Journal of the Operational Research Society

, Volume 62, Issue 11, pp 1931–1940 | Cite as

An analysis of strategy in the first three innings in test cricket: declaration and the follow-on

General Paper

Abstract

This paper analyses declaration and the follow-on decisions in test cricket. We model the match outcome given the end of first, second and third innings positions; data on 391 test matches, from the period 1997 to 2007, are used to fit the models. We then investigate how declaration strategy should vary from innings to innings, and how the nature and strength of the covariate effects vary. As the match progresses, the explanatory power of the covariates increases (from 44% at the end of the first innings to 80% at the end of the third). Home advantage and the effects of team strengths decrease. Overs-remaining, or equivalently overs used, and the number of runs by which the reference team lead their opponents remain important throughout. The follow-on decision problem is also briefly considered, and surprisingly, we find that the decision to enforce the follow-on or otherwise has no effect on match outcome.

Keywords

cricket multinomial logistic regression strategy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to two referees for their comments; these helped to improve the paper. We would also like to thank Dr Xin Shi who collected some of the data that we analyse.

References

  1. Brooks RD, Faff RW and Sokulsky D (2002). An ordered response model of test cricket performance. Appl Econ 34: 2353–2365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Clarke SR (1998). Test statistics. In: Bennett R (ed). Statistics in Sport. Arnold: London, pp 83–103.Google Scholar
  3. Clarke SR and Norman JM (2003). Dynamic programming in cricket: Choosing a night watchman. J Opl Res Soc 54: 838–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dobson S and Goddard J (2003). Persistence in sequences of football match results: A Monte Carlo analysis. Eur J Opl Res 148: 247–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. ESPNcricinfo (2010). Test match archives. http://www.stats.cricinfo.com/ci/content/records/307847.html, accessed 10 July 2010.
  6. ICC (2010). Reliance Mobile Test Championship. http://icc-cricket.yahoo.net/match_zone/team_ranking.php, accessed 30 March 2010.
  7. Koning RH (2000). Balance in competition in Dutch soccer. Statistician 49: 419–431.Google Scholar
  8. McCullagh P and Nelder JA (1989). Generalized Linear Models. Chapman & Hall: London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. MCC (2010). The laws of cricket. http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/, accessed 01 February 2010.
  10. Nagelkerke NJD (1991). A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika 78: 691–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Preston I and Thomas J (2000). Batting strategy in limited overs cricket. Statistician 49: 95–106.Google Scholar
  12. Sakamoto Y, Ishiguro M and Kitigawa G (1986). Akaike Information Criterion Statistics. KTK Publishing House: Tokyo.Google Scholar
  13. Scarf PA and Shi X (2005). Modelling match outcomes and decision support for setting a final innings target in test cricket. IMA J Mngt Math 16: 161–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Scarf PA, Shi X and Akhtar S (2011). The distribution of runs scored and batting strategy in test cricket. J Roy Stat Soc 174: 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Operational Research Society 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SalfordSalfordUK

Personalised recommendations