IPL 2019 Match by Match Strategy Discussion

Email: Sportsanalyticsadvantage@gmail.com


The Sports Analytics Advantage IPL Data Pack is now available - for a sample, please see the screenshots available here.



Sunday's IPL match between Kings XI Punjab and Rajasthan Royals featured a moment which immediately made me look up from my computer screen in shock.

At this stage, you're probably assuming that I'm talking about the 'mankad' of Jos Buttler by Ravichandran Ashwin, but I haven't even given an opinion on this on social media as yet, largely because it's pointless even having a discussion on the matter given that people on either side have a point of view that is as malleable as concrete.  

While the incident was no doubt controversial, to a statistical analyst like myself, it paled into insignificance compared to something else that occurred during the match.  As Chris Gayle was on the attack for Kings XI in the first innings, on BT Sport , commentator Ian Bishop interviewed Rajasthan coach Paddy Upton.  During the interview, they were discussing the mental attributes required and Upton said 'Everyone's got the same data, the same stats', inferring that all teams and coaches have availability to the same data and stats.

Conceivably, all teams could well have the same database of player data such as batting performance versus bowling types, or bowling data in various phases, but this is only part of the puzzle.  I won't spell out why this can't remotely come close to solving recruitment and selection effectively (I have to keep some advantages to myself!).  

If Upton's thoughts were actually correct (thankfully, I don't believe they are!) then I may as well give up what I do - something which I have no plans to - and the other natural inference if this was the case is that IPL teams would make optimal decisions at every stage and the tournament would basically be a 'zero sum' game purely based on luck and what is perceived to be short-term 'clutch' performances, which have been proven across a variety of sports to also be highly variance orientated and almost always mean-revert over a big sample size of data.

Recently, I wrote a piece for The Cricketer magazine which detailed a lot of the mistakes that T20 franchises make with their recruitment and this also manifests itself with some curious selection decisions.  While it's fair to suggest that there may sometimes be some 'behind the scenes' reasons as to why players are not selected, it's difficult to think that they influence the majority of selection decisions.  Teams often don't disclose the reasons for their selections, so it is tough to be in a position to understand their rationale, or whether their selection rationale has any statistical merit.  Given this, there will always be speculation from observers as to whether their decision-making is correct, and with this piece that will be updated throughout the tournament, I'll attempt to give statistical analysis on some of the more stranger decisions made by both franchises, and indeed, individual players.

Below are some thoughts on the team selection and in-game strategies adopted by teams for each match of IPL 2019:-

Match One: Chennai Super Kings v Royal Challengers Bangalore
Royal Challengers Bangalore 70a/o, Chennai Super Kings 71-3 (won by 7 wickets)

Royal Challengers made a number of changes from my data-selected best team, with their focus being on a pace-orientated line-up.  Batting all-rounder Moeen Ali and Yuzvendra Chahal were their only spin options, while my preferred line-up also included all-rounders Washington Sundar, and the under-rated Pawan Negi, who has excellent Syed Mushtaq Ali trophy data.  Curiously, after an excellent 2017 season in the IPL, Negi has barely had a chance since.

As for Washington, I believe that he is a young player of real potential.  Certainly, few players worldwide have expected data as strong as him.  However, as I mentioned here, I feel that the franchise has yet to work out his best role and if he continues to be omitted, he might be better off finding another team who can make better usage of his talents.

The RCB line-up featured Colin de Grandhomme at seven as a non/occasional-bowling finisher (perhaps in the mould of Daren Sammy) and I'm not enthused with this strategy.  Players who play this type of role have a very low 'Match Involvement Percentage' - the % that they either bat or bowl in matches and generally have little impact on matches.  

Batting first in the opening game on what transpired to be a rank turner was a tough gig for RCB, although their task isn't helped by a top seven who are considerably more strike-rate orientated than average orientated, when it comes to batting.  My detailed analysis of success drivers for T20 tournaments worldwide shows that teams with batting stability generally thrive much more than those who can strike at high rates but are prone to be skittled out cheaply, as RCB were here.

