

Match Prediction
Leicestershire are 11th in the T20B regular season on 12 points with a 3W-3L record and a -1.043 NRR. Lancashire are 16th on 8 points with a 2W-4L record and a -1.095 NRR. Leicestershire arrive on a three-match winning run, while Lancashire have won one of their last three. This game pits LEI’s recent momentum against a LAN side trying to climb from the bottom end of the table.
Toss & Conditions
Head-to-Head
Leicestershire have won 2 of the last 3 meetings with Lancashire. In the most recent clash, Leicestershire won by 2 wickets with 1 ball remaining after chasing down Lancashire’s 145/9. The finish was decided in the final delivery, with LEI getting over the line despite losing eight wickets. Across these three games, results have swung, but Leicestershire have edged the recent head-to-head.
Leicestershire
Leicestershire are 11th in the T20B regular season with 12 points. They come in on a three-match winning streak, including a tight chase against Sussex where they won by 4 wickets with 14 balls remaining. Their latest win over Yorkshire was built on bowling them out for 135 after posting 147/8.
Lancashire
Lancashire are 16th in the T20B regular season with 8 points. Their last three games have been volatile: a 7-wicket win over Durham sits alongside a 106-run loss to Yorkshire and a last-ball defeat to Glamorgan. The Yorkshire match was the clearest warning sign, with Lancashire bowled out for 107 while chasing 214.
Playing XI
Key Stats
Verdict
Models are split: the ML leans Lancashire, but the other models favour Leicestershire, with the model average leaning LEI at 58% vs 42%. Bookmakers diverge sharply from that, pricing LEI at 34% (2.75) vs LAN at 66% (1.45). Key stats are a clean sweep for Leicestershire (8-0), driven by better points, slightly better NRR, stronger recent form, and a head-to-head edge. If this follows the recent pattern, LEI’s momentum and tighter phase-by-phase economy profiles are the swing factors.
Livingstone’s counterpunch settles it
Liam Livingstone took control just when Leicestershire looked set to defend 156, blasting 74 from 43 to steer Lancashire home by five wickets with seven balls remaining. After an early check, his tempo shift in the chase changed the mood instantly, turning a manageable ask into a target that felt smaller with every over. Leicestershire’s bowlers created a flicker of late pressure, but the damage had already been done.
Middle overs decide the chase
The match swung in the middle phase, where Lancashire scored 86/3 at 8.6 an over, outpacing Leicestershire’s 66/4 at 6.6. Leicestershire had started well at 60/1 in the powerplay, yet their innings stalled as wickets arrived and boundaries dried up. In contrast, Lancashire matched the early rate (54/1) and then accelerated through overs 7–15, with Livingstone repeatedly breaking the ring and forcing defensive fields that opened up singles.
Livingstone and Salt set tone
Livingstone was the clear difference-maker, pairing with Phil Salt in an 88-run stand that effectively settled the chase before the final stretch. His hitting didn’t just add runs; it removed pressure, allowing Lancashire to keep the required rate in check even as wickets fell around him. For Leicestershire, Kelly’s anchoring half-century gave them a platform, but the lack of a late surge left their bowlers with too little to defend.
Form favourites, but totals matter
Pre-match indicators leaned on Leicestershire’s momentum and slightly tighter phase profiles, and their powerplay with Nick Kelly’s 50 (44) and Rishi Patel’s 38 (28) briefly matched that script. But the reality was a familiar T20 truth: a strong start only counts if it becomes a par-plus total. Lancashire’s control in the middle overs meant 156 never stretched them, and their chase didn’t require the high-risk finish that can bring an in-form side back into it.
LELeicestershire
147/8
YOYorkshire
135/10
SUSussex
179/10
LELeicestershire
180/6
LALancashire
145/9
LELeicestershire
146/8
LELeicestershire
145/10
DEDerbyshire
230/5
DUDurham
150/4
LELeicestershire
148/8
LELeicestershire
164/4
WOWorcestershire
188/9
LELeicestershire
185/10
YOYorkshire
188/8
WOWorcestershire
176/4
LELeicestershire
173/6
LELeicestershire
173/4
NONorthamptonshire
171/7
NONottinghamshire
189/9
LELeicestershire
188/2
LE4
LA6
LALancashire
145/9
LELeicestershire
146/8
LALancashire
145/7
LELeicestershire
149/5
LELeicestershire
137/9
LALancashire
162/10
LALancashire
105/2
LELeicestershire
99/10
LELeicestershire
135/10
LALancashire
139/3
LALancashire
172/8
LELeicestershire
156/5
LALancashire
132/5
LELeicestershire
154/5
LALancashire
143/5
LELeicestershire
142/9
LALancashire
190/5
LELeicestershire
194/5
LELeicestershire
146/2
LALancashire
142/10
DUDurham
128/2
LALancashire
130/3
LALancashire
201/8
GLGlamorgan
202/8
YOYorkshire
213/7
LALancashire
107/10
LALancashire
145/9
LELeicestershire
146/8
LALancashire
208/4
NONottinghamshire
172/9
SUSurrey
213/6
LALancashire
154/10
LALancashire
159/10
SOSomerset
182/7
LALancashire
156/7
KEKent
153/10
NONottinghamshire
127/6
LALancashire
126/10
YOYorkshire
153/10
LALancashire
174/10
NOR
8
8-0
32
HAM
8
6-2
24
NOT
9
6-3
24
YOR
9
5-3
22
SUR
8
5-3
20
GLO
8
5-3
20
GLA
8
5-3
20
ESS
9
5-4
20
WOR
9
5-4
20
KEN
9
4-5
16
LAN
9
4-5
16
DUR
8
3-5
12
WAR
9
3-6
12
SOM
8
3-5
12
LEI
8
3-5
12
DER
8
2-5
10
SUS
9
2-7
8
MID
8
1-7
4
NOR
8
8
0
—
+2.142
32
HAM
8
6
2
—
+0.594
24
NOT
9
6
3
—
+0.199
24
YOR
9
5
3
—
+0.750
22
SUR
8
5
3
—
+0.734
20
GLO
8
5
3
—
+0.526
20
GLA
8
5
3
—
+0.467
20
ESS
9
5
4
—
+0.149
20
WOR
9
5
4
—
-0.043
20
KEN
9
4
5
—
-0.418
16
LAN
9
4
5
—
-0.605
16
DUR
8
3
5
—
+0.396
12
WAR
9
3
6
—
+0.209
12
SOM
8
3
5
—
-0.563
12
LEI
8
3
5
—
-1.344
12
DER
8
2
5
—
+0.446
10
SUS
9
2
7
—
-1.487
8
MID
8
1
7
—
-2.002
4
NORWWWWW
HAMWWWWL
NOTWWWWW
YORWLLDW
SURLWLWW
GLOWWWLL
GLAWLWWW
ESSWWLLW
WORLLLWW
KENLLLWL
LANLWWWL
DURLLLWL
WARLWWWL
SOMLLLWL
LEIWWWLL
DERWLLDL
SUSLWLLL
MIDLLLLL
