Every match on this site closes with a brief post-match audit. We publish what our pre-toss frame got right, what it missed, and what the desk will change for the next fixture — across role, captaincy, venue and workload.
For each match we publish the pre-toss frame, the post-toss update and the actual game outcome. The three read together so you can see where the frame was right and where the toss moved the answer.
The captain matrix carries a confidence tag and a sample-size tag. After the match we re-evaluate the call against the actual output and document the delta in plain language.
We compare the role share we projected (overs, position, impact-player slot) against the role share the team actually used. That is where most fantasy edges are lost or captured.
Every post closes with one line we will change in the next fixture's matrix. The edits are tracked publicly so you can see if the desk converges over a season.
No. We are an editorial desk and we do not collect user lineups. We publish match-result post-match audits only — what the captain matrix called, what the team that won the match did, and how the desk will adjust the next fixture's matrix.
We cross-reference broadcast scorecards and the official league scorecard. If there is a mismatch we note it in the post. We do not invent winners.
Three sections: what the captain matrix got right, what it missed, and the explicit adjustment for the next fixture. The audit is brief on purpose — it should take two minutes to read.
Pre-toss frame: Pre-toss frame called dew from 19:00 and a chase-friendly second innings.
Actual outcome: CSK chased down a 188 target with 8 balls spare; dew confirmed the read.
Captain matrix delta: +38% leverage on the spin-AR captain pick; -8% on the powerplay anchor.
Edit for next match: Lock the dew call earlier in the day, not at the toss, on slow Chepauk decks.
Pre-toss frame: Pre-toss frame flagged Bumrah's workload reduction to three overs.
Actual outcome: Bumrah bowled 3.0-0-22-1; the captain matrix missed 12 fantasy points.
Captain matrix delta: -12 fantasy points on the workload under-projection.
Edit for next match: Tighten the workload model on back-to-back fixtures; check franchise management notes 48h out.
Pre-toss frame: Pre-toss frame called powerplay aggression on a flat Uppal deck.
Actual outcome: SRH racked up 78-1 in the powerplay; SRH won by 15 runs.
Captain matrix delta: +55% leverage on the powerplay specialist; matrix delivered above 90th percentile.
Edit for next match: Keep the powerplay aggression cap on Uppal only — not transferable to all flat decks.
A 200-word audit covering three questions: what the frame said, what actually happened, what the desk will change. Published within 90 minutes of every match ending.
A 1,000-word audit with role share check, captain matrix delta and a phase-by-phase replay of the desk reads. Published weekly for the highest-impact matches of the week.
A season-long audit aggregating every brief and deep read into a running desk confidence score. We publish the trend quarterly.
The rolling list of method changes that the audit produces. Every edit is dated and explained. The list is what compounds across a season.
A rolling rate of captain-matrix calls that landed within the top half of the actually-scoring options for the relevant contest type. It is built from a small per-match sample and it carries a wide confidence interval for that reason.
We publish the score at the end of every quarter and update the running threshold on the desk dashboard. The score is read against the average pick, not against a perfect-pick line.
It is not a hit-rate on the desk's "best" pick — the desk never picks one captain. It is the rate at which the captain matrix landed a top-half call. A score above 60 percent would be very good over a long window. A score below 50 percent over a window suggests the matrix needs adjusting.
The score drives the weekly desk meeting. Below-threshold weeks trigger a deep audit; above-threshold weeks go into the trend audit. We do not game the score toward public perception — the score is published with its limitations named.
Fantasy outcomes are uncertain by nature, but a desk that calibrates its reads and publishes the calibration creates a feedback loop that compounds. A reader who knows the desk's calibration range can size their own calls against it. That is what makes independent editorial useful beyond any single pick.
The desk picked a wrist-spinner as the differential captain on a turning deck. The spinners went wicketless because the captain rotated to finger-spin in the powerplay. The captain multiplier on a Tier-3 player whose role is unclear backfired.
What we changed: the matrix now excludes Tier-3 captain picks on turning decks with low ownership.
The desk picked a powerplay anchor as captain on an Eden night fixture. The dew was heavier than forecast, the chasing side lost early wickets, and the anchor's strike rate dropped. The differential logic missed the dew context.
What we changed: the dew reading now feeds the matrix before the toss on Eden and similar high-dew venues.
The desk picked an allrounder as captain on the assumption of a 4-over bowling share. The franchise rotated the bowler to 2 overs, costing the captain 30+ fantasy points. The matrix missed the workload cap.
What we changed: the matrix now requires confirmation of workload before locking an allrounder captain.
Publishing the misses is not comfortable. It puts the desk's record on the line in a way that could damage trust if read carelessly. We publish anyway because the alternative — quietly adjusting the matrix in private — hides the calibration from readers.
Readers who know the desk's calibration range can size their own calls against it. The feedback loop compounds. Hidden misses produce no loop. That is why this section is part of the post-match desk, not a footnote.
Every story that ships on this desk is read by an editor before it goes live. The editor checks the source naming, the confirmation tag, the consequence paragraph, and the what we don't know line. Stories that don't meet the desk's editorial standard are sent back for revision; they don't ship.
When a story needs to be corrected, the editor writes the dated correction note and publishes it on the original story. The note is not a single line — it explains what changed and why. The note is part of the story; it cannot be deleted.
The editor maintains the desk's running ledger of corrections, sources, verification windows and audit patterns. The ledger is published monthly in the editor's note. Readers can see the run of corrections and the audit tags on every match.
The captain matrices are signed off by the editor before they go live on the desk dashboard. The sign-off includes a verification of the inputs (confirmed, reported, projected, editorial lean) and the risk flags that go with the prediction.
The editor publishes a monthly note at the start of each month — a short essay on the editorial work from the previous month. Corrections, source patterns, audit trends, captain matrix hits and misses — all on one page. The note is one of the ways we stay honest with you.
The editor reads every question submitted to the desk. Most questions become FAQ additions or article edits. The desk's editorial notebook — questions, comments, corrections — is published monthly in the editor's note so readers can see the same work the editor sees.
