How to beat each team in the T20 WC according to CricViz - ANALYSIS

[sage]

To beat IND: (Full: https://www.cricviz.com/how-to-beat-india/)

• Aim well over-par
• Choose to chase
• Recognise phase coverage
• Pick LHs to counter Axar
• Attack Chahal
• LA pace in PP
• Win India’s batting PP
• Avoid off spin
• Use SLA spin

To beat PAK: https://www.cricviz.com/how-to-beat-pakistan/

• Aim slightly over-par
• Attack with high pace
• Frontload or backload
• Spin is a defensive option
• Pounce on batting order changes
• Pick LHs to target < spin
• Attack the spinners

To beat SA: https://www.cricviz.com/how-to-beat-south-africa/

• Consider leaving out SLA
• Pick an off spinner
• Wickets trigger role displacement
• Be wary of high pace
• Attack PP with the bat
• Ngidi potential weak-link
• RH-LH combos v spin

To beat BAN: https://www.cricviz.com/how-to-beat-bangladesh/

• Pace and bounce
• Swing the new ball
• Left-to-right spin is useful
• Make par
• Prepare for slower balls
• RH-LH combinations

 

https://www.cricviz.com/how-to-beat-australia/ 

https://www.cricviz.com/how-to-beat-england/ 

https://www.cricviz.com/how-to-beat-new-zealand/ 

https://www.cricviz.com/how-to-beat-south-africa/

 

Stats in full link - some random ones picked out below

 

 

Edited October 21, 2022 by sage

[zen]

Rather than focus on how to beat others, I would advise teams to focus on winning by picking their best inform 11 first! 

I am not going to drop a Zampa for e.g. even if such “analysis” say playing a left arm slow bowler works against team X. If Zampa is in form, he plays as the only spinner! 
 

 

[Chakdephatte]

2 hours ago, sage said:

To beat IND:

• LA pace in PP

 

That's enough.

[vvvslaxman]

Pakistan  being susceptible to high pace is an open book. Remember 2019 world cup.

 

 

[sandeep]

How to beat ___________  (any decent team) in T20

• aim for above par score
• attack weakest bowler
• be wary of best bowler
• take wickets to disrupt their batting

 

 

How to beat __________ (non top 4) team in T20

• attack with high pace
• attack with quality spin
• attack bowlers during powerplay

 

@Ankit_sharma03  Did I "miss" anything?

 

banjo basic bakwaas is being passed off as 'analysis'.

[sandeep]

32 minutes ago, zen said:

Rather than focus on how to beat others, I would advise teams to focus on winning by picking their best inform 11 first! 

I am not going to drop a Zampa for e.g. even if such “analysis” say playing a left arm slow bowler works against team X. If Zampa is in form, he plays as the only spinner! 
 

 

"data" and matchup analysis is not a bad thing, but does have to be put it in its right context.  CricViz in particular tends to overstate their assumptions often - just because something is "data-driven" does not actually make extrapolated assumptions right - they still remain exactly what they are.

[zen]

“Attack Chahal” … When he wants batsman to attack as it generates wicket taking opportunities. 

[zen]

4 minutes ago, sandeep said:

"data" and matchup analysis is not a bad thing, but does have to be put it in its right context.  CricViz in particular tends to overstate their assumptions often - just because something is "data-driven" does not actually make extrapolated assumptions right - they still remain exactly what they are.

Match uo depends on a variety of factors including observing players to see how the data is created. 
 

If the scorecard says batsman X was out Y times to a left arm spinner, one should not automatically assume that creates a good match up as the batsman could have got out hitting a full toss, trying to manipulate the field, got a bad decision (with no DRS available), and so on. 
 

And if something can be observed, for e.g. S Iyer’s weaknesses against bouncers, you would bowl a quick bowler. 
 

The use of data is only a starting point to evaluate opportunities. The execution plan depends upon proper synthesis of the data including using common sense, understanding how the data could have been created, and observations on the field. 

[vvvslaxman]

12 minutes ago, sandeep said:

"data" and matchup analysis is not a bad thing, but does have to be put it in its right context.  CricViz in particular tends to overstate their assumptions often - just because something is "data-driven" does not actually make extrapolated assumptions right - they still remain exactly what they are.

