Using 2008-2009 data, we identify winning input combinations for the game of cricket in two different formats: 50-over one-day internationals and 20-over games from Twenty20 internationals and the Indian Premier League. We find that attacking batting and bowling are the best determinants of the winning probability in both formats in an international setting despite their 30-over difference. Interestingly, attacking batting and defensive bowling are the optimal input combinations in the league version of the 20-over format. Finally, we speculate about their implications for the future of cricket, especially for the popularity of formats, choices of players, and player development.
AllsoppP. E.ClarkeS. R. (2004). Rating teams and analysing outcomes in one-day and test cricket. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A, 167, 657–667.
2.
AxfordB.HugginsR. (2011). Cricket for people who don’t like cricket?: Twenty20 as expression of the cultural and media zeitgeist. Sport in Society: Cultures, Commerce, Media and Politics, 14, 1326–1339.
3.
BairamE. I.HowellsJ. M.TurnerG. M. (1990a). Production functions in cricket: The Australian and New Zealand experience. Applied Economics, 22, 871–879.
4.
BairamE. I.HowellsJ. M.TurnerG. M. (1990b). Production functions and the strategy implications for cricket in New Zealand. Sporting Traditions: The Australian Society for Sports History, 6, 202–217.
5.
BhaskarV. (2009). Rational adversaries? Evidence from randomized trial in one day cricket. The Economic Journal, 119, 1–23.
6.
BrooksR. D.FaffR. W.SokulskyD. (2002). An ordered response model of test cricket performance. Applied Economics, 34, 2353–2365.
7.
ClarkeS. R. (1988). Dynamic programming in one-day cricket-optimal scoring rates. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 39, 331–337.
8.
ClarkeS. R.AllsoppP. (2001). Fair measures of performance: The world cup of cricket. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 52, 471–479.
9.
DawsonP.MorleyB.PatonD.ThomasD. (2009). To bat or not to bat: An examination of match outcomes in day-night limited overs cricket. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 60, 1786–1793.
10.
de SilvaB. M.SwartzT. B. (1997). Winning the coin toss and the home team advantage in one-day international cricket matches. The New Zealand Statistician, 32, 16–22.
KarnikA. (2010). Valuing cricketers using hedonic price models. Journal of Sports Economics, 11, 456–469.
15.
KitchinP. (2008). The development of limited overs cricket: London’s loss of power. London Journal of Tourism, Sport and Creative Industries, 2, 70–75.
16.
LemmerH. H. (2011). The single match approach to strike rate adjustments in batting performance measures in cricket. Journal of Sport Science and Medicine, 10, 630–634.
17.
MorleyB.ThomasD. (2005). An investigation of home advantage and other factors affecting outcomes in English one-day cricket matches. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23, 261–268.
18.
PrestonI.ThomasJ. (2000). Batting strategy in limited overs cricket. The Statistician, 49, 95–106.
RumfordC. (2011a). Guest editor’s introduction: Twenty20 and the future of cricket. Sport in Society: Cultures, Commerce, Media and Politics, 14, 1311–1315.
21.
RumfordC. (2011b). Twenty20, global disembedding and the rise of the ‘portfolio player’. Sport in Society: Cultures, Commerce, Media and Politics, 14, 1358–1368.
22.
SaikiaH.BhattacharjeeD.BhattacharjeeA. (2012). Is IPL responsible for cricketer’s performance in twenty20 world cup?International Journal of Sports Science and Engineering, 6, 96–110.
23.
SchofieldJ. A. (1988). Production functions in sports industry: An empirical analysis of professional cricket. Applied Economics, 20, 177–193.
24.
SwartzT. B.GillP. S.BeaudoinD.deSilvaB. M. (2006). Optimal batting orders in one-day cricket. Computers & Operations Research, 33, 1939–1950.