As for CSK, it was business as usual, outperforming expectations.  They absolutely nailed their selection in the given conditions, springing a surprise by picking Harbhajan Singh as one of four spinners used.  

However, they went with just three overseas players - a nod to overseas recruitment which could have been improved - and a batting line-up that will usually contain Jadeja and Bravo at 6/7 with no depth further down the order could be prone to collapse against the better bowling attacks in the competition.  

Match Two: Kolkata Knight Riders v Sunrisers Hyderabad
Sunrisers 181-3, Kolkata Knight Riders 183-4 (won by 6 wickets)

I was a little surprised at the Sunrisers selection initially, with the veteran Yusuf Pathan batting at four and Deepak Hooda also selected.  My expected data makes a strong case for 22 year old Ricky Bhui being a better option at the top of the order, as well as having further career upside being at the right end of the age curve.

I also feel that the extra benefit added by Mohammad Nabi's batting makes him a better option as a spin all-rounder than Shakib Al Hasan, although it's difficult to disagree much with their remaining bowling choices.

Where Sunrisers lost the match was undoubtedly during the second half of their innings.  Their first wicket of the innings was lost on ball 77 (43 remaining) when their score was 118-1.  Being zero wickets down at the halfway point should give the team licence to treat the match as a virtual T10, and a score at least around the 200 mark should have been anticipated.  

The problem is that the Sunrisers team selected didn't really have an above-average boundary-hitting dynamic (perhaps Nabi could have improved that) and scoring 63 in their last 43 balls (SR 147) following the fall of the first wicket was far from ideal.  It's easy to praise Vijay Shankar (40 not out off 24) but even that innings was arguably below the strike rate required following this game state.  In addition, they have a real boundary hitter who wasn't promoted up the order - Rashid Khan could have been a better option than Yusuf Pathan or Manish Pandey at 4 or 5 in the order.

The table below illustrates the boundary hitting percentage for SRH's batsmen and all-rounders (time scale Big Bash 2015-16 to start of IPL 2019):-

Sunrisers Hyderabad

Overseas/Domestic

Playing Role

Boundary Hitting %





Kane Williamson

Overseas

Batsman

14.20

Manish Pandey

Domestic

Batsman

13.25

Ricky Bhui

Domestic

Batsman

17.65

David Warner

Overseas

Batsman

18.75

Martin Guptill

Overseas

Batsman

18.59

Deepak Hooda

Domestic

All-Rounder

14.12

Mohammad Nabi

Overseas

All-Rounder

19.35

Yusuf Pathan

Domestic

Batting All-Rounder

14.17

Rashid Khan

Overseas

Bowling All-Rounder

20.38

Shakib Al Hasan

Overseas

All-Rounder

12.95

Vijay Shankar

Domestic

Batting All-Rounder

15.25

Shreevats Goswami

Domestic

Wicket-Keeper/Batsman

18.81

Jonny Bairstow

Overseas

Wicket-Keeper/Batsman

19.22

Wriddhiman Saha

Domestic

Wicket-Keeper/Batsman

16.67


KKR's team was almost identical to my data-selected best team with one marginal change - Prasidh Krishna in for Sandeep Warrier.  Difficult to argue with that.

Match Three: Mumbai Indians v Delhi Capitals
Delhi Capitals 213-6, Mumbai Indians 176 a/o (Delhi won by 37 runs)

Match three featured two teams that I feel are two of the stronger outfits in the competition, although I do feel that they were hamstrung by several questionable decisions in this particular match.  