 

Data has been in existence since the days of early 2000s. ATG Australia side used an Indian consultant if I remember right. English side had this analyst hired from USA right after their 2015 world cup fiasco. That is when they changed the rule of one less fielder inside power play upto 40th over. That is where their ultra aggressive approach originated. Whole world was aware of that law change. How come only England used it to their advantage.  After 2015 world cup Ashley giles was mocked for saying something like "We have to look at the data". But same data driven approach paid off in 2019. Sometimes it looks silly. If you use judiciously it can work for you

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-9653577/Analyst-Nathan-Leamon-discusses-Englands-Cricket-World-Cup-success.html

..........

 

English cricket’s relationship with stats has not always been smooth. When England were knocked out of the 2015 World Cup, coach Peter Moores invited ridicule for apparently suggesting he would ‘look at the data’.

In fact, he said ‘look at it later’, but the truth was already halfway round the internet: England failed because of a geeky over-reliance on numbers at the expense of common sense.

 

Yet no one was complaining when Leamon’s analysis of a rule change after that tournament helped alter England’s approach to one-day batting. By allowing an extra fielder — five, rather than four — outside the inner ring for the last 10 overs, the ICC made it harder for teams to accelerate at the death.

Leamon’s response, based on ‘complex, mathematical models of matches played under the new regulations’, was to suggest the batting team spread their risk across an innings. Under Eoin Morgan, this essentially meant going hell for leather for 50 overs. A philosophy was born; four years later, England won their first one-day World Cup.........

 

[the don]

36 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

Pakistan  being susceptible to high pace is an open book. Remember 2019 world cup.

 

 

Its not high pace, its the short length. Pakistan scored 340 plus in the very next game vs Wood and Archer lol.

[cricketfan28]

I heard some expert saying that the best way to play afridi is to attack him.

[vvvslaxman]

Wristies generally rule in T20. Especially in Australia they are even more dangerous. Even yesterday Ireland leggie was the MVP and MOM. India has 3 wristies at their disposal with different strengths. Kuldeep, Chahal, Bishnoi. India still goes in with just one leggie. That is quiet inexplicable. It is a common wisdom that can be supported by data.

[vvvslaxman]

4 minutes ago, the don said:

Its not high pace, its the short length. Pakistan scored 340 plus in the very next game vs Wood and Archer lol.

 

On flat roads with less bounce lol If the bounce is there Pakistan comes a cropper even against 130 kph bouncers.

[sandeep]

  

17 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

based on ‘complex, mathematical models of matches played under the new regulations’

If you need 'complex mathematical models' to point out cricket basics, I don't know what to say.  Its not that England relied on "model magic" and thats the only reason that they were the first team to properly leverage the 4 outfielder rule in the middle overs. Sports teams are notoriously averse to changing methodologies and tactics, especially if they are working.  Think back to Sri Lanka and New Zealand's usage of the original power play rules - those rules existed for many years before finally the 1990s and the 1996 WC saw teams wake up and realize what was possible.  

 

England in 2015 were so utterly inept in white ball cricket, for years and years, that they were the top 5 team with the least 'risk' in adopting a 'new' batting tactic - that arguably was a bigger factor in why they changed batting approach, than some overhyped "mathematical model".

 

Btw, "complex mathematical models" are not some sort of unicorn magic spell that give you divine insights - like any "model" they are only as good as the data inputs provided, and crucially the proper interpretation that you must apply to the output.  I'm not against the use of analytics and data, but far too often, people who don't understand how they work end up overstating their effectiveness, and tout basically flawed interpretations that get thrown around.

 

 

Edited October 21, 2022 by sandeep

[Lone Wolf]

11 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

 

On flat roads with less bounce lol If the bounce is there Pakistan comes a cropper even against 130 kph bouncers.

Holder owned them with short stuff in Sharjah test 2016...  Home test defeat to freakin WI lol

[sandeep]

12 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

Wristies generally rule in T20. Especially in Australia they are even more dangerous. Even yesterday Ireland leggie was the MVP and MOM. India has 3 wristies at their disposal with different strengths. Kuldeep, Chahal, Bishnoi. India still goes in with just one leggie. That is quiet inexplicable. It is a common wisdom that can be supported by data.

