The uncertainty around Pat Cummins and Josh Hazlewood has become an early IPL 2026 storyline, affecting not just two major squads but also the opening fixture itself. Royal Challengers Bengaluru and Sunrisers Hyderabad are due to meet on March 28, yet both have been preparing with the possibility that their first-choice Australian quick may not be available for the opening stretch of the season.
That makes this more than a routine injury-management issue. Hazlewood and Cummins are not fringe overseas names who can be swapped out without consequence. Hazlewood gives RCB control, discipline and high-value overs across phases. Cummins gives SRH similar bowling value, but also carries the added weight of captaincy. The challenge for both teams, then, is not simply to replace overs. It is to protect the balance of the XI without allowing one absence to disrupt the rest of the structure.
RCB must spread the burden, not chase a replica
RCB’s task is the simpler of the two because their squad has enough pace depth to absorb a short-term absence without changing the side’s shape. The key is to avoid the temptation of finding a “new Hazlewood” within the group. That player does not exist. The smarter route is to redistribute his value across multiple roles.
Bhuvneshwar Kumar should become the central figure in that plan. He is the most reliable option to set the tone in the powerplay and keep the innings under control early. Alongside him, Yash Dayal offers left-arm variation and angle, which gives RCB a more uncomfortable opening combination than a straight seam-for-seam replacement would.
The third seamer should be selected based on the conditions. RCB have enough options to make that call match by match. If they want deception and a yorker threat, Nuwan Thushara fits the bill. If they want a more classical seam profile, Jacob Duffy becomes relevant. Either way, the decision has to remain tactical. Locking in a replacement too early would defeat the advantage of having multiple pace options in the first place.
This is also the moment for RCB to extract more value from the middle overs. Without Hazlewood’s all-phase reliability, Suyash Sharma has to become an attacking option rather than a holding one. He should be used with wicket-taking intent, especially if Krunal Pandya is able to provide control from the other end. That is where RCB can offset what they lose with the ball. If the seam attack becomes slightly less incisive, the spin unit has to become more proactive.
At the death, RCB should work by committee. No one bowler in this squad should be asked to carry all the closing overs simply because Hazlewood is unavailable. Bhuvneshwar, Dayal and the third seamer can split that responsibility, with Romario Shepherd providing backup if the matchup demands it. That preserves batting depth and prevents one injury from forcing a complete rethink of the overseas combination.
SRH need two separate solutions
Hyderabad’s problem is wider because Pat Cummins is not just a lead fast bowler. He is also the captain, which means his absence creates uncertainty in both tactics and authority. That is why SRH cannot solve this with one selection call. They need two distinct plans: one for leadership and one for the attack.
The leadership issue must be settled cleanly and early. A temporary captain only works if the dressing room and XI know exactly who is in charge. Any half-measure would only add to the drift within a team that already thrives on high-risk cricket. Hyderabad’s core looks strong enough to support a stand-in leader, but only if the role is clearly defined from the outset.
With the ball, SRH should not try to recreate the full Cummins package. They need to break his role into parts. One bowler has to take charge of discipline up front, another has to own the disruption overs, and the fifth-bowler burden has to be shared intelligently. Harshal Patel becomes critical in that framework, but only if he is used where he is most dangerous rather than stretched across the innings.
The larger strategic point is that SRH should resist becoming too bowling-heavy in response. Their best coping mechanism is still their batting. Travis Head, Heinrich Klaasen, Ishan Kishan, Abhishek Sharma and Nitish Kumar Reddy give them enough firepower to dictate tempo. Without Cummins, the answer is not to dilute that strength in search of one extra specialist. It is to keep the batting explosive enough that the bowlers operate with scoreboard pressure backing them.
That also means part-time or support overs become more important than usual. Even a small contribution from the batting all-rounders can prevent the frontline attack from being overexposed. In Cummins’ absence, flexibility matters more than star power.
Two absences, two very different responses
RCB should cope by preserving structure. Their batting is strong enough, their captaincy remains stable, and their pace resources allow them to spread the workload without altering the side’s identity. The goal should be stability.
SRH should address the problem by separating it into distinct parts. One decision must settle captaincy. Another must reshape the bowling plan. Their best chance is not to search for a single replacement for Cummins, but to redistribute what he offers across the rest of the XI.
That is the real divide between the two teams. RCB can survive by staying close to themselves. SRH can survive only by becoming more deliberate.