My numbers have Keemo Paul as a below-average bowling all-rounder at this stage of his career (although very nice potential upside eventually) and I was amazed to see him batting at six for Delhi.  I think Chris Morris was unavailable but I do have Sherfane Rutherford (albeit from a fairly small sample size of data) as a much better option for this role currently.   Below is my pre-tournament analysis of Delhi's all-rounders:-

Delhi Capitals

Overseas/Domestic

Playing Role

Expected IPL Batting Average

Expected IPL Batting Strike Rate

Expected IPL Bowling Average

Expected IPL Bowling Economy

Expected IPL Bowling Strike Rate









Chris Morris

Overseas

All-Rounder

27.71

146.34

26.33

8.37

18.87

Sherfane Rutherford

Overseas

All-Rounder

32.43

166.04

24.73

6.81

21.79

Keemo Paul

Overseas

Bowling All-Rounder

16.19

116.28

32.62

8.94

21.89

Axar Patel

Domestic

All-Rounder

24.59

134.32

37.14

7.51

29.67

Jalaj Saxena

Domestic

Bowling All-Rounder

20.93

84.59

23.36

9.28

15.10

Rahul Tewatia

Domestic

All-Rounder

26.64

154.58

29.49

7.52

23.53

Harshal Patel

Domestic

All-Rounder

20.30

146.81

39.58

9.47

25.08


In addition, I'm unconvinced at the merits of Ishant Sharma in this format.   His data over recent years in T20 is pretty unimpressive, and I feel that he has a lot to prove - at 30 years old this is far from ideal, and the change in his reputation is largely due to performances in other formats.  It's also worth noting that he went unsold in the 2018 auction.

In addition, I was utterly bemused at the lack of Sandeep Lamichhane in the Delhi team.  The Nepalese player is a precocious talent and very few bowlers in the competition have better expected data than him, according to my algorithms.

Mumbai never really got near the big total posted by Delhi.  They picked Yuvraj Singh, which my data questions - Ishan Kishan looks a much better option based on my numbers - and while the veteran Yuvraj hit 53(35), its worth noting that when he came in to bat at four, the score was 37-2 from 31 balls.  Mumbai needed 177 from 89 balls at this stage (strike rate required 198.88) and Yuvraj's innings fell quite a bit short of this (he would have needed to have scored 69.61 runs from these 35 balls to be up with the required rate - 16.61 runs more than he actually scored).  

I'm also not sure that Ben Cutting - a batting all-rounder - should be batting at eight for Mumbai.  I believe that they'd be better off picking a bowler who can bat a bit in this position, given that the average number eight faces very few balls per innings in general.  If he's not going to bat much, he needs to be a frontline bowler, and it's difficult to argue Cutting is that.

Mumbai also picked the unheralded Rasikh Salam, in a real surprise.  For some reason T20 franchises (and not just in the IPL) love to try and find the next young talent on the production line.  The problem with this is twofold - firstly, it's a huge gamble to throw a player who has barely played a professional match into a major T20 tournament, and secondly, even if they turn out to be a superstar, they end up having to pay considerably more to retain them further down the road.  

This was evidenced by Krunal Pandya at the IPL auction last year, and this situation with Pandya was also highlighted by 'Cricket Fever', the new Netflix documentary about Mumbai's 2018 season.  The owners viewed it as a non-negotiable that Pandya was to be bought in the auction, which of course then is a completely exploitable strategy, with rival teams able to bid up his price at will.

The issue I have with Salam is that there is little statistical evidence that he can thrive at this level.  His basic numbers (4 wickets at 42.25, economy 9.05) for Jammu & Kashmir in the Syed Mushtaq Ali Trophy this year were unimpressive, and his limited outings in List A cricket also don't particularly inspire.  

While it is dangerous to write off young players from a small sample of data, it's also pertinent to point out that the domestic players that Mumbai have in their ranks who have succeeded have generally generated very strong data before their debuts.

Jasprit Bumrah took 10 wickets at 22.40 (economy 6.58) for Gujarat in the SMA Trophy prior to his Mumbai debut, while the Pandya brothers both impressed for Baroda in advance of their IPL exposure.  Although Rohit Sharma originally debuted in the IPL for Deccan Chargers, his batting numbers for Mumbai in the Inter State T20 Tournament were excellent.  The only player who looked a real gamble was Suryakumar Yadav, who didn't achieve much batting for Mumbai in the SMA prior to his IPL debut. 

The point is, most successful IPL debutants tend to have decent lower-level data to illustrate their ability - that's questionable for Salam.

Match Four: Rajasthan Royals v Kings XI Punjab
Kings XI 184-4, Rajasthan 170-9 (Kings XI won by 14 runs)

Chris Gayle inspired Kings XI to a solid first innings total, and it was difficult to disagree hugely with their top six selection (I feel there's an argument for Nair over Sarfaraz though).  

In addition, I have Mohammed Shami in the same envelope as the aforementioned Ishant Sharma - much to prove in T20 - while I continue to assert that Sam Curran was an 'anti-Moneyball' signing.

In fact, Kings XI's all-rounder options are quite uninspiring, according to my algorithms:-

Kings XI Punjab

Overseas/Domestic

Playing Role

Expected IPL Batting Average

Expected IPL Batting Strike Rate

Expected IPL Bowling Average

Expected IPL Bowling Economy

Expected IPL Bowling Strike Rate









Ravichandran Ashwin

Domestic

Bowling All-Rounder

16.06

116.81

30.04

7.66

23.53

Sam Curran

Overseas

Bowling All-Rounder

12.53

117.04

37.99

8.69

26.23

Moises Henriques

Overseas

Batting All-Rounder

29.19

129.47

46.45

8.98

31.04

Varun Chakravarthy

Domestic

Bowling All-Rounder

12.56

103.14

44.76

6.01

44.69

Arshdeep Singh

Domestic

All-Rounder

19.97

148.63

N/A

7.34

N/A


Curran opened the bowling for Kings XI and had conceded 48 runs from his first three overs before arguably changing the match with his final over, taking the wickets of Sanju Samson and Steve Smith.  The jury is certainly still out on his signing, however.

The real turning point was Buttler's dismissal by Ashwin and the subsequent collapse by Rajasthan.  However, the Rajasthan batting line-up looks pretty solid - Unadkat and Gopal at 9/10 are better batsmen than average for tail-enders - and I'm not keen on judging their propensity to collapse after just one match.

I was also pleased to see Ankit Rajpoot selected by Kings XI and to pick up a couple of wickets in the collapse - my numbers have him as a real under-rated bowler in this format.

Match Five: Delhi Capitals v Chennai Super Kings
Delhi 147-6, Chennai 150-4 (won by six wickets)

Delhi won the toss and decided to bat, a decision which has been criticised a little in the media.  However, in the last three editions of the IPL, the Feroz Shah Kotla Stadium has rewarded teams batting first (61.9% win percentage, 29.37 runs per wicket, 8.80 runs per over, mean score 174.81) and if there was ever a case to be made to bat first, this looks it.

The problem was that they didn't get close to this mean first innings score, despite having a solid start.  Two players who should be assessed in this respect are Shikhar Dhawan and Shreyas Iyer, who both don't possess above-average strike rates, according to my pre-tournament assessments:-

Delhi Capitals

Overseas/Domestic

Playing Role

Expected IPL Batting Average

Expected IPL Batting Strike Rate

Boundary Hitting %

Boundary Run %

Non Boundary SR









Shreyas Iyer

Domestic

Batsman

33.07

133.01

17.71

61.60

63.32

Shikhar Dhawan

Domestic

Batsman

35.12

129.14

17.57

60.25

61.64


Both are more solid than spectacular, and started their innings very slowly indeed.  Many commentators and probably players will advocate that the 'start slow and catch up' approach is low-risk, but I'd argue the opposite in that it is extremely high risk, because an innings which chews up numerous balls leaves the rest of the team an upward struggle to even score a par total.  Everyone remembers the times Chris Gayle plays a match winning innings, but how many times do they remember the times he plays an innings such as 3(10) and gets out, leaving his team mates already around 11 runs below par?  In addition, at least Gayle has the boundary-hitting attributes needed to catch-up - it's difficult to make the same case for Dhawan and Iyer.

