- Sadaqat scored 114 of the Kingsmen's 170 in the CPL final, a 67.1 percent share.
- His share changed across the three knockout matches. Tracking one batter and tracking each match's top scorer answer different questions.
- A coach and scorer can start with existing scorebooks. These percentages describe innings; they do not establish a selection rule or prove that AI would improve results.
Maaz Sadaqat's century could not carry the Jamaica Kingsmen to the 2026 CPL title. He contributed 114 runs to their 170 for 9 at Kensington Oval on 20 September. Antigua and Barbuda Falcons reached 173 for 2 and won by eight wickets, according to the CPL report and Cricket West Indies results.
That leaves 56 runs from the other batters and extras combined. It is a striking split, and a useful starting point for a club coach looking at how runs are shared. It cannot explain the defeat on its own. A batter's opportunities, the target and the wickets lost all matter.
One batter, three different shares
The table follows Sadaqat across the Kingsmen's three knockout matches. Individual scores come from the CPL's Eliminator, Qualifier 2 and final reports; dates, team totals and results come from CWI. The percentages are our calculations, rounded to one decimal place.
| Match | His runs | Team total | Share | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16 September: Eliminator | 112 | 145/1 | 77.2% | Won |
| 18 September: Qualifier 2 | 41 | 207/5 | 19.8% | Won |
| 20 September: Final | 114 | 170/9 | 67.1% | Lost |
The calculation is individual runs divided by the team total, multiplied by 100. For the final, 114 ÷ 170 × 100 gives 67.1 percent. The denominator includes extras. If a club instead uses runs off the bat, it must label that different measure and apply it consistently.
There is an important distinction here: 19.8 percent is Sadaqat's share in Qualifier 2, not the top scorer's share. The CPL report also records a half-century by Keacy Carty. Following the same player across matches tells us about that player's contribution. Taking the highest individual score in each match tells us how concentrated each innings was, whoever led it.
Even the larger percentages need context. The Kingsmen won the Eliminator by nine wickets with 35 balls remaining. A successful opening partnership can leave the middle order with little or no chance to bat. The final ended with nine wickets down. Treating both innings as the same kind of dependence would lose much of what the scorecards tell us.
What a scorebook can answer
For a Jamaican parish club, begin by asking the scorer what is already recorded. An innings scorecard can show individual runs, extras, dismissals and the total. It can answer who contributed runs when a regular leading batter scored little. Delivery-by-delivery records are useful for a narrower question, such as how someone scored against a particular type of bowling at a particular stage.
Keep the question modest. “Where did our runs come from?” is a workable first review. “Which player should be dropped?” needs much more than a percentage. Batting position, balls faced, match situation, coaching observations and the player's role all affect a fair assessment.
These three games do not establish what was normal for the Kingsmen across a season. They also reveal nothing about which analytics systems the franchise used privately. A club can use the exercise below to assess its own records and decide what it needs next.
A practical review with the scorer and coach
Use ten completed matches as a manageable starting exercise, not a scientifically sufficient sample. If fewer reliable records exist, use those and say how many. Agree the purpose and access rules before copying a book or exporting a file.
- Choose one format. Keep T20s separate from longer matches. Note shortened innings, revised targets, abandoned games and missing entries. Do not fill a gap with a guessed score.
- Reconcile each innings. Check that individual batting runs plus extras equal the team total. Record the source page, date, opposition, wickets lost and balls available or faced where known.
- Label the measure. For top-scorer share, use the highest individual score in each innings. To follow a particular player, use that player's runs instead and mark matches they did not play. Leave a zero-total innings undefined rather than dividing by zero.
- Keep the context beside the percentage. Include the leading batter's balls faced and position when available, whether the team chased, and the result. A chase completed early leaves fewer scoring opportunities for other batters.
- Discuss the exceptions. Ask why two apparently similar shares arose in different circumstances. Check disputed entries against the original book before drawing a conclusion.
A useful outcome is a dependable set of records and a specific practice question. Perhaps the coach wants to look more closely at batting against spin, or at how players prepare for a different role. Agree with the coach what question is worth examining further; do not turn a percentage into an automatic selection rule.
Keep the original records when correcting a transcription, with a note of who checked the change. If different scorers interpret a field differently, agree its meaning before adding more matches. Consistency matters more than collecting extra columns nobody can reliably complete.
Where an AI tool might fit
Adrian Dunkley's published People First, Problem Second, AI Last framework puts the human need and the problem before the tool. Applied here, the people are the coach, scorer and players; the immediate problem is making the existing record clear enough to discuss. A calculator or spreadsheet is sufficient for run share.
If the club later considers AI-assisted transcription, first test it on invented scorecards or material it is permitted to use. Ask it to point to the source for each entry, and have a person check the output. Count missing and incorrect fields separately. Compare the time taken, including checking and correction, with the current process. A neat table alone does not demonstrate an improvement.
Before sharing identifiable records with a supplier, agree who may access them, where they will be stored, whether they may train a model, and how export and deletion work. Check the club's safeguarding procedures for young players. Do not upload children's identifiable records or footage to a general AI service without appropriate permission and safeguards; fictional data is enough to try this calculation.
Run share is not a measure of character, effort or injury risk. It should not become an automated ranking that determines a young player's opportunities. Coaches remain responsible for decisions and for hearing the player's context. Any product making prediction claims needs testing on comparable, previously unseen matches against a simple baseline.
The limit of this example
Sadaqat's three innings show how much a share can change over a short run of matches. They do not establish why the Kingsmen lost the final, whether a different selection would have won, or whether this exercise improves future performance. Different opponents and conditions also prevent a simple before-and-after comparison from proving an effect.
Start with the scorebook and a question worth answering. If the review helps a coach explain a decision more clearly, or helps a scorer catch an error, that is useful without adding a prediction model.
Frequently asked questions
Is Sadaqat's 19.8 percent in Qualifier 2 the top-scorer share?
No. It follows Sadaqat's 41 runs in a total of 207. The CPL report records a half-century by Keacy Carty, so a top-scorer calculation would use a different numerator.
Does a high share prove that a team depends too much on one batter?
No. An opener can dominate a successful short chase while other batters have little opportunity. Read the share alongside the target, wickets, balls faced and roles. This exercise sets no selection threshold.
Do we need AI or match video for this exercise?
No. Reliable innings scorecards and a calculator are enough for run-share calculations. More detailed questions may require delivery records. Start with existing permitted records rather than collecting new footage of young players.
Publisher disclosure
SportsBrain is cofounded by Adrian Dunkley and Nicholas Dunkley, as its leadership page sets out. Adrian also founded StarApple AI. This article applies his general framework to a cricket example; it is SportsBrain's editorial analysis, not a statement from the Kingsmen or a claim that SportsBrain influenced the result.
Sources
- CPL final report, published 21 September 2026; match played 20 September.
- CPL Eliminator report, published 17 September 2026; match played 16 September.
- CPL Qualifier 2 report, published 19 September 2026; match played 18 September.
- Cricket West Indies: 2026 CPL results, for match dates, innings totals and results.
- Adrian Dunkley: AI Boss, for the general framework. The club exercise and its limitations are this article's proposals.
Related: The Falcons' first CPL title and what club data can show.