OPINION
Follow UsIt was a strange World Cup. Alongside numerous upsets, we saw many star players fail miserably. It had a direct impact on the fortunes of their team. Here is Cricket.com’s least impactful XI of the T20 World Cup 2022, based on impact reading deduced from Criclytics, our AI-powered prediction engine.
David Warner (Impact -0.58)
44 runs @ 11 average and 107.3 strike-rate
KABOOM! We start with the player of the tournament in the previous T20 World Cup. Warner’s inclusion here is symbolic of Australia’s campaign which was limited to the Super 12 stage. From playing onto the stumps in an awkward manner in the tournament opener to getting bowled attempting a switch hit against Afghanistan, the southpaw just kept finding ways to get out. It is interesting because at the other end, Aaron Finch struggled fiercely in every game and still managed to score more than twice the runs as Warner.
At -0.58, Warner is one of the five openers with a negative impact rating in this World Cup and certainly the most high-profile one, which lends him an undisputable spot in this XI.
Rohit Sharma (Impact +6.92)
116 runs @ 19.3 average and 106.4 strike-rate
Rohit beats the likes of Temba Bavuma, Mohammad Rizwan and KL Rahul to be Warner’s opening partner in this XI. The India skipper spoke about the importance of quick runs at the top before the World Cup. However, in a tournament where powerplay was critical, Rohit batted at a strike-rate of only 94.7. His dot ball percentage of 49.5 was the highest for an opener from major Test-playing nations.
Babar Azam (Impact +0.18)
124 runs @ 17.7 average and 93.2 strike-rate
Babar’s World Cup as a batter reminds of a bit from the web series Pitchers: “Zero contribution seh sakte hai iska magar negative kese tolerate kare” (we can tolerate his zero contribution but negative?).
Babar followed his golden duck against India with four games in negative contribution, playing innings of 4 (9), 4 (5), 6 (15), 25 (33). It was a shocker of a World Cup for the Pakistan skipper. He is a good back foot player, a prerequisite for success in Australia. But the right-hander just struggled to time the ball.
Babar pips Kane Williamson for the number three spot, owing to the number of innings in the negative impact column. Many cricket fans, including some experts, felt that Babar should have demoted himself to number three during the tournament. Well, we have fixed that here.
Shakib Al Hasan (Impact +7.76)
44 runs @ 8.8 average and 95.7 strike-rate
6 wickets @ 27.8 average and 8.8 economy
The heartbeat of Bangladesh’s team irrespective of the format, Shakib had an indifferent tournament, scoring only 44 runs with the bat. He picked 6 wickets but his economy of 8.8 was the worst for a finger-spinner who played more than one game.
Despite an impact rating of 7.76, Shakib was among the least influential all-rounders in the tournament. And you expect a lot more from a player of his quality. The left-hander admitted it himself. “I could have done better”, he said at the post-match presentation after Bangladesh’s last game of the tournament.
Bhanuka Rajapaksa (Impact +7.68)
125 runs @ 17.9 average and 119 strike-rate
Rajapaksa was supposed to be the OG of Sri Lanka’s middle-order in this competition. Why exactly? Just rewind your mind to the Asia Cup. Rajapaksa averaged 30 at a strike-rate of 144.6. He set the template of Sri Lanka’s batting approach which worked on small but relevant contributions in terms of strike-rate. The Island nation emerged as the Asia Cup champions which was not too long ago.
The same approach proved futile for the left-hander this World Cup. Six of his seven dismissals were based on mistiming aerial strokes.
On the Criclytics impact sheet, Dasun Shanaka and Chamika Karunaratne have scored less than Rajapaksa. But it is the expectations from the southpaw that gets him the number five spot in this unfortunate XI.
ALSO READ: Cricket.com’s Team of the T20 World Cup
Dinesh Karthik (Impact -0.95)
14 runs @ 4.5 average and 63.6 stroke-rate
Picking Karthik here may seem a bit harsh but he is the lowest-ranked wicket-keeper on Criclytics impact meter (among the top-10 T20 nations) at -0.95. Making a comeback to the national team after an astonishing turnaround in his career, his World Cup campaign was quite anti-climactic.
Missing out on closing the game against Pakistan didn’t help. To follow it up, the right-hander managed only 6 off 15 balls against South Africa. A dubious run-out call in the next game limited his stay to only seven balls. The wicketkeeper-batter thus had a negative impact in each of the three games when he was required to bat.
Axar Patel (Impact +0.369)
3 wickets @ 38.3 average and 8.6 economy
Axar gets into the side as the bowling all-rounder. Having made an impressive comeback to the T20 side, replacing the injured Ravindra Jadeja, Axar’s left-arm spin was unproductive in the Australian conditions. He was neutralized in his first over of the tournament, taken out of the attack by Iftikhar Ahmed who belted three sixes at the MCG. His 2/18 against the Netherlands was his only fruitful spell. In the subsequent three games, he went at an economy of 9.3 in 8.2 overs while picking only one wicket. With the bat, Axar scored only 9 runs in three innings including an unbeaten duck.
Pat Cummins (Impact - 2.95)
3 wickets @ 44 average and 8.3 economy
The 2022 World Cup has only raised more questions about Cummins’ credibility as a T20 bowler. His tournament can be divided into two halves. In the first, he was smashed around the park - leaking 82 runs in eight overs while striking just once. He came back in the next two games, with combined figures of 2/50 against Ireland and Afghanistan. But by that time, it was too late for Australia and Cummins as well. He is one of the two-star seamers with an aggregate impact in negative.
Ravichandran Ashwin (Impact -4.48)
6 wickets @ 25.8 average and 8.2 economy
Let’s just say Ashwin couldn’t do justice to his reputation of being a defensive spinner in this World Cup. He delivered some handy spells - maintaining an economy of 7.7, 5.3 and 5.5 against Pakistan, Netherlands and Zimbabwe respectively. However, on other days, everything went wrong.
He conceded 43 in his four overs against the Proteas. He was smashed for four sixes which killed the game in the opposition’s favor. In the two games at Adelaide (against Bangladesh and England), Ashwin’s combined figures read 0/46 in four overs.
At -4.48, Ashwin is the least impactful specialist spinner in this World Cup and the sixth least impactful player of the tournament overall.
Mitchell Starc (Impact +9.132)
3 wickets @ 34 average and 8.5 economy
Starc has the highest rating in this XI but numbers can be deceiving. He had a disappointing start and end to his campaign which had a direct impact on Australia’s fortunes.
Recall the first over of the Super 12 stage. Finn Allen went berserk and Starc had no answer, conceding 14 runs which set the tone for Australia’s premature exit. Against Ireland, Starc was smashed for 18 runs in his final over by Lorcan Tucker when Australia had to win by a hefty margin to catch up with the net run-rate. That turned out to be Starc’s last over in the competition as the left-arm seamer was dropped from the side in favour of Kane Richardson.
In between, Starc picked 1/23 against Sri Lanka and struck twice in his first over against Ireland which has soared up his rating. But Australia expected more from him.
Kagiso Rabada (Impact -15.74)
2 wickets @ 75.5 average and 9.4 economy
The least impactful player of the tournament to draw curtains on this XI. Much like Cummins and Starc, Rabada had sluggish numbers heading into the World Cup. But Rabada’s numbers went further south. His bowling average of 75.5 is only better than Marcus Stoinis which tells you enough. Besides picking only two wickets, Rabada was mighty expensive, going at 9.4 runs per over. His 0/37 in three overs against the Netherlands paved the way for an embarrassing loss that sent South Africa home from the brink of a semi-final spot.
Rabada’s impact reading of -15.74 is the worst by any player in the tournament, and that too by a distance.
This XI has a heavy representation from India and Australia, indicating the underwhelming campaigns both sides had. South Africa, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Bangladesh have one player each. That makes it six other Super 12 sides without any player in this unfortunate XI.