Some will also suggest that Dhawan's 51(47) allowed Delhi to put a total on the board, but if we assume the mean score of 174.81 is par, then his score was 17.86 runs below that.  He used 39.17% of his team's batting resources to score just 51 runs.

There is a further argument that Dhawan's slow innings also meant that Delhi's other batsmen had to take undue risks to try and get their score towards that mean first innings score, and contributed to the collapse.  This also wasn't helped by a strange batting order, with Keemo Paul again at six and Rahul Tewatia - the real boundary hitter in the side - left to wait at number eight.

CSK again chased with minimal fuss and went two from two, with an unchanged side from match one.  Again, there was no Lamichhane for Delhi, who went with three overseas players and preferred Amit Mishra to him.  There has been some thought that Mishra's inclusion was due to previous success against Shane Watson, but I'd be guarded about using such thoughts in selection strategy - almost always batsmen v bowler match-ups are derived from very small sample sizes, and it would be dangerous to give these considerable weight - particularly when considering that Watson, although a fine player and an above average batsman in the competition, isn't graded as a top-tier batsman according to my data.

Match Six: Kolkata Knight Riders v Kings XI Punjab
Kolkata Knight Riders 218-4, Kings XI 190-4 (KKR won by 28 runs)

Superb batting contributions from Nitish Rana and Andre Russell helped KKR to a superb first innings total, which was never under serious threat.  

KKR picked the same 11 that got the better of Sunrisers in their opening match (that I found hard to have much issue with), although they did make a minor adjustment to their batting strategy, pushing Sunil Narine up to open with Chris Lynn, as opposed to being used at seven (although he didn't bat) in match one.  Previously on Twitter I've discussed Narine as a batsman and his potential roles, and I do like opening with him - assuming that there's enough batting depth to cover the likelihood of an early wicket (which I'm not convinced KKR have with Kuldeep Yadav at eight).

I mentioned previously that I have poor expectation for Kings XI's Mohammed Shami as a bowler in T20, although in this particular match, he was unlucky to record figures of 1-44 from his four overs.  Shami was smashed around by Russell after dismissing the West Indian but the delivery ruled out as a no-ball due to errors with complying with the fielding restrictions.  

Kings XI made some strange decisions with their bowling line-up, and their questionable recruitment is already starting to cause them difficulties.  Their issues with all-rounders were highlighted in the analysis of their first match and in both matches they've gone in with only five bowlers.  They decided to bowl Mandeep Singh for one over as a sixth bowler, which was punished with an 18 run over.  I have Mandeep as bowling an average of 1.65 balls per match across the last three years in T20, so calling him an occasional bowler would be a real compliment.

There was also a shock with their overseas bowling choices, with paceman Hardus Viljoen and batsman David Miller included at the expense of the talented Afghan spinner, Mujeeb, and Sam Curran.  Mujeeb's exclusion was rather odd, given that he looks their best bowler that the squad possesses, based on my pre-tournament expected data.  I've mentioned many times previously that my current expectation for Curran as a T20 all-rounder is quite low and he looked grossly overpriced in the auction.  

