This is my first dip into Cricket data so please any feedback, criticism, help, links to datasets, etc, let me know. Right now I’m working on roughly a 529k ball dataset of over 2000 T20 matches.

My first post will be about the opening over.

The chasing team comes into their innings needing on average 1.29 runs per ball to win the match. During the opening over, teams average just 1 run per ball, the lowest rate of all 20 overs.

Of course, the wicket loss rate of 3.3% is the lowest of all overs as well, but that’s a minor concern as even a rate of 5-6% would be fine as this would mean you’d be 4 or fewer down at the halfway mark 75% of the time.

Possible explanations

The batters really need a few balls to understand how the pitch works

This is what I think is going through their minds, but I’m not sure it stands up as a true explanation. First off, the bowler also is delivering their first few balls so it’s an equally new scenario for both sides, why it is beneficial for the pitcher isn’t fully clear.

If anything it should be beneficial for the home team as they actually know the ground. Home teams actually have a very slightly lower average of .98 runs per ball compared to away teams at 1.02, so that explanation does not hold up.

I think this is the most likely explanation but I also think it’s mostly a mental one, and a good coach could change this.

The batters really want to avoid momentum lost by losing an early wicket

This seems to assume mental weakness in the team and the loss with honor strategy that I’ve seen pop up in my very early forays into Cricket books (Pakistani cricketer Miandad talked about his strategy to just carry out a game and at least lose with dignity in the fantastic book The Unquiet Ones by Osman Samuiddin).

If this is really the strategy chosen, you are wasting your powerplay and winding up further behind. Overs 3-6 are the highest scoring overs for chasing teams until you get to over 14, so why would you waste 6 balls for something as vague as momentum.

Clarity from a coach, explaining that early runs puts the team ahead of pace which leads to more wins and also occasionally leads to a much worse loss can erase this concern. Over 100 matches if you open up the match scoring at say 1.33 runs per ball with a wicket loss rate of 4.8% over the first two overs instead of the current 1.1 runs per ball with a wicket loss rate of 3.6% you are still going to get to the 15th over with 4 or fewer down 65% of the time.

The very fact that chasing teams win more than first batting teams

Chase teams win rate: 53%

and when they lose they actually bat all the way through often

Complete Batting in Loss: 69.5%

All Out in Loss: 30.5%

indicates wicket loss aversion is a huge problem, not just in the first over. Honestly those numbers should be reversed, 70% of losses should come via all outs, because that means you will be batting much more aggressively and at a winning run rate. I almost wonder if there is something wrongly being noted in the data here but I’ve pored through and haven’t noticed any mistakes. Please let me know if there is, these number simply do not make sense and indicate teams that playing way, way, too conservatively.

If teams batting first continue to set chase rates like these, smart teams and franchises should absolutely feast by being much more aggressive, starting with the very first over.

Being a baseball player, I suspect this is essentially a mental holdover coaching as players grow up, which in itself comes from test/ODI cricket. That simply doesn’t apply here. Teams should go pedal to the metal in the powerplay, and a simple change in mentality will make them much, much more dangerous chasers.

But maybe I’ve missed something completely, please again let me know. This seems like an enormous market inefficiency that probably can be worked on and fixed rather easily if teams are willing to face the risk of a few humiliating losses for more overall wins.

Of course eventually, teams batting first will accelerate their runs as well, but being first mover here will bring a big advantage and is probably worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in the big money tournaments. I mean if you can increase your chances of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th by 2% each that’s worth something like $150,000 just from a slight mentality change. I suspect this would be worth that easily…if I’m right. And I could be overlooking something preposterously simple, why I’m asking cricket people to please talk to me.