Journal of the Operational Research Society (2005) 56, 804–815 r 2005 Operational Research Society Ltd.

td. All rights reserved. 0160-5682/05 $30.00

www.palgrave-journals.com/jors

Towards fairer measures of player performance

in one-day cricket
AJ Lewis*
Oxford Brookes University, UK
Traditionally, evaluation of individual player performances in one-day cricket has been based on measures such as
batting and bowling averages, and strike and economy rates. It is recognized, within the game of cricket, that such
measures have severe limitations in assessing the true performances and abilities of players. Whenever a player’s
performance statistics are quoted, there is nearly always some verbal qualification that is necessary in order to place the
statistics into context. Such comments include the stage of an innings a player usually bats or bowls, as this significantly
affects a player’s opportunity for scoring runs or taking wickets. Further, traditional measures do not allow the
comparison of the skills of batting and bowling as they are based on incompatible scales. This paper uses the well-
established Duckworth/Lewis methodology to create alternative measures of player performance. These measures, it is
argued, have the potential to reflect better the performances of players having regard for the stages of innings that runs
are scored or conceded and wickets taken or lost. The proposed measures could impact in evaluating player
performance for a particular match, a series of matches, or in the longer term over players’ careers. Further, the
methodology enables an objective measure to be created that compares and combines the performances of batsmen and
bowlers and of a player’s all-round ability. Data from international matches are used to illustrate the methodology and
how it compares with existing measures.
Journal of the Operational Research Society (2005) 56, 804–815. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601876
Published online 10 November 2004

Keywords: sports statistics; cricket; modelling

Introduction To illustrate the issues to be addressed in this paper, the

The game of cricket is a sporting statistician’s dream. Over
the decades, summary statistics have been produced and
published in many sporting chronicles, the most famous of
which1 is known as ‘Wisden’. This publication, among many
facts and figures, produces summary statistics, such as the
number of runs, wickets and catches in the season just past,
for players achieving first-class status. It is widely recog-
nized, however, that such statistics only tell part of the story
of a player’s performance. One-day cricket is particularly
prone to distortions in the value of players’ contributions.
This is because of its shorter duration compared with
traditional cricket and because the nature of the game
requires that the good of the team be placed ahead of
individual performance.
It will be assumed in this paper that the reader is familiar
with the game of cricket and its terminology. A brief
explanation is provided in Duckworth and Lewis.2 More
extensive explanations can be seen in Engels1 and on the
Internet. (http://www.cricket.org/link_to_database/SOCIE
TIES/ENG/ACS/CRICKET_HISTORY/LAWS/index.html
accessed 20 July 2004.)
*Correspondence: AJ Lewis, The Business School, Oxford Brookes
University, Wheatley, Oxford OX33 1HX, UK.
E-mail: ajlewis@brookes.ac.uk
current bowling measure of economy rate uses the runs
conceded per over delivered (which consists of six balls). The
bowling average uses runs conceded per wicket taken. But
these measures make no allowance for the stage of the
innings that balls are delivered, wickets are taken or of runs
that are conceded. Whether a wicket is taken with the first or
last ball of the innings is not taken into account. Similarly,
the stage of the innings at which runs are earned and
conceded is not taken into consideration. Similar comments
apply to the batting measures of performance such as strike
rate and batting average.
The second Victoria Bitter (VB) Series final on 25 January
2003 between Australia and England, a typical example of a
one-day international (ODI) of 50 overs per side, will be
used to illustrate some of the issues. The scorecard for this
match can be seen in Engels1 and on the Internet. (http://
uk.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/2002-03/OD_
TOURNEYS/VBS/SCORECARDS/AUS_ENG_VBS_OD
I-FINAL2_25JAN2003.html accessed 20 July 2004.) Some
selected details, and figures relevant to later discussion, are
provided in Table 1. In this match, Hayden scored 69 runs in
91 balls, which is a strike rate of 75.82 per hundred balls.
Hogg scored 71 runs in 77 balls and was not out. His strike
rate was 92.20. (Note that cricketing measures of perfor-
mance are traditionally rounded down to two decimal
places.) Hayden’s innings lasted for 40 overs and three balls
 AJ Lewis—Player performance in one-day cricket 805

Table 1 Australia’s innings—batting measures

Batsman Runs Out? Balls faced Strike rate Net batting contribution Batting resources Batting resource average