The table below details this data for Kings XI's main bowling options, and illustrates the issues with the ball which will likely manifest themselves throughout the tournament:-

Ravichandran Ashwin

Domestic

Bowling All-Rounder

30.04

7.66

23.53

Sam Curran

Overseas

Bowling All-Rounder

37.99

8.69

26.23

Moises Henriques

Overseas

Batting All-Rounder

46.45

8.98

31.04

Varun Chakravarthy

Domestic

Bowling All-Rounder

44.76

6.01

44.69

Darshan Nalkande

Domestic

Bowler

42.34

10.09

25.18

Ankit Rajpoot

Domestic

Bowler

23.46

8.04

17.51

Mohammed Shami

Domestic

Bowler

40.98

10.00

24.59

Murugan Ashwin

Domestic

Bowler

34.21

8.67

23.67

AJ Tye

Overseas

Bowler

22.19

8.49

15.68

Hardus Viljoen

Overseas

Bowling All-Rounder

30.83

8.97

20.62

Mujeeb ur Rahman

Overseas

Bowler

26.33

6.57

24.05


Only Ashwin, Chakravarthy and Mujeeb have expected economy below the 8.00 mark, and only Rajpoot, Tye and Mujeeb have expected averages below 30.00, so according to my expected data, there's a real lack of quality options at captain Ashwin's disposal.

8.4 crore signing Varun Chakravarthy was included for his IPL debut, and from an admittedly fairly small sample of data, it looks like expectations shouldn't be absurdly high.  His expected economy looks great but I don't anticipate him being an above-average wicket-taking threat.  

I'm not at all sure that IPL teams know and understand the difference in standard between the TNPL and the IPL, and unfortunately, I'm not going to demonstrate such sensitive information numerically in the public domain.  However, what I will say is that paying 8.4 crore for a TNPL player is the football equivalent to a Premier League team breaking their transfer record by buying a League One striker and expecting him to score 20+ goals a season at the higher level - they might do, but it's unlikely!

With dismissals of both KL Rahul and Chris Gayle in the Powerplay, Kings XI were never in the chase.  Mayank Agarwal gave a good account of himself with 58(34) and I have asserted previously that his SMA Trophy data establishes him as a solid batsman at this level, and he's been unlucky in recent IPLs to have only been a bits and pieces player.  David Miller's 59 not out (40) was 25.80 runs below the required rate for a player facing 40 balls when coming in at 60-3 after 45 balls.  2.12 runs per ball for any player is a tough ask, but I'd have anticipated Miller to acquit himself better than this when well set in a big chase.

A final thought for this match focuses on Sunil Narine's bowling (two overs for 26 in the match).  Most people would consider him a world-class bowler, but over the last year or two, my algorithm's expected data for him has declined markedly - it would appear that as his batting has improved, his bowling has worsened.  My pre-tournament expected data would classify Narine as an economical bowler, but much less of a wicket-taking threat than many probably perceive:-

Kolkata Knight Riders

Overseas/Domestic

Playing Role

Expected IPL Batting Average

Expected IPL Batting Strike Rate

Boundary Hitting %

Expected IPL Bowling Average

Expected IPL Bowling Economy

Expected IPL Bowling Strike Rate










Sunil Narine

Overseas

All-Rounder

17.90

164.03

19.69

30.05

6.82

26.44



Match Seven: Royal Challengers Bangalore v Mumbai Indians
Mumbai Indians 187-8, Royal Challengers Bangalore 181-5 (Mumbai won by 6 runs)

Match seven in IPL 2019 was a close-run and controversial encounter with Royal Challengers narrowly failing to chase down Mumbai's total.

Mumbai's total of 187 looked decent enough (mean first innings score at the Chinnaswamy Stadium from 2016-2018 was 175) so although RCB are something of a batting-orientated team, this looked at least par, if not 10 runs in excess of that.  Hardik Pandya's 32(14) late-innings onslaught was a big part of Mumbai reaching this, helping them avert continuing a disastrous collapse that saw them lurch from 124-2 from 81 balls to 147-7 after 103.  

RCB's issues with the ball stem from their 5th/6th bowling options.  Shivam Dube wasn't used, while Colin de Grandhomme in particular (0-27 from 3 overs) and Moeen Ali (0-13 from 1 over) are a trio who possess very mediocre expected bowling data, according to my algorithms, at this level.  Navdeep Saini has decent expected economy but doesn't look to be a massive wicket-taking threat, leaving the lion's share of responsibility on Umesh Yadav, Yuzvendra Chahal and Mohammed Siraj (who also has a propensity to be expensive).

