Krick3r - Cricket with K: Analysis

Tournament Journey of Last 4 in PSL 2019

League Round of 4^th Edition of Pakistan Super League has been concluded and it has come down to 4 teams to claim the title. A perfect time to look back at how the teams ebbed and flowed at the points table during the league round and here’s a quick look at it:

More than skill and experience, its often form and momentum of a team that decides its fate in a tournament scenario. The above view provides a good avenue to review the last 4 teams, on the same basis.

Let’s review the last 4, one by one:

QUETTA GLADIATORS has been, by far, the most consistent side of PSL4. They were the first team to qualify for the next round. Although, lost the top position at the end, they remained at the top of the table during most part of the league round. That the lowest their ranking dipped this season was 3^rd spot, is a statement in itself about their dominance and consistency in this season.

They lost both their games against Karachi. Its only the second time that Quetta has lost both the league games to a team in any season – Islamabad did it in 2017. The other team that managed to beat them, this season, was Lahore. Interestingly, Lahore has not managed to win more than 3 games in any PSL season but they have managed to beat Quetta once in all seasons except 2017.

For the first time since PSL1, it’s the first time Quetta Gladiators are going into the last round of the tournament with full squad. All their foreign players have come to Pakistan saving them from their usual pain of fielding replacement overseas players in the most crucial phase of the tournament. Their daring calls to pick Sohail Tanvir, Umar Akmal and Ahmad Shahzad have paid off, Watson is in form and one of the masters of the format, DJ Bravo has also joined them to bolster their lineup in the Final stage.

Consistency, depth, experience and line up filled with match winners make Quetta the top contenders for the title this year.

PESHAWAR ZALMI has finished as the top team in the Points Table at the end of League Round for the third time in PSL history. Islamabad United topped the Table in 2018 when Peshawar finished 3^rd, in fact just 1 point ahead of the top team to be disqualified, Multan Sultans.

Peshawar didn’t start off at their dominating best – lost 2, won 2, in the first 4 games. But since then, they have been in in devastating form – losing only 1 out of 6. In the last 2 matches, they have showcased full range of their arsenal as well. Against Lahore, they had the experience of Misbah to rescue them from 20/5 situation, while against Karachi, the brutality of Kamran Akmal at the top, all but nullified the very capable fire power of Karachi’s batting.

Peshawar has peaked, gathered and exploded at, probably, the perfect time in the tournament; fully capable of bursting their way to the trophy.

ISLAMABAD UNITED is the only team – qualified for the next round – with a different captain than the last season and it has reflected in their journey as well. They finished Table Toppers last year but have spent most of the time, this season, right in the middle of the table. They appointed a new captain – someone with not so accomplished captaincy credentials – and then injuries to him forced a young boy – literally – to lead the side. Considering these factors, staying well clear of the bottom of the table for most of part of the season is an achievement in itself.

Last year, their performance was dominant. The right word for their performance this year would be resilient. There’s no lack of star cast in their line up, still, their journey is built more around team spirit, cohesion and coordination.

Going into the business end of the tournament, Islamabad United looks the most spirited side. The kind of spirit where any player on his day could take them to victory against any side.

KARACHI KINGS had, probably, the most remarkable journey this year. Tipped by many as probably the strongest squad on paper, they had the longest stretch by any team this year in the danger-zone (ranked 5 or 6) – that’s right, even longer than Multan Sultans or Lahore Qalandars who eventually got disqualified.

Winning only 2 out of first 6 games, they were seriously slow off the mark. The explosives filled batting lineup not firing, experienced local pacers – Sohail and Shinwari – going all over the place and captain missing out on bowling specialist bowlers - at one stage, Karachi Kings looked certain to be the first team to get knocked out of the qualification race this year.

Then came Colin Ingram’s performance against the most consistent side in the campaign, Quetta Gladiators, and it seemed to have triggered the pack.

Karachi Kings have lost only 2 games out of last 6 and both of them courtesy of exceptional individual performances from the opponent camp – by Asif Ali and Kamran Akmal.

Coming out of near disqualification threat, gaining momentum at the right time and still having a couple of match winners yet to fire (the devastating Colin Munro and Ben Dunk), seriously experienced bowling lineup and above all, the home crowd advantage, Karachi looks far from being just a filler in the list of last 4 standing to claim the title.

To round it off, here’s how teams have fared in this year’s PSL.

