: I have no idea why our hitting is struggling.
DC rekindled their playoff hopes with this victory.

David Warner, the team's captain, gave thanks to the bowlers for their third victory but was at a loss for words when asked about their batting difficulties.

"They bowled beautifully for us. Although our batters had trouble, Shami's bowling deserves praise. To their credit, Aman and Ripal played from that point on to increase their score "said he.

"I detest run outs because we constantly manage to lose wickets in groups. What is going on with our batting is a mystery to me.

Only at JioSaavn.com can you listen to the most recent music.

"Today, we attempted to play positively with the bat, but it didn't work. Then, we wanted to bat, swing the ball, and take quick wickets.

Khaleel Ahmed, Anrich Nortje, and Ishant Sharma, three Delhi quicks, each took five wickets. "Ishant is constantly becoming younger, while Khaleel did well after recovering from an injury. Although Anrich is our most reliable death bowler, he struggled today. But Ishant was quite specific about what he intended to do for us."