Mumbai Indians, as all are aware, finds the journey quite
troublesome at the beginning of each season. However, as the season progresses,
they find their feet and make an impact and most of the time went on to win the
IPL tournament as well despite being at the bottom of the points of the points table
during the initial phase of the tournament.
 |
| Image Credits: The Financial Express |
Can the current struggling Indian side under the leadership
of newly appointed captain Shreyas Iyer be compared to those performances of
Mumbai Indians?! Let us explore here!
It is a highly tempting comparison to make given the success
India has had in the recent past in the ICC tournaments, but looking closely at
the dynamics of both setups, the comparison falls flat for a few crucial
reasons.
Here is how Shreyas Iyer's current India T20I run stacks up
against the classic Mumbai Indians "slow start" blueprint:
The Tournament Format versus Bilateral Reality
The biggest reason this comparison might not work is the
sheer length of the tournament format:
- Mumbai Indians: The IPL is a long, 14-match group stage. Dropping the first 4–5 matches left MI plenty of buffer to find their optimal playing XI, peak at the business end, and still qualify for the playoffs.
- Shreyas Iyer's India Team: Bilateral series leave zero breathing room. In a 2-match series against Ireland, losing the first two meant the series was immediately over (2-0). In this 5-match England series, losing the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th games meant the series was completely lost (3-0 down) before India could even attempt a turnaround.
Built to Bounce Back versus Total Transition
Mumbai Indians' slow starts were famously characterized by
tactical experimentation that eventually clicked because they had an
established core (Rohit Sharma, Kieron Pollard, Lasith Malinga, Jasprit Bumrah)
that knew how to win under extreme pressure and in challenging conditions
across venues all over India.
In contrast, Shreyas Iyer has been handed a completely
experimental, heavily-rotated squad following the T20 World Cup 2026. With a
brand-new lineup featuring very young talent like Vaibhav Sooryavanshi,
Suryansh Shedge, and Prince Yadav, India isn't just "starting slow", they
are undergoing a massive foundational rebuild with an eye on the upcoming Olympics
and ICC tournaments.
The Long-Term Play: Squad Rotation versus Match Winning
While the immediate losses hurt, this aggressive rotation
policy could ironically be exactly what India needs for the long-term future. A
similar philosophy actually helped Mumbai Indians build their dynasty. Early in
their successful cycles, MI wasn't afraid to rotate and audition young talent
(like a young Hardik Pandya or Jasprit Bumrah or Tilak Varma) under pressure,
even if it meant sacrificing early-season points.
For India, treating these bilateral series as high-stakes
trials rather than must-win matches serves a massive purpose ahead of the ICC
events.
- Building Tournament Depth: Instead of relying on a rigid, predictable XI, India is trying fresh talent against elite opposition like England. When the World Cup arrives in two years, India will have a battle-tested pool of 20 to 25 players to choose from rather than just 15.
- Finding the Next Core: By throwing youngsters into the deep end, the team management can identify who possesses the mental fortitude for international cricket.
The Verdict:
The core difference remains structural between these two teams
- MI rotated to find a formula that would win them a trophy that same year.
India is absorbing losses right now, essentially sacrificing the present to
build an indestructible squad for the global tournament two years down the
road.
While Mumbai Indians had the structural luxury of a 14-game
league to turn things around and lift trophies, Iyer's winless streak (5
losses, 1 no-result) after 6 games has unfortunately cost India two consecutive
bilateral series right out of the gate. There is no playoff safety net in
international bilateral cricket to mirror an MI-style redemption arc.
