Are strategies for success different in test cricket and one-day internationals? Evidence from England-Australia rivalry1

IF 0.6 Q4 HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM
Nafisa Lohawala, M. A. Rahman
{"title":"Are strategies for success different in test cricket and one-day internationals? Evidence from England-Australia rivalry1","authors":"Nafisa Lohawala, M. A. Rahman","doi":"10.3233/JSA-180191","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The paper utilizes the entire cricketing data between England and Australia – Test and one-day international (ODI) matches played between 1877-2015 and 1971-2015, respectively – to provide an econometric perspective on the EnglandAustralia rivalry. We employ the production function approach of Schofield (1988) and model Test match outcomes (loss, draw or win) using an ordinal probit model and ODI outcomes (loss or win) using a binary probit model. The results show that input measures critical to winning are different for the two formats and consequently a team should adopt different strategies in Test and ODI matches. We further show that influences which are perceived as important to match outcomes, including electing to bat first after winning the toss and effect of weather conditions, do not have any statistical support. However, there is strong evidence that England is at a disadvantage while playing a Test match in Australia. Besides, we find that home bias as typically defined in the literature may not necessarily indicate favoritism by umpires. The estimated models fit well and correctly predict about 70% of Test match outcomes and 95% of ODI outcomes.","PeriodicalId":53203,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sports Analytics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2018-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3233/JSA-180191","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Sports Analytics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/JSA-180191","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

The paper utilizes the entire cricketing data between England and Australia – Test and one-day international (ODI) matches played between 1877-2015 and 1971-2015, respectively – to provide an econometric perspective on the EnglandAustralia rivalry. We employ the production function approach of Schofield (1988) and model Test match outcomes (loss, draw or win) using an ordinal probit model and ODI outcomes (loss or win) using a binary probit model. The results show that input measures critical to winning are different for the two formats and consequently a team should adopt different strategies in Test and ODI matches. We further show that influences which are perceived as important to match outcomes, including electing to bat first after winning the toss and effect of weather conditions, do not have any statistical support. However, there is strong evidence that England is at a disadvantage while playing a Test match in Australia. Besides, we find that home bias as typically defined in the literature may not necessarily indicate favoritism by umpires. The estimated models fit well and correctly predict about 70% of Test match outcomes and 95% of ODI outcomes.
在板球测试和一日国际比赛中,成功的策略不同吗?英国和澳大利亚之间的竞争就是证据
本文利用了英格兰和澳大利亚之间的整个板球数据-分别在1877-2015和1971-2015之间进行的测试和一天的国际(ODI)比赛-为英格兰和澳大利亚的竞争提供了计量经济学视角。我们采用Schofield(1988)的生产函数方法,并使用有序概率模型来模拟测试匹配结果(输、平或赢),使用二元概率模型来模拟ODI结果(输或赢)。结果表明,对于两种格式来说,对获胜至关重要的输入措施是不同的,因此一个团队应该在测试和ODI比赛中采用不同的策略。我们进一步表明,被认为对匹配结果很重要的影响,包括在赢得投掷和天气条件的影响后选择先击球,没有任何统计支持。然而,有强有力的证据表明,英格兰队在澳大利亚参加测试赛时处于不利地位。此外,我们发现在文献中通常定义的主场偏见可能并不一定表明裁判的偏袒。估计的模型拟合良好,并正确预测了大约70%的测试比赛结果和95%的ODI结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
9.10%
发文量
16
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信