 

Problem for India is lack of allrounders - Australia has Stoinis, Marsh, maxwell and maybe Green - in their top order, capable of contributing a few overs.  India only has Hardik.  That messes up team balance and leads to problems picking the squad - especially given that we don't even have clarity in who our primary pace attack will be.  

 

Kuldeep has improved noticeably as a bowler, but given his 'default' spin is into the righthander, the risk of him getting slogged is fairly high in T20 - he's a better ODI and maybe test bowler.  Now, the bigger boundaries in Aus do adjust that risk downwards a bit, and maybe there was a case to be made.  But given Ashwin's greater incisiveness against lefthanders, and general efficacy as a bowler, coupled with his improved contributions with the bat, Kuldeep got edged out by Ash.  We couldn't carry a 4th spinner in the ranks because we need the slot for reserve pace bowlers.  

[vvvslaxman]

7 minutes ago, sandeep said:

  

If you need 'complex mathematical models' to point out cricket basics, I don't know what to say.  Its not that England relied on "model magic" and thats the only reason that they were the first team to properly leverage the 4 outfielder rule in the middle overs. Sports teams are notoriously averse to changing methodologies and tactics, especially if they are working.  Think back to Sri Lanka and New Zealand's usage of the original power play rules - those rules existed for many years before finally the 1990s and the 1996 WC saw teams wake up and realize what was possible.  

 

England in 2015 were so utterly inept in white ball cricket, for years and years, that they were the top 5 team with the least 'risk' in adopting a 'new' batting tactic - that arguably was a bigger factor in why they changed batting approach, than some overhyped "mathematical model".

 

Btw, "complex mathematical models" are not some sort of unicorn magic spell that give you divine insights - like any "model" they are only as good as the data inputs provided, and crucially the proper interpretation that you must apply to the output.  I'm not against the use of analytics and data, but far too often, people who don't understand how they work end up overstating their effectiveness, and tout basically flawed interpretations that get thrown around.

 

 

 

As i said. That was plain obvious for all teams. Just that No other team even Australians who are also stat savvy guys could not make use of this. Teams like India can be conventional. But Aussies were never averse to do a bit of experiment if needed.  All sports have strategies. Tennis, Cricket, Football.. you formulate your strategy based on some elementary data. I am sure it exist since Bradman's days.  Ireland vs West Indies match is a classic example.  Ireland's bowling strategy was specific to each West Indian batsmen. Their line, length.  West Indies did exactly the opposite.  Very rare teams share their analysis against other sides.  Even in college cricket we had plans for each batsmen. 

[vvvslaxman]

6 minutes ago, sandeep said:

 

Problem for India is lack of allrounders - Australia has Stoinis, Marsh, maxwell and maybe Green - in their top order, capable of contributing a few overs.  India only has Hardik.  That messes up team balance and leads to problems picking the squad - especially given that we don't even have clarity in who our primary pace attack will be.  

 

Kuldeep has improved noticeably as a bowler, but given his 'default' spin is into the righthander, the risk of him getting slogged is fairly high in T20 - he's a better ODI and maybe test bowler.  Now, the bigger boundaries in Aus do adjust that risk downwards a bit, and maybe there was a case to be made.  But given Ashwin's greater incisiveness against lefthanders, and general efficacy as a bowler, coupled with his improved contributions with the bat, Kuldeep got edged out by Ash.  We couldn't carry a 4th spinner in the ranks because we need the slot for reserve pace bowlers.  

 

Kuldeep still has terrific numbers in Australia. A) He gets more bounce B) He can spin both ways  C) He is unique. Not many are familiar against china man bowlers

D) He can genuinely bamboozle batsman if they don't pick which way the ball turns. Sure he can go for runs. But we should accept it as part of spinners career. 

[coffee_rules]

50 minutes ago, cricketfan28 said:

I heard some expert saying that the best way to play afridi is to attack him.

Imagine Dravid in the dressing room spiel-“BKL ko maar maarke todo”!

[zen]

These are designed for the fans (and to get publicity), not for teams/professionals. 
 

Imagine CrucViz walking into my boardroom to make a presentation with such data