Wickets Lost in the T20 Powerplay: Win % From 0 Down to 4 Down
From 0 down to 4 or more down after 6 overs: how often T20 sides go on to win, batting first or chasing, and what each state is worth as a fair price.
If a T20 side has lost 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4+ wickets after the 6-over powerplay, how often does it go on to win, batting first or chasing?
- A64.0%Bat-first win %, no powerplay wicket lost
- B15.6%Bat-first win %, 4+ down after 6 overs
- C15.5%Chase win %, 4+ down after 6 overs
- D61.2 runsTotal gap: 0 down vs 4+ down batting first
When I build cricket match predictions, the scoreboard at the end of the powerplay is the first in-play checkpoint I trust. The question here is simple: if a side has lost 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 or more wickets after 6 overs, how often does it go on to win? This study covers 6,169 full-length men's T20 matches across the major leagues and full-member internationals.
The headline answer is that wickets in those overs matter more than almost anything else. Batting first with no wicket lost, the side won 64.0%. At 4 or more down, it won just 15.6%, and chasing sides in the same state won 15.5%. One caution before we start: these are in-play states, so the pre-match price can no longer be bet once the powerplay score is known.
Branch AEach powerplay wicket costs the side batting first dearly
This chart splits every first innings by wickets down after 6 overs and shows how the match ended. Against an overall bat-first win rate of 47.7%, a wicketless powerplay lifted the side to 64.0% across 1,096 matches. From there the steps come down cleanly: 54.7% at 1 down, 42.6% at 2 down, 29.9% at 3 down and 15.6% at 4 or more down.
View the data: batting first: result by powerplay wickets lost
| Won | Tied | Lost | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 down · 1,096 | 64.0% | 0.9% | 35.1% |
| 1 down · 2,185 | 54.7% | 1.3% | 44.0% |
| 2 down · 1,745 | 42.6% | 1.2% | 56.2% |
| 3 down · 849 | 29.9% | 1.5% | 68.6% |
| 4+ down · 294 | 15.6% | 0.3% | 84.0% |
What strikes me is how even those steps are. There is no safe threshold where an extra wicket stops mattering. The most common state, 1 down in 35.4% of innings, already sits only modestly above the overall average.
Branch BEarly wickets drag the first-innings total down sharply
Win rates follow totals, and this bar chart shows why. With no powerplay wicket lost, the average first-innings total was 185.6 runs. That falls to 174.6 runs at 1 down, 161.0 runs at 2 down and 150.0 runs at 3 down, then to only 124.4 runs at 4 or more down. That is a gap of 61.2 runs between the top and bottom branches.
View the data: average first-innings total by powerplay wickets
| Batting first, wickets down after 6 overs → final total | |
|---|---|
| 0 down | 185.6 runs |
| 1 down | 174.6 runs |
| 2 down | 161 runs |
| 3 down | 150 runs |
| 4+ down | 124.4 runs |
The middle of this chart is where conditions matter most to me. A side at 2 down on a slow, gripping surface may struggle to reach 161.0 runs, while on a flat deck with short boundaries that same average can look modest. I use the bar as a baseline and then adjust for the pitch in front of me.
Branch CChasers profit from a clean start but sink just as far
The chasing split has a steeper top end. With no powerplay wicket down, chasing sides won 75.6% of 985 matches, and at 1 down they won 62.4%. Both figures sit comfortably above the batting-first numbers for the same states. A chasing side knows its target, so a clean start lets it pace the rest of the innings.
View the data: chasing: result by powerplay wickets lost
| Won | Tied | Lost | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 down · 985 | 75.6% | 0.9% | 23.5% |
| 1 down · 1,993 | 62.4% | 1.5% | 36.1% |
| 2 down · 1,845 | 44.9% | 1.4% | 53.8% |
| 3 down · 945 | 29.2% | 0.8% | 69.9% |
| 4+ down · 399 | 15.5% | 0.3% | 84.2% |
From 2 down onwards the two sides almost merge. Chasers won 44.9% against 42.6% for sides batting first, then 29.2% against 29.9% at 3 down, and 15.5% against 15.6% at 4 or more down. Once the wickets go, knowing the target stops being much of an advantage.
Branch DFast starts survive wickets better than slow starts
Runs and wickets together tell a richer story than either does alone. Batting first with 60+ runs and 0-1 down after 6 overs, the side won 68.4% of 788 matches. A slow but safe start of under 40 runs for 0-1 down won 44.9%, and under 40 for 3 or more down fell to 20.5% across 655 matches.
The row I keep coming back to is 50-59 runs. There, the win rate drops from 58.6% at 0-1 down to 31.4% at 3 or more down. Healthy runs alone do not rescue a broken top order.
Cells under 100 matches: 60+ / 3+ down (53).
View the data: batting first win % by powerplay runs and wickets
| 0-1 down | 2 down | 3+ down | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Under 40 runs | 44.9% | 32.7% | 20.5% |
| 40-49 runs | 53.9% | 42.2% | 31.5% |
| 50-59 runs | 58.6% | 50.5% | 31.4% |
| 60+ runs | 68.4% | 61.3% | 54.7% |
The cell for 60+ runs at 3 or more down held up at 54.7%. It rests on only 53 matches, though, so I treat it as a hint rather than a finding.
Branch EFair odds turn each powerplay state into a price
This table converts every branch into fair odds: 1 / the historical win rate, with no margin. Batting first, 0 down comes out at 1.56 and 4 or more down at 6.39. For chasing sides, the range runs from 1.32 to 6.44. These are not market prices, because no match prices were available for these games.
The bigger caveat is team strength. Weaker sides lose early wickets more often, so part of what these branches show is the quality of the team rather than the effect of the wickets alone. Before I compare a live price with these numbers, I ask whether the side that has lost wickets was the weaker one to begin with.
| Wickets after 6 overs | Bat 1st n | Won | Fair | Chase n | Won | Fair |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 down | 1,096 | 64.0% | 1.56 | 985 | 75.6% | 1.32 |
| 1 down | 2,185 | 54.7% | 1.83 | 1,993 | 62.4% | 1.60 |
| 2 down | 1,745 | 42.6% | 2.35 | 1,845 | 44.9% | 2.23 |
| 3 down | 849 | 29.9% | 3.34 | 945 | 29.2% | 3.42 |
| 4+ down | 294 | 15.6% | 6.39 | 399 | 15.5% | 6.44 |
And again: the pre-match line is gone by this point. These figures are a reference for in-play prices at the end of the 6th over, not a reason to revisit what the match price was before a ball was bowled.
If this happens…
At the end of the powerplay, check the wickets column first. The bat-first win rate falls from 64.0% at 0 down to 29.9% at 3 down, whatever the run rate looks like.
A chasing side with no wicket down won 75.6% of matches, a fair price of 1.32. An in-play price much longer than that deserves a look, but only after you have weighed conditions and team strength.
60+ runs for 3 or more down won 54.7%, but from only 53 matches. Under 40 for 3 or more down won just 20.5%, so a collapse usually outweighs a quick start.
Questions bettors ask
How often does a T20 team batting first win with no powerplay wickets lost?
In this study it won 64.0% of 1,096 matches, a fair price of 1.56. That compares with 47.7% for all sides batting first.
Can a T20 side still win after being 4 down in the powerplay?
Yes, but rarely. Sides batting first won 15.6% from that state and chasing sides won 15.5%, which work out as fair prices of 6.39 and 6.44.
How much do powerplay wickets affect the first-innings total in T20?
The average total was 185.6 runs with no powerplay wicket lost and 124.4 runs at 4 or more down. That is a gap of 61.2 runs.
I'm Arjun Deshpande, based in Mumbai, and I write the cricket match predictions at cricketscoretips.com — reading the pitch as closely as the form.
View profile →