Still to come:

Journey of all teams across PSL seasons
Team-wise Form guide across seasons
Review of teams beyond League Round

Want to see specific analysis or have a specific query?
Feel free to get in touch on Facebook: fb/krick3r or Twitter: @krick3r

Pakistan's Chasing Ghost

Pakistan failed to chase down a get-able target yet another time in Tests. The margin this time came down to 4 runs - and as they say - the closest defeats are the bloodiest.

Winning and losing is part of the game. Unpredictability is what differentiates sports played by humans from a game performed by robots. It all reverses when a particular outcome - be it winning or losing - starts to become predictable with robotic accuracy. This has what it become in case of Pakistan’s handling of run chases.

For Pakistan in the recent times, chasing in 4^th innings of a Test has become like being chased by ghosts. Whenever Pakistan is put to chase, it looks more like its Pakistan team that is being chased, by the ghosts, rather than Pakistan team chasing a target.

It can be argued that Pakistan was never a side good at innings 4 of a Test. Such arguments can only be settled by looking at the related facts across the eras of Pakistan Test Cricket history. So let’s have a look at it.

In all, Pakistan has batted 4th in a Test on 140 occasions where it managed to come out winners on 59 occasions, mustered a draw 32 times while failed to save the Test 49 times. In percentages, Pakistan has won 42% of the run chases, drawn 35% and lost only on 23% occasions.

If the targets and results are broken down into ranges, here’s the picture that it paints:

Pakistan's 4th innings run chases Summary

Asad Shafiq in Tests since 4th innings 100 in Australia

Asad Shafiq in Tests since that famous 4th innings 100 in Australia

Sarfraz Ahmed's batting average drops below 40

Sarfraz Ahmed's Test Batting Average drops below 40 for the first time since November 2014

Azhar Ali in Tests since 200 in Australia

Azhar Ali in Tests since his double hundred against Australia in Australia

Consolidated ICC Team Rankings

After the Annual Update, the ranking tables for all three formats have been announced.

England claimed the number 1 ranking in ODIs, while Pakistan and India retained their number 1 ranking in T20I and Test formats, respectively.

ICC Rankings provides a good measure to benchmark International Cricket teams against each other. It takes into account the recent performance of both teams before awarding points to competing teams for any match. The mechanism provides a fair idea of which teams are performing well or worse, in the International Circuit.

However, the picture painted by ICC Rankings remain strictly confined to the boundaries of respective formats. Excessive success or failure in one format simply carries no effect in the rankings of the other format. Conversely, people also tend to consider the standing of a team in all three formats to ascertain its overall standing in the Cricketing World.

Just to follow through on that thought, here is a consolidated view of all International Teams across the formats

ICC Rankings table is designed in a way where a rating of 100 points is considered the par score and this remains true for Rankings tables in all three formats. Therefore, equal weightage has been given to each format for the purpose of this calculation. The rating points of teams in different formats have been simply added to extract an overall rating of the teams.

Ranking data source: icc-cricket.com as of 3 May 2018

The table provides a good status report of teams where a team is not only competing with other teams in a particular format but it is also competing with itself in other formats. These self-comparisons tell some interesting stories. But before coming to it, it would be better to discuss a bit more about a few aspects of ICC rankings.

Along with ranking teams in an order, the basic concept of ICC Rankings is to provide performance benchmarks. Unlike equating all number 1 ranked teams , the ratings in ICC Ranking also provides the quantifiable magnitude of teams' performances.
For instance, Australia won the 2003 and 2007 World Cups without losing a single match whereas, in the 1999 edition, it came from a position of must-win situation to win the tournament. Similarly, in 1992 World Cup, Pakistan won the tournament even after winning lesser number of matches in total than England and New Zealand. But in the context of the tournament history, Australia’s world cup wins in 2003 and 2007 are considered as equal as Pakistan’s win in 1992 or Australia’s own in 1999.

The ratings system provides the opportunity where a team’s ranking can be measured by its same ranking in a different period. The different points slabs in ratings helps in exploring this opportunity. For this purpose, the performance of teams can be interpreted as per the following point slabs:

100 – 110 – just above par
90 – 100 – just below par
120+ - consistently good
130+ - exceptional
140+ - outstanding and rare
80 – 90 – consistently below par
70 – 80 – consistently bad
Below 70 – consistently disappointing

Since the amount of rating points a team earns for a match depends on opponent’s rating points before a match, the higher a team goes in the ratings, the more difficult it becomes for that team to increase it’s ratings points. Therefore, it is rare to see a team with a current rating of more than 135.

Now, looking at the consolidated rankings table, it gives a fair idea of how different teams are doing in Cricketing World. India has been performing consistently good across all formats. They are winning more times against the top sides than losing.

On the other hand, South Africa and New Zealand have been performing well enough across the formats but they are neither dominating nor struggling in any format.

England have been good in ODIs recently, doing reasonably well in T20Is while, in Test format, they are trying to catch up with top teams.

Australia have managed success in T20Is, in recent times, but their performance in Tests and ODIs has not been as good, recently, as Australian sides in the past.

Pakistan, although, has managed to outperform all other teams in T20Is, recently, but they are struggling in Test format, and their ODI performance has just been average – though, an achievement in itself considering where they were some years ago.

Sri Lanka is simply struggling in all formats. Their performance in all formats is on decline since the departure of their legendary duo of Sangakkara and Jayawardene in 2015.

Windies have been a disappointment in Tests and ODIs although they have managed to do comparatively well in T20Is, recently, including winning the WT20 in 2016.

Bangladesh is still trying to find its feet in the league of top Cricketing nations while, at the same time, Afghanistan is on the rise and with their induction in the Test rankings, they look on course to outperform Bangladesh, Windies and Sri Lanka in a few years.

1. Team Combination

a. In general, team selection didn’t look up to the mark. From selection of the squad to selection of playing eleven for the matches, there were many things that could have been done in a better way.

b. Going to India with no big turner of the ball was a mistake. There were 4 spinners in the squad (Afridi, Malik, Imad and Nawaz) but none of them is known for big turn that could have caused difficulty to opponents.

c. In the game against Bangladesh, going with 3 left arm pacers, 1 left arm spinner and 1 right arm leg spinner against a batting line that had 3 left handers in top 4, didn’t make much sense. Considering the over all composition of the bowling attack, Pakistan should have included a right arm pacer. Had the batting not scored heavily, it might have proved costly mistake against Bangladesh as well.

d. In the game against India Hafeez batted at number 7 after Imad. If that was part of the plan then Imad should have played in place of Hafeez who could have also been the 3^rd spinner on that pitch.

e. In game against India, decision to drop Imad made no sense. Pitch reading is always a risk and anyone can make a mistake. Dhoni misread it as well but he didn't take the unnecessary risk by going with 4 pacers. To say the least, it was not a 4 pacers pitch by any means. It looked like Pakistan was hoping the pitch to be pacer friendly rather than reading it with caution. That mistake proved costly for our campaign.

f. In the game against New Zealand, decision to drop Wahab Riaz instead of Irfan didn’t look right. It looked a slow-ish pitch with not much pace and bounce in it and Irfan’s natural bounce made it even easier for New Zealand batsman to score off him. With his slingy action and skiddy nature of his bowling, playing Wahab on that surface would have been better as it turned out in the game against Australia.

2. Tactical decisions – batting and bowling orders

a. Pakistan team planning was depending heavily on toss. Won the toss only against Bangladesh and won only that match. In other matches, they picked the team anticipating them to win the toss and as soon as the toss was lost, it looked like they lost the game and don’t have any plan B to handle the situation.

b. In general, Pakistan team looked to have gone in with predetermined and predefined plans that lacked the flexibility to change according to the environment and match situation

c. In the match against India, Sharjeel got out at 7.4 overs and by then, everyone had realized that the pitch is not as flat and it is not suitable for Afridi’s style of play. On that pitch batsmen who play spin well like Hafeez, Malik and Sarfaraz would have done better. Instead of Afridi promoting himself to one-down, Pakistan should have stuck with Hafeez at number 3 and if the innings needed an impetus, it should have been Sarfaraz who should have been promoted up the order. He is in form as well and he scored up the order in Asia Cup as well.

d. In the match against Australia, Shoaib Malik should have bowled at least a couple of overs instead of Sami. Sami bowled 2^nd and 5^th over and went for 21 runs in 2 overs and it was clear that he was struggling with his rhythm, line and length.
On the other hand Afridi himself gave away just 27 and Imad went for 31 off his 4. Considering the situation, Afridi should have slipped in a couple of overs from Malik to give him the flexibility of not bowling Sami any more. Pakistan lost by 21 runs and Sami gave away 32 runs in his last 2 overs. Better planning could have resulted in change of result as well.

e. In the games against New Zealand and Australia where Pakistan was facing mainly left arm spinners and leg break bowlers and our Right Handed Batsmen were struggling to play freely, it might have been worth promoting Imad Wasim up the order to either make use of those angles or force the opposition alter their plans.

3. Team atmosphere and Management

Multiple controversies surfaced during the tournament that could have been avoided easily. Those incidents were bound to happen negative effect on the team atmosphere, unity overall moral and focus of the players. Those incidents included:

a) Afridi’s controversial statement about getting more love in India. The intent looked right but the delivery was disastrous. If there was a diplomatic need for Afridi to use cordial words to ease out the security threats then he should have been briefed by media management team about which words to use. It was complete failure of media management team.

b) Unnecessary press briefing and media talk of the chairman in the middle of the tournament, especially, talking about the future of the captain and the coach. It would have had only negative effect on the captain and the coach and might have forced them to think about their own future instead of team’s performance in the tournament. It would have served only to distract the focus of the coach and captain from the tournament.

c) Turning of Imran Khan’s meeting with the team into a public event before the crucial match against India. There was already too much media attention about the match. It would have been in the best interest of the players and the team to stay away from excessive media attention before the match.
In case there were certain reasons and benefits of Imran Khan meeting the team before the match, it should have been kept low key in the media and it should have been done with certain level of privacy.
As it turned out, video leak of the conversation between Imran Khan and Umar Akmal worked as the seed for further media reports of infighting and conspiracies within the team. This could have been avoided.

d) Waqar’s press conference after New Zealand match was inappropriate. Pakistan was still in the tournament and being the coach he should not have said all those things in public, especially, his taunting statement on Umar Akmal was inappropriate and linked to previous point as well.

e) On return, team shouldn’t have split and Afridi being the captain of the team should have come with the team. The fact that different players landed in different cities and received different reception is not good for Pakistan Cricket overall. At Lahore airport, players were welcomed with “shame shame” while the captain of the team was welcomed in Karachi with “Zindabad”.
This approach is going to cause serious problems within the players and should have been avoided.

4. Overall Performance of key players

Shahid Afridi

For some reason, Afridi looked completely lost. His usual confidence was not there and looked like he is just going through the motions not really thinking on his feet and not making decisions according to the situations. Most of the time, it looked like he was just following a predetermined plan and script that was given to him before the match. For example:

- Playing 4 pacers in Kolkata against India. Pitch reading is always a risk and anyone can make a mistake. Dhoni misread it as well but he didn't take the unnecessary risk by going with 4 pacers. To say the least, it was not a 4 pacers pitch by any means. It looked like someone designed that plan more on weather conditions and even without looking at the pitch, gave the plan to Afridi and Afridi followed it as it is.

- Then in the same game against India, the decision of Afridi coming to bat at one-down looked a pre-determined one as well that had not taken into account the pitch and match condition which was not suitable for Afridi’s style of batting.

- In the same game, he did not utilize himself and Malik as the strike bowlers on that pitch. He used both of them as containing bowlers which was not the right approach on that pitch. On the pitch where Ashwin had caused all sorts of problems to Sharjeel right in the 2^nd over of the match, no slip was given to Malik when he came on to bowl to Yuvraj and a catch went exactly through the slips. It was again a case of misreading the game situation.

- Similarly, against Australia, Sami bowled 2^nd and 5^th over and went for 21 runs in 2 overs and it was clear that he was struggling with his rhythm, line and length. On the other hand Afridi gave away 27 himself and Imad went for 31 off his 4. Considering the situation, Afridi could have slipped in a couple of overs from Malik to give him the flexibility of not bowling Sami any more, but he didn't go to Malik for an over or two as backup plan. He followed the bowling order that looked more like decided before the game not according to the match situation.

Amir

Amir is struggling in the death overs. In the first two games where Pakistan bowled second, Amir had figures of 2/24 in 4 overs and 1/11 in 3 overs. In the last two games where Pakistan bowled first Amir had the figures of 0/41 and 0/39.

More alarming is how many runs he gave away in death overs. Against New Zealand he bowled 17^th and 20^th overs and gave away 11 and 16 runs respectively (2-0-27-0). In the game where Pakistan lost by 22 runs, those runs turned out to be decisive.

Similarly, in the game against Australia, he again bowled 17^th and 20^th overs and gave away 17 and 12 runs (+2 LB) respectively (2-0-29-0).

In the games where Pakistan lost with just 22 and 21 runs respectively, Amir leaking 16 and 14 runs in the last overs is a key area of improvement. He is struggling in death overs of first innings and this should be analyzed and addressed.

Sarfaraz

Sarfaraz has been under-utilized throughout the tournament especially in the game against India where the pitch and conditions suited his style of batting. He was in form and had good scores in Asia Cup, he could have been used better in the middle overs especially to rotate the strike rate and take singles and doubles.

Shoaib Malik

Shoaib Malik’s role in the team needs to be reviewed.

Although he is scoring runs but the lack of his utilization in bowling is causing serious problems with the balance of the team. Especially with M Hafeez not available to bowl, Pakistan needs to get one more all-rounder in Imad or Nawaz in the playing eleven to give it the balance, stability and flexibility.

Malik bowled only 4 overs in the tournament and didn’t bowl a single over against New Zealand and Australia.

Ahmad Shahzad

Ahmad Shahzad played a good comeback innings but he is still struggling to pace his innings.

In all four games, he threw his wicket away and more so because he looked to have run out of ideas to handle the situation.

Although he scored against Bangladesh but against India he had no clue how to deal with that pitch and bowling. Similarly, against New Zealand he played seriously strange innings where he failed to keep the momentum going even after Sharjeel’s start. Against Australia, he picked the wrong place and wrong shot.

It looks like he is either making wrong plans to pace his innings or the role he is being given or explained to him is not right. In either case, he needs to be worked upon.

From technique perspective, he got out to same shot in 2 matches, the new helicopter shot. He is playing it with wrong technique. He should be asked to stop playing it right away or improve it.

PSL 2016 - Players Impact Recap

With Islamabad United convincingly defeating Quetta Gladiators, PSL 2016 has come to an end. Here is a look at the performers in PSL 2016 based on T20 Performance Impact Method

TOP Players

All Players

Team Aggregates

PSL 2016 - Player Impact View

As the first round of PSL came to an end and the play offs are about to begin, here is the summary of Player performances based on T20 Performance Impact method

Overall

Teams and Players

For details on calculation method, click here

Like: www.fb.com/krick3r
Follow: www.twitter.com/krick3r

T20 - Performance Impact Method

Cricket is a game rich of stats and numbers. Usually, it needs a lot of it to extract the value of any performance in Cricket and there are reasons for it. (See Cricket - a game of unusually high amount of stats and numbers. Why?)

For decades, there has been a traditional method of recording performance stats to highlight the value of any performance in Cricket and it has served the purpose, somewhat, for Traditional Cricket - Tests and ODIs. That method aims at highlighting certain aspects depending on the nature of Cricket - for example, batting average and bowling strike rates for Tests and combination of batting runs and batting strike rate and combination of wickets and bowling economy for ODIs.

T20 is a bit different in that sense. Unlike other formats of Cricket - Tests and ODIs - players get much shorter time to express their skills and it does not need a player to perform for a relatively longer period to make an impact on the game. The game changes in even just a couple of deliveries. A couple of wickets in quick succession, a maiden over, couple of under-4-runs overs, 3 successive boundaries, a quick fire 25 or 30 runs on 10 balls or even 10 in 3 balls - all of such events, most of the times, result in irreversible impact on the game.

For example, in Tests, a batsman is supposed to either score runs at all costs or don't get out, therefore, the idea of excluding the 'Not Outs' from the calculation of Batting Average looks appropriate. Similarly, the primary objective of bowling in Test Cricket is to take 20 wickets even if it comes at higher economy, so Strike Rate carries higher significance in judging the bowler than economy of his bowling.
In ODIs, a batsman's value is judged mostly by the amount of runs, 100s and 50s scored. Averages or Strike Rates don't catch the eye unless they are either too high or too low but they alone are not used to judge a batsman. In bowling, its the economy and number of wickets that takes the precedence while average and strike rates gets the same consideration as batting average and strike rate.

It all changes in T20. T20 is impact Cricket where a player has to make an impact in a shorter span and has to keep making it in successive spans to avoid getting the initial impact stand neutralized or ineffective. The batting average usually does not carry that much weightage as in Tests or ODIs as it runs scored does not consider to be having an impact unless it is with certain strike rate. In fact, scoring more runs with lower strike rate is what, at times, make it look even worse than not scoring them at all.

Then, the bowling in T20 is seen somewhere in the middle of Tests and ODIs. Like ODIs, the objective is still to restrict the opponents from scoring runs but there is no better and more efficient way of doing it than taking wickets at regular intervals like in Test Cricket. That's what gives the Economy and Bowling Strike Rate more significance while evaluating value of a performance or a player.

T20 Cricket is still evolving but it has already been played enough for some generic performance benchmarks to be set that can be applied to calculate the impact of a performance.
Batting Strike Rate of 130 and an average of 30 is what is generally considered as a benchmark for a good T20 innnings. 50s and 100s still carry its significance as scoring a 50 or a 100 in such a short span has to be considered an achievement in itself as well.
For Bowling, its the Economy of less than 8 runs per over and strike rate of 12 (2 wickets in 4 overs bowled) that can be considered as a benchmark for a good performance.

That's what gave birth to the idea to have a different kind of stats method for T20s that can take meaning of numbers closer to how a performance is interpreted by a common mind. Just like the traditional method, it gives only comparative view of impact of a performance or a player, not an absolute view in the context of winning or losing a game.

In summary, following are the aspects and calculations on which this method works:

Batting Performance Impact:

Batting Strike Rate Benchmark : 130 runs per 100 balls
Batting Average Benchmark : 30 runs per dismissal
Performance Benchmark : 130 (SR) + 30 (Average) = 160
Quality = (Strike Rate + Average) / Performance Benchmark
Frequency = Balls Faced / Match
Player Impact = Quality x Frequency
100Factor = 100s scored / matches played
50 Factor = 50s scored / matches played

Batting Impact = Player Impact + (Player Impact x 100Factor) + (Player Impact x 50Factor/2)

Bowling Performance Impact:

Economy Benchmark : 8 runs an over
Strike Rate Benchmark : 12 (2 wickets in 4 overs)
Performance Benchmark : 8 (Eco) x 12 (SR) = 96 [rounded off to 100 for the sake of simplicity]
Quality = Performance Benchmark / (Economy x Strike Rate)
Frequency = Balls Bowled / Match
Player Impact = Quality x Frequency
4WFactor = 4 wickets in an innings / matches played
5WFactor = 5 wickets in an innings / matches played

Bowling Impact = Player Impact + (Player Impact x 5WF) + (Player Impact x 4WF/2)

Fielding / Wicket Keeping Impact:

This aspect is not considered in the calculation for the following reasons:

Complete data not available. Generally, its only the 'successful performance' resulting in a catch, stumping or a run out that is recorded and there is no record for missed opportunities. Therefore, those stats give only one side of the picture and do not cover the cases where a player might have taken 1 catch but missed 3 opportunities in the same game.
In T20, even wicket keepers are picked primarily for their batting skills and it is a common sight to see stand in or make shift keepers to be keeping wickets. Even in case of a specialist keeper playing a game, his impact on the game is almost always assessed on his batting performance not usually on his keeping performance.

For results of application of this method, see other posts.

PSL 2016 - Player Impact View

T20 Cricket is all about impact. It can change within a space of few deliveries. The shorter length of the format shortens the overall impact of career stats, reputations and names as well.

Same theme has been seen in Pakistan Super League as well. The league has already produced incidents of rookie or unknown players making irreversible impact on the game within the space of few deliveries. At the same time, the league has also produced incidents of lesser rated players making a lasting impact on the outcome of a match.

It is this dimension of the game that makes the traditional method of stats and numbers somewhat incomplete, not necessarily showing the complete picture of the impact of a player in a game. To extract a more meaningful picture of out of raw stats, an impact rating method was designed to get Player Impact View out of those performance stats.

When applied on PSL 2016 performance stats, here is the ranking of players generated through this impact rating method:

* includes stats up to Quetta vs Peshawar, February 14, 2016

Similarly, applying the method specifically for Batting and Bowling stats produced the following views:

At this point, it is worth keeping in mind that all these ratings are calculated on per match basis, therefore, it reflects the average impact each player has made in each of the games he has played.

The above graphics give pretty good idea about the top performing players in the tournament but it is only a part of the picture. To get the full context of these ratings and rankings, it would need to be compared with the Player Impact Rating of each and every other player in the tournament.

So here is the outcome of impact rating method, segregated on each team level for the sake of clarity and ease of understanding.

Quetta Gladiators:

Peashawar Zalmi:

Islamabad United:

Karachi Kings:

Lahore Qalandars:

Finally, to have a look at players of which teams are making the highest impact and which areas, here is what we get after adding up individual player impact of each team: