Cricket broadcast rights and ad inventory are priced on two things : projected reach and stickiness. Reach is what gets you in the door (India is playing, the rivalry has heritage, the World Cup is on). Stickiness is what keeps people watching once the match starts. The two are not the same, and treating them as the same is how money gets left on the table.
A blowout has reach but no stickiness. The 173 million viewers who tuned into the 2023 World Cup India-Pakistan game peaked early and tuned out as the match got away from Pakistan. A close match is different. Close cricket pulls in audiences that aren’t usually watching. Friends of fans, families in the room, second-screen viewers who put the phone down to see the last over. The longer a match stays alive, the more it expands beyond core fans. That expansion is where ad value compounds.
The question for a broadcaster or an advertiser isn’t “which fixture sells out the stadium.” It’s “which fixture keeps the audience to the last ball.” Below are the numbers that every men’s ODI and T20I between Test-playing nations since 2003, run through a strict closeness metric.
What counts as close
A match is close if the chase reaches its final over AND the result is still in doubt at that point. The full rule:
- The chasing team wins (they had to reach the last over to do it).
- The chasing team loses by 10 runs or fewer.
- The chasing team is all out, with a run margin of 10 or fewer.
Ten runs is the threshold because in the final over it represents about two boundary hits. The chase was alive even if it didn’t get home. Tied matches count automatically. Rain-shortened games use their reduced over allotment.
Quick examples. The 2019 ODI World Cup final, where England chased 242 and scored exactly 241 to tie was close. Kohli’s 2022 T20 World Cup classic vs Pakistan, where India needed 16 in the last over and won with one ball to spare was close. A team chasing 300 that reaches the 50th over but loses by 25 is not close. They went the distance, but the broadcast lost the audience by over 40.
That’s the spec. Now the inventory.
ODI rivalries, 2003-26
Minimum 15 ODIs played, ranked by close-match rate:
| Rank | Matchup | Matches | Close | % |
| 1 | Sri Lanka vs West Indies | 29 | 7 | 24.1% |
| 2 | Pakistan vs South Africa | 53 | 12 | 22.6% |
| 3 | New Zealand vs South Africa | 33 | 7 | 21.2% |
| 4 | Ireland vs Zimbabwe | 19 | 4 | 21.1% |
| 5 | England vs New Zealand | 45 | 9 | 20.0% |
| 6 | Australia vs England | 85 | 17 | 20% |
| 7 | England vs India | 61 | 12 | 19.7% |
| 8 | India vs South Africa | 48 | 9 | 18.8% |
| 9 | Australia vs India | 79 | 13 | 16.5% |
| 10 | South Africa vs West Indies | 31 | 5 | 16.1% |
The value play here is Pakistan vs South Africa. Second-tightest ODI rivalry in modern cricket, 53 matches deep, 22.6% close. It gets a fraction of the rights premium that the Ashes (20.0%) or India-England (19.7%) command. A broadcaster paying Ashes-level money for an Ashes-grade product is paying for the brand. A broadcaster paying mid-tier money for Pakistan-South Africa is buying actual closeness.
The Ashes is honest pricing: 20.0% close, premium product, sold as such. India-England is similar. These are fixtures whose marketing value and product value are roughly aligned.
The bottom of the table is where the inventory genuinely underdelivers. Bangladesh vs South Africa: 18 matches, 0 close. Bangladesh vs Sri Lanka: 45 matches, 0 close. South Africa vs Zimbabwe: 25 matches, 0 close. These fixtures get sold as international cricket but produce broadcast experiences closer to exhibition matches.
T20I rivalries, 2007-26
Minimum 10 matches, same metric:
| Rank | Matchup | Matches | Close | % |
| 1 | Australia vs India | 34 | 16 | 47.1% |
| 2 | India vs Pakistan | 17 | 8 | 47.1% |
| 3 | England vs Pakistan | 31 | 14 | 45.2% |
| 4 | England vs South Africa | 27 | 12 | 44.4% |
| 5 | Ireland vs Zimbabwe | 16 | 7 | 43.8% |
| 6 | New Zealand vs Sri Lanka | 28 | 12 | 42.9% |
| 7 | Pakistan vs South Africa | 26 | 11 | 42.3% |
| 8 | Australia vs South Africa | 28 | 11 | 39.3% |
| 9 | England vs Sri Lanka | 18 | 7 | 38.9% |
| 10 | New Zealand vs West Indies | 22 | 8 | 36.4% |
T20Is produce close cricket more often than ODIs. The format is built for it. But two T20I rivalries stand out for buyers.
Australia vs India is the most consistently close fixture in international cricket. 34 matches, 16 close, 47.1% and unlike India-Pakistan, the rivalry is played frequently in bi-laterals, tournaments, and finals. It’s a buyable product on a regular schedule. Whatever it’s priced at, the stickiness is real.
India-Pakistan T20Is have the same close-rate at 47.1%, but only 17 matches played in 19 years. That’s the inverse problem. High stickiness, low supply. Every match is an event, but there aren’t enough of them to build a season around. The 2025 Asia Cup demonstrated this: three India-Pakistan T20Is in a month produced peak audiences each time, and broadcasters scheduled around them.
The hidden value buy in T20Is is England vs Pakistan (45.2%) and New Zealand vs Sri Lanka (42.9%). Both pairs play each other regularly. Neither carries Ashes-level rights premiums. Both produce close finishes at rates above the all-T20I baseline (28%). For a broadcaster looking to fill a season with sticky cricket without paying for marquee fixtures, these are the buys.
Combined ODI + T20I rankings
When you stitch the formats together. Minimum 25 matches, the broader picture of stickiness emerges:
| Rank | Matchup | Matches | Close | % |
| 1 | Ireland vs Zimbabwe | 35 | 11 | 31.4% |
| 2 | Pakistan vs South Africa | 79 | 23 | 29.1% |
| 3 | England vs Pakistan | 70 | 20 | 28.6% |
| 4 | England vs South Africa | 72 | 19 | 26.4% |
| 5 | New Zealand vs South Africa | 58 | 15 | 25.9% |
| 6 | Australia vs India | 113 | 29 | 25.7% |
| 7 | South Africa vs West Indies | 61 | 15 | 24.6% |
| 8 | England vs India | 91 | 21 | 23.1% |
| 9 | Australia vs South Africa | 84 | 19 | 22.6% |
| 10 | India vs Pakistan | 62 | 14 | 22.6% |
South Africa appears in five of the top ten combined. Against Pakistan, England, New Zealand, West Indies, and Australia; against every meaningful opponent. No other team appears in more than three. South Africa is the most consistently close cricket on the global calendar, and it isn’t priced like it.
For an advertiser building a year-round cricket strategy, this is the closest thing the data gives you to a value index. South Africa fixtures are durably close against opponents across the spectrum. They don’t have the audience ceiling of an India fixture, but the audience they do have stays longer. CPM math probably moves the right way.
Pakistan vs South Africa at #2 with nearly 80 matches played is the single best long-running rivalry by closeness in modern cricket. Not the best-marketed. Not the highest-rated. The closest. Two teams that play each other often and almost always produce contests where the chase is alive in the final over.
The disconnect between marketing prestige and produced closeness is the whole opportunity. The Ashes and India-England are buying-priced for what they are. South Africa fixtures and the Pakistan-South Africa rivalry are priced for what people think they are.
What about India?
Indian audiences anchor most cricket economics, so a separate view of India’s record matters. Every team India has played at least 25 times against, by close-match rate:
| Rank | Team | Matches | Close | % | ODI close % | T20 close % |
| 1 | Australia | 113 | 29 | 25.7% | 16.5% | 47.1% |
| 2 | England | 91 | 21 | 23.1% | 19.7% | 30.0% |
| 3 | Pakistan | 62 | 14 | 22.6% | 13.3% | 47.1% |
| 4 | South Africa | 83 | 17 | 20.5% | 18.8% | 22.9% |
| 5 | West Indies | 89 | 18 | 20.2% | 15.3% | 30.0% |
| 6 | Sri Lanka | 118 | 22 | 18.6% | 12.8% | 34.4% |
| 7 | New Zealand | 84 | 15 | 17.9% | 7.5% | 35.5% |
| 8 | Bangladesh | 47 | 8 | 17.0% | 13.8% | 22.2% |
| 9 | Zimbabwe | 36 | 4 | 11.1% | 4.5% | 21.4% |
Australia is India’s closest opponent at 25.7%, driven entirely by T20Is. Indian-Australian T20Is are 47.1% close and are the most reliably close fixture in international cricket and feature the audience that pays the highest CPMs in the world. This is the rights asset to track. It plays multiple times a year, the close-rate is stable, and it doesn’t suffer from the supply problem India-Pakistan has.
India vs New Zealand in ODIs is the most one-sided fixture in India’s modern record. 7.5% close. 4 thrillers in 53 matches across 23 years. But India vs New Zealand T20Is run at 35.5% close, substantially above India’s average. Same opponent, completely different product.
India vs Sri Lanka has been played 118 times. The most for India and the most for any rivalry in this dataset. 22 of those have been close (18.6%). Strong supply, mid-pack stickiness. For a buyer, this is the largest single source of Indian cricket inventory available, and it produces close cricket at a rate that’s neither exceptional nor poor. The pricing question is whether the volume justifies the mid-pack quality.
What this means for buyers
Three patterns matter.
Format dominates rivalry. The same two teams produce very different stickiness in ODIs and T20Is. India-Pakistan in ODIs is a brand product. The noise sells the rights, but the cricket itself doesn’t keep the audience. The same fixture in T20Is is a genuine premium product. Buyers who price both windows the same are overpaying for one and underpaying for the other.
South Africa is undervalued. Five of the top ten combined rivalries by closeness involve South Africa. They produce close cricket against everyone, and they don’t carry an India-or-England rights premium. For a global buyer building a year-round cricket schedule, South Africa fixtures are the asset class to overweight.
The biggest rivalry-by-narrative isn’t the biggest rivalry-by-closeness. The Ashes, India-England, India-Pakistan in ODIs; all command rights premiums proportionate to their cultural standing. None of them crack the top five for produced closeness across both formats. The cricket sells the tickets, the narrative sells the rights, and the gap between them is the value buyer’s opportunity.
Reach without stickiness is a Super Bowl with a 35-point lead by halftime. Stickiness without reach is a great match nobody bought the rights for. The fixtures worth paying for are the ones with both. Outside of India-Australia T20Is, the bidding markets haven’t fully figured out where those are.
Source: ball-by-ball data from Cricsheet for match-level results, margins, and series records. Career aggregates and broadcast-era context drawn from ESPNcricinfo Statsguru and individual match scorecards.
Definitions follow the standards on the Methods & Sources page. The volume / stickiness 2×2 combines a quantitative axis (matches played in the last 10 years per rivalry) with a qualitative one (a composite of close-match rate, broadcaster reach, and audience retention signals). The composite is my judgment call, documented on the methods page; the underlying match-level data is from Cricsheet.
Leave a Reply