I've written a fair bit about RCB's recruitment previously last year, and again I think they've struggled with getting enough quality bowlers in their squad without adversely affecting the balance of their team.  As I said with the analysis from match one, they could really benefit from using Washington Sundar, but for some reason he doesn't seem to be in the picture for the franchise. 

RCB's chase - led by AB de Villiers - looked well-paced initially, needing just 41 from the last four overs with seven wickets in hand.  However, they stagnated, with Shimron Hetymer's 5(6) around five runs below balls-faced expectation for a player batting at this game state, and Colin de Grandhomme's 2(7) nothing short of disastrous.

The match ended in controversy with a last-ball no-ball not picked up by the umpires, with Virat Kohli scathing in his criticism, saying 'We are playing IPL, not club cricket'.  

He's correct with his further quote that T20 at the highest level is often a sport with fine margins, and I'm struggling to accept that in the year 2019, there isn't suitable technology and rules to ensure that no-balls aren't missed.   

However, if Kohli thinks that the match was won or lost on the no-ball, he's completely wrong - even if it was awarded, they'd still have been underdogs to win the match from the extra ball.  Of course, he may not truly believe that this is the case, and is using an umpire's mistake to deflect from his own team's deficiencies.

If I was running RCB, I'd be more concerned with how their bowlers conceded an above-par total - as was rather predictable based on the bowling line-up and team balance chosen and is a common issue for the franchise in recent years - and also how they lost by six runs when they needed just 41 from four overs with seven wickets in hand, plus how their designated finisher who takes up an overseas berth managed just 2(7) - an innings which completely turned the match in Mumbai's favour.

As for Mumbai's bowling, I much prefer Markande over Cutting even considering Cutting's batting.  The average number eight batsman faces around four balls per team innings so using a batting all-rounder at eight (in this case Cutting) looks a real waste of resources.

The table below illustrates Mumbai's pre-tournament main bowling options, with the injured Adam Milne now replaced by Alzarri Joseph, who has only played seven professional T20 matches in his entire career.  This is a curious signing given Joseph has only bowled 153 balls in T20 from 2016 onwards, conceding 291 runs and taking just nine wickets (average 32.33, economy 11.41).  From this relatively small data sample, it looks like he's unlikely to improve the squad.

Mumbai Indians

Overseas/Domestic

Playing Role

Expected IPL Bowling Average

Expected IPL Bowling Economy

Expected IPL Bowling Strike Rate







Krunal Pandya

Domestic

All-Rounder

32.04

7.78

24.71

Ben Cutting

Overseas

All-Rounder

35.16

9.45

22.32

Hardik Pandya

Domestic

All-Rounder

29.85

8.80

20.35

Kieron Pollard

Overseas

Batting All-Rounder

33.70

9.08

22.27

Mayank Markande

Domestic

Bowler

28.44

8.47

20.15

Mitchell McClenaghan

Overseas

Bowler

29.51

8.99

19.70

Jasprit Bumrah

Domestic

Bowler

23.99

7.33

19.64

Rahul Chahar

Domestic

Bowler

31.57

8.43

22.47

Jason Behrendorff

Overseas

Bowler

26.11

7.06

22.19

Lasith Malinga

Overseas

Bowler

26.38

8.41

18.82

Adam Milne

Overseas

Bowler

24.89

8.02

18.62

Barinder Sran

Domestic

Bowler

29.19

8.53

20.53


Domestic player Barinder Sran has better pre-tournament expected data than overseas Mitchell McClenaghan, who went for 10+ an over for the second match in a row, and while these main bowling options for the franchise look pretty strong in general, it would also be quite possible that they often pick players with expensive expected economy and a poorly balanced line-up.






Comments