Hogg 71 0 77 92.20 þ 16.90 23.4 3.03

Hayden 69 1 91 75.82 þ 21.39 20.6 3.34
Gilchrist 26 1 32 81.25 þ 0.99 10.8 2.40
Lee 18 1 17 105.88 þ 2.70 6.6 2.72
Martyn 11 1 14 78.57 10.45 9.3 1.18
Bichel 11 0 10 110.00 þ 0.81 4.4 2.50
Bevan 10 0 21 47.61 þ 2.78 3.1 3.22
Symonds 8 1 29 27.58 16.95 10.8 0.74
Ponting 1 1 8 12.50 16.78 7.7 0.12
Warne 0 1 1 0.00 7.38 3.2 0.00
Williams 0 0
Byes & Leg Byes 3
Wides & No balls 1

Totals 229 7 6.0 99.9

(written as 40.3) of the 50 overs. Hogg batted during the last
21.3 overs, received the very last ball of the 50 overs and did
not lose his wicket. Of the two batsmen who has performed
the better? Based on runs for their wicket and strike rate,
Hogg comes out on top. But this ranking ignores the stage of
the innings that the runs were scored. Hayden was one of the
opening batsmen and needed to ensure that wickets were not
given away cheaply at the beginning of the innings thereby
avoiding pressure on the later batsmen. On the other hand,
Hogg had the ‘luxury’ of knowing that, particularly in the
last few overs, he could take inordinate risks to boost the
Australian total, which became 229.
It can be argued that although Hayden’s two measures of
performance (strike rate and runs scored per wicket lost)
were below those of Hogg, in fact Hayden’s performance is
the more meritorious having regard for the relative match
circumstances of their two performances.
Such issues as these are seen as shortcomings in the
traditional performance measures in evaluating the worth of
a player’s contribution to his team’s results.
The Duckworth/Lewis (D/L) methodology2,3 provides the
ability to compile mechanisms that evaluate a player’s
performance in relation to runs expected for the stage of the
innings and in relation to the resources that are consumed
when batting, or contributed when bowling. In order to use
the D/L methodology more detailed information is required
than is supplied by a standard summary scorecard as
published in Engels;1 the details on the outcome of every ball
that is bowled are required. This detail is now becoming
available initially through verbal summaries such as is seen
for the ODI previously cited. (http://uk.cricinfo.com/link_
to_database/ARCHIVE/2002-03/OD_TOURNEYS/VBS/S
CORECARDS/AUS_ENG_VBS_ODI-FINAL2_25JAN
2003_BBB-COMMS.html accessed 20 July 2004.) More
recently these details, in electronic form, are now becoming
available through commercial companies such as Champion
Data (Australia) and the Press Association (Sports) in the
United Kingdom.
Use of ball-by-ball information
Ball-by-ball information can be utilized in two ways through
the D/L methodology. One way, as first outlined by the
author in 2003,4 is to assess the contribution in terms of the
net runs gained by batsmen, and in terms of net runs
conceded by bowlers. More extensive details of this
procedure are provided below. This utilization captures the
zero-sum nature of the game of cricket. This measure will
also provide the mechanism by which performances by
batsmen and bowlers can be compared or combined, a
characteristic absent from existing measures of performance.
A second way of using D/L methodology, as previously
outlined by the author,4 is to assess runs earned or conceded
in relation to the resources consumed by batsmen or
contributed by bowlers. By coincidence, Swartz and
Beaudoin5 presented their outline of a very similar procedure
to that of the author at the same conference in 2003 and
upon which they subsequently expanded in Beaudoin and
Swartz.6
These separate measures are expected to provide a
counter to the criticisms of the standard performance
measures of batting and bowling performance of averages,
and strike and economy rates. These proposed measures will
recognize that, in the later stages of an innings in particular,
the resources consumed or contributed by the loss of a
wicket are small and that the number of runs earned or
conceded are adjusted in relative importance for the stage of
the innings. They will recognize, also, that to concede no
runs off the final ball is equivalently meritorious to taking a
wicket; there is no credit earned or lost for a ‘sacrificed’
wicket off the last ball.
806 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 56, No. 7
Net contribution of batsmen and bowlers
7 scoring is less than a run a ball, a single run will make a
Johnston et al proposed a player evaluation mechanism
using Clarke’s dynamic programming model in one-day
cricket.8 There has been no subsequent development of these
proposals. The proposal in this paper, which expands
considerably on the author’s earlier outline,4 is that the
Duckworth/Lewis model2,3 can be used to evaluate the
contribution a player makes compared with that expected
for the stage of the innings the contribution is made.
The Duckworth/Lewis (D/L) average runs model
The D/L model of one-day cricket2,3 is
Zðu; wÞ ¼ Zo FðwÞf1  exp½bu=FðwÞg
In this model, Z(u,w) represents the average further runs
obtained in the u remaining overs when w wickets have been
lost, where Zo and b are positive constants. F(w) is a positive
decreasing step function with F(0) ¼ 1. This function is
interpreted as the proportion of runs that are scored with w
wickets lost compared with that with no wickets lost and,
hypothetically, infinitely many overs available. That is
F(w) ¼ limu-NZ(u, w)/Z(u,0). As subsequent discussion will
focus on the ball-by-ball contribution of players then, since
there are six balls in every over, writing i ¼ 6u, (0pip300)
will represent the ith remaining ball of the innings.
At any stage of an innings, the worth of a player’s
contribution per ball can be evaluated using (1). If there are i
balls remaining and w wickets have been lost then the
expected runs, ri, from the next ball will be either
ri ¼ Zði; wÞ  Zði  1; wÞ
or
ri ¼ Zði; wÞ  Zði  1; w þ 1Þ
depending, respectively, on whether the batsman survives the
ball or loses his wicket.
When i is not much less than 300, which is the standard
length of an ODI innings, and w ¼ 0, then (2a) will be small
and (2b) will be large. These relative orders of magnitude
reflect the high value of dismissing a top-order batsman early
in an innings. Conversely as i approaches zero (2a) will be
relatively large and (2b) will be relatively small provided w is
not approaching 9, which is the situation when the last men
are then at the wicket.
If the batsman scores si runs from that ball then, using
(2a) and (2b), his net contribution ci, for that ball, is either
ci ¼ si  fZði; wÞ  Zði  1; wÞg
or
ci ¼ si  fZði; wÞ  Zði  1; w þ 1Þg
depending on whether or not the batsman survives that ball.
Early in a team’s innings, because expectation of run
positive contribution. But towards the end of an innings,
with wickets in hand, a single run will result in a negative
contribution as more than a run a ball is then expected from
the model in (1).
At first sight, the bowler’s contribution to the team effort
would seem to be able to be evaluated as the negative of the
batsman’s net contribution since cricket is a zero-sum game.
However, because ‘extras’ are treated unequally between
batsman and bowler, there needs to be a slight adjustment to
the contributions of both players in order that the total net
contributions of completed innings is indeed zero.
There are several forms of extras. The bye and leg bye
ð1Þ count neither for the batsman nor against the bowler yet are
aggregated with other runs to form the total for the team.
The wide ball and no ball are debited against the bowler,
added to the batting side’s score but not credited to the
batsman facing at the time. It is possible that a batsman also
scores runs at a no ball but not at a wide ball. Such balls do
not count in the total of number of balls bowled in the
innings to date. Consequently, the ball is bowled again until
it is legitimate during which time several runs may be added
to the team total and to the batsmen’s individual totals. In
the following analysis, the expected runs contribution by the
batsmen is zero for the wide and no ball. Similarly the
expected number of runs conceded by the bowler is zero for
such deliveries. The corresponding expectations of batsmen
and bowlers are applicable only at the delivery that makes
the ball legitimate.
ð2aÞ Adjusting for extras
Let ei be the number of extras conceded by the ith ball
remaining (1pip300). Of these, let gi be the combined
ð2bÞ number of byes and leg byes and hi be the combined number
of wides and no balls. Thus, ei ¼ gi þ hi and the team’s total
is S ¼ Ssi þ Sei ¼ Ssi þ Sgi þ Shi, the summations being over
all 300 balls of the innings. For an average ODI, the total
score of Team 1 is Z(50,0) ¼ 235. (http://www.cricinfo.com/
db/ABOUT_CRICKET/RAIN_RULES/DUCKWORTH_
LEWIS_2002.html accessed 29 January 2004.) If S4Z(50, 0)
then the batting team have exceeded expectations from the
D/L model and conversely if SoZ(50,0). If there were Sei
extras in a particular innings then the batsmen have
performed above average if the sum of the batsmen’s
contributions exceeds Z(50,0)Sei. Thus, the contributions
of batsmen, adjