CSK 2026: The Postmortem Report

I am a CSK fan, an ardent one at that. And it sucks seeing my home team not make the playoffs for the third time in a row. That was my motivation to create Pitchside (a tool for statistical cricket analysis using Cricsheet data) to get to the crux of the problem. Most of us know CSK's batting, not luck, cost them the 2026 season. But how exactly?

In this post, I compare CSK's performance across three phases (powerplay, middle overs and death overs) with that of the top 4 teams who managed to crack the playoffs. It was not luck: run rates predicted 6.1 wins and CSK won 6. The batting lost it.

Across the whole season, this is where CSK lost and gained wins against an average side:

In plain terms: a negative number means CSK cost themselves wins in that phase compared with an average side. Batting lost about 1.7 wins over the season, most of it in the death overs, and bowling won back about 0.4, so the net loss is 1.3 wins, against a playoff gap of two.

Powerplay: batting and bowling

Let's start with the obvious: Gaikwad had a bad season. But exactly how bad? His net strike rate in the powerplay is -29.6. In plain terms, he scored at 125 where an average opener in the same situations would have scored at about 154. Samson's net strike rate is -2.5, only slightly below par, but both openers have negative net averages, so neither made up for the slow scoring by staying in.

Moreover, CSK were two or more wickets down at the end of the powerplay in 10 of their 14 games. They lost 2.14 wickets per powerplay on average, while the playoff sides lost between 0.93 and 1.43.

Samson was out inside the powerplay in 10 of his 14 innings. When he survives, he can win a game single-handedly (101* and 115* this season), but he needs time to settle. Gaikwad isn't doing him any favours by putting the brakes on the scoring rate.

Compare that with the batters who come in at No. 3, who are having a positive impact on the match. Urvil and Mhatre strike at a faster clip but don't stay around long. Surprisingly, it's Sarfaraz whose numbers look the most balanced: he scores fast and stays in. But small sample sizes, so take it with a grain of salt.

Bowling is much better. At least in one metric. CSK bowlers were economical: 9.90 runs an over, 4th best in the league against a league average of 10.03.

The issue lies in the lack of wickets. CSK took 16 powerplay wickets against about 21 expected, an average of 1.14 per powerplay, while the playoff sides ranged from 1.64 to 2.14. They took three or more wickets in a powerplay only once in 14 games. CSK lacked a strike bowler, and every playoff side had one: Bhuvneshwar for RCB, Rabada and Siraj for GT, Archer for RR. SRH arguably lacked one, yet they still took 24 wickets to CSK's 16.

Henry should have been that strike bowler, but he went for 12.83 an over in the first three games, all of which CSK lost, and was not picked again. Khaleel was economical but tore his quad after five games, and Mukesh was the only pacer better than average on both wickets and runs, by a smaller margin than any playoff-side strike bowler except Malinga.

Middle overs: not bad, but behind

Batting in the middle overs was not that bad. CSK scored at 8.58 an over against a league average of 9.28, and their impact (-0.55 wins) was only a little worse than the league average (-0.41). But they were well behind the playoff sides, who scored between 9.27 and 10.15 an over. Two things explain the gap: CSK struggled against spin, and they spent the phase rebuilding after the powerplay.

Start with spin. CSK struck at 132 against it, while the playoff sides struck at 157. That is baffling, because Dube (+5.2 net strike rate against middle-overs spin since 2024) and Brevis (+8.3) have handled it before.

Then there is the rebuild. CSK had the highest dot-ball percentage in the league in this phase (33%) while losing the fewest wickets (one every 24.9 balls). That fits the story: they lost more wickets than expected in the powerplay (30 against 21.8), so they had to rebuild, and they kept wickets in hand without cashing them in.

Against pace and spin (middle overs):

Samson has only 4 innings in this phase, but he had a positive impact. Gaikwad was poor and Brevis disappointing. But look at Dube: a net SR of +29.2 makes him CSK's best batter in this phase. That's why their SR against spin is egregious. Dube should be used as the designated spin hitter.

Bowling was CSK's bright spot in the middle overs. They conceded 8.78 runs an over, the second best in the league against a league average of 9.28, and their impact of +0.57 wins was well above the league average of +0.18. Only GT (+1.02) and RR (+0.66) did better. SRH (+0.38) were behind CSK, and RCB, the champions, were at -0.40, so a team can win without dominating this phase. One caution on the economy: an average attack would have conceded 8.74 an over on the same balls, mostly because of Chepauk, so CSK's net economy was only +0.08. The real edge was wickets, 36 against 32.2 expected, with at least one wicket in every innings. Spin saved 28 runs against the expectation.

Noor Ahmad was the control, bowling 276 balls at 8.17 an over and saving 30 runs. Jamie Overton was the best of the lot: nine wickets in 96 balls when an average bowler would have taken about four, and +0.61 wins, almost level with Rashid Khan (+0.63) from 40% of the balls. He flew home injured on May 13 and CSK lost all three games without him. Akeal Hosein added +0.34 in six innings, but he played only 7 of 14 games, which raises a selection question.

Death overs: no finisher

Death overs were where CSK's batting lost the most. Over overs 16 to 20 they were worth -1.26 wins against the league's -0.23, about a full win worse than an average side. Three things sit behind that number, and they stack. CSK had no finisher, nobody at 6 or 7 whose job was simply to hit. They struggled in chases, where they struck at 146 against 169 for the top four and lost 0.80 wins in just five innings (setting a total, they were par). The smallest factor was caution: 24 wickets lost against 28.9 expected and 31.7% dot balls, ninth in the league, though most of the innings with wickets in hand were comfortable wins. At the death, wickets in hand are only worth something if you swing.

The clearest case is Shivam Dube. In the middle overs he was the only CSK middle-order batter scoring faster than average, at +29 net strike rate. At the death he scored 13 runs per 100 balls below an average batter on the same balls, with 36% dot balls, and was dismissed 3 times against 6.4 expected. An average of 43.7 sounds good, but at the death it means batting to stay in, not to finish. This isn't a flaw in Dube. It's a role he was asked to play, and it cost 0.34 wins, the worst death-overs impact in the squad.

He wasn't alone. Prashant Veer struck at 120 in 39 death-overs balls, 35 runs per 100 below average, with 44% dots. Kartik Sharma was quicker (175) but still played out 41% dots, and his death overs cost 0.20 wins. Jamie Overton was the best CSK death batter at +10.8 net SR, and Sanju Samson hit 200 in 36 balls, but both faced too few balls to fill the role.

What the playoff sides had at the death was a specialist hitter:

CSK's best was a quarter of Tim David's edge. Finishing is the hardest job in T20, though, and even the playoff sides' numbers were mixed (Klaasen -18, Jurel -39 net SR). The point isn't that finishers are easy to find, just that CSK never had one.

With the ball, the death overs were about average (+0.05 wins, 24 wickets against 24.1 expected). The split is Jamie Overton. In the nine games he played, CSK conceded 9.84 an over at the death, 0.28 better than an average attack. In the four he missed, it was 13.33 an over, two full runs worse. Overton's own death numbers were only average (5 wickets in 66 balls). His value was letting the other bowlers bowl the right overs, and Anshul Kamboj shows it best: 13 death-overs wickets against 10 expected, the best of the lot, but at 11.02 an over, and about 15.5 an over across all phases in the last three games after Overton flew home.

What CSK should do

The fix is clear: CSK need a new-ball strike bowler and a proper finisher, probably two, and a different batting order to go with them. The order change starts at the top. Ruturaj Gaikwad had one of the worst seasons an opener could have: a powerplay strike rate of 125, the lowest of any opener in the league (a net strike rate of -29.6). His problem is the new ball. Since 2023 he has been 9.5 runs per 100 balls below average against powerplay pace, but 19.9 above average against powerplay spin. Samson, meanwhile, scored at par in the powerplay but was out every 15.6 balls against an expected 22.6. So Ayush Mhatre should open with Samson (shrunk net SR +12.1 as an opener, against -3.0 for Samson and -11.1 for Gaikwad), and Gaikwad should drop to 3, where he usually walks in against an older ball. In the eight innings he did that he was +7.2 net SR, a small sample, but worth a try. I hope he comes back into form. This gives him the best chance.

Dube then moves up to 4, where he actually scores, and Brevis stays at 5, where he does. Dube's net strike rate (runs per 100 balls above an average batter) was +21.7 and +25.3 at No. 4 in 2024 and 2025, but -18.1 at 5 in 2025 and -13.0 at the death in 2026. Brevis was +33.2 at 5 and +55.7 at 6 in 2025. Moving Dube up also fixes the middle overs, because someone has to take on spin when Gaikwad anchors (Dube +5.2 net SR against spin since 2024, Brevis +8.3, Gaikwad -39.2). It then leaves 6 and 7 for the finishers CSK have to buy.

Overton at 8 makes the most sense. At 7, CSK could try Sarfaraz Khan with a simple brief: swing from the first ball. A young hitter would also do, because a proven finisher is hard to find, and one good one is already a tall order.

The bowling is harder to change because most of it worked. Akeal Hosein can open (56% dots in his six new-ball games, though only 66 balls), with Noor and Overton in the middle overs, CSK's best bowling phase. Anshul Kamboj is the third seamer, bowling at the start and the end, and one of Mukesh Choudhary or Khaleel Ahmed shares the new ball: both were more economical than an average bowler (+1.4 and +2.2 runs an over).

But who is your strike bowler? None of the CSK options took wickets: the side got 16 powerplay wickets against about 21 expected, 9th of 10. Bhuvneshwar and Rabada took 15 and 17, roughly double what an average bowler would have, and Archer and Siraj were above par as well. The CSK group can control a powerplay, but nobody in it breaks one open. If CSK want an overseas strike bowler, they have to drop Hosein, because Brevis, Overton and Noor already fill three of the four overseas places and Hosein fills the fourth. An Indian strike bowler would keep Hosein in, but the market is almost empty.

Bottom line: CSK need an Indian finisher and an Indian new-ball bowler who takes wickets. Keeping both Indian leaves the four overseas places to Brevis, Overton, Noor and Hosein, so Hosein can keep opening the bowling.

Methods: net stats and impact

Where the numbers come from. All the analysis uses ball-by-ball IPL data from Cricsheet, built into Pitchside, through the end of May 2026. Season figures are for the 14 league matches. The playoff comparison uses the four sides that made it: RCB (champions), GT (runners-up), RR and SRH.

Net stats. A net stat is the actual number minus what an average IPL player would have produced on the same balls. Net strike rate is runs per 100 balls above (+) or below (-) that average, so a net SR of -30 means 30 fewer runs per 100 balls. Net economy is runs per over saved against an average bowler, and for bowlers net SR is balls per wicket saved. The average is league-wide, and it allows for the over, wickets down, setting or chasing, how set the batter is, and the ground, using IPL matches since the 2023 rules changes.

Impact. Impact is wins added (+) or cost (-), measured by how much a player's balls moved the team's chance of winning. Compare it with the league average for the same phase, not with zero. Death-overs batting averaged -0.23 wins, for example, so CSK's -1.26 is about a win worse than an average side.

What the data can't see. Fielding, captaincy, domestic form and dressing-room changes are not in it. Many player samples are small (30 to 125 balls), so read those as direction, not proof. Injury costs are rough ranges, and overseas status and the 2027 retentions and Impact Player rule were still unconfirmed when this was written.

If you enjoyed this, I'm hoping to write more about Cricket analysis fairly often, so please subscribe if you want them in your inbox. Thoughts, ideas or corrections, or just want to chat about Cricket? Drop a comment, I read them all. And if you want to find me elsewhere: goodreads, letterboxd, github and linkedin.