Chasing Grounds vs Defending Grounds: T20 Win % Ground by Ground

Every T20 market quietly prices the toss decision, but most bettors treat chasing as a universal small advantage. I wanted to know whether the ground itself changes that. Does the side batting second win far more often at some venues and far less at others, and does the lean hold up over time?

It does. Across all venues the chaser wins 52.3% of decided matches, which is barely better than a coin flip. At Sharjah that rises to 67.0%, while at the Rose Bowl and Gaddafi, Lahore it falls to 40.5%. The gap between the best chasing ground and the best defending ground is wide enough to move a price, which is why this split sits underneath my cricket predictions whenever a franchise league or bilateral series comes round.

Ground 1Gulf grounds reward chasers, English grounds reward setters

The bars rank the eight best and eight worst grounds to chase at, each with 80+ decided matches. The top end is dominated by the Gulf: Sharjah at 67.0%, Dubai at 61.8% and Abu Dhabi close behind, with Sawai Mansingh, Jaipur at 63.5% and the MCG at 61.2% also well clear of the 52.3% baseline.

At the other end, Edgbaston at 40.7%, Trent Bridge at 43.3% and the Rose Bowl at 40.5% make England the clearest defending cluster, joined by Gaddafi, Lahore and Adelaide Oval. Bigger outfields, slower surfaces as the evening wears on and the absence of heavy dew are the conditions I associate with the lower half.

What I take from this is that "chase if you win the toss" is a ground-specific rule rather than a law of the format. At the bottom half of this chart, the side batting first is the default.

Ground 2India's chasing lean has held steady across both eras

Grounds change as pitches are relaid and start times move, so I split the record into 2005-2017 and 2018-2025. India is the striking line: chasers won 56.1% before 2018 and 56.1% from 2018, identical across hundreds of games in each period.

England barely moved either, from 47.1% to 48.0%, and in the later period it is the lowest of the host countries shown. South Africa drifted the other way, down to 48.1%, while overall the chasing rate only nudged from 51.9% to 52.5%.

For a bettor, stability is the useful part. A lean that has survived pitch changes and a different generation of players is one I trust more than a single strong season.

Ground 3The same target plays very differently by ground type

This heatmap answers the in-play question: once the first-innings total is known, how much does the ground still matter? Facing 160-179, chasers won 56.4% at the eight best chasing grounds, 46.5% at all venues and 40.3% at the eight best defending grounds.

Totals at the extremes flatten the venue effect. Against under 140 the chaser won 85.6% across all venues, and against 200 or more just 16.4%. The middle bands are where ground knowledge earns its keep.

Even against 180-199 the chase still won 32.0% at the best chasing grounds but only 25.5% at the best defending ones. The 200+ column holds the fewest matches, so I read it loosely.

Ground 4Fair odds turn ground leans into prices

The records carry no betting prices, so this table converts each frequency into fair odds: one divided by the win rate. At Sharjah the chaser's fair price is 1.49 and the side batting first 3.03; at the Rose Bowl the side batting first comes out at 1.68. The all-venue line sits at 1.91 for the chase and 2.10 for batting first.

The main caveat is that these are raw ground records. They mix teams of very different strength, so part of a chasing edge can simply reflect who played there, and a range such as 30.0%–51.0% at the Rose Bowl shows how wide the uncertainty is on 84 matches.

I use these numbers as a starting adjustment, layered on top of team strength, not as a price in their own right.

Written byTheo Ashford

I'm Theo Ashford, based in Chicago, and I write the free cricket predictions at horse-racing.tips — reading the pitch as closely as the form.

View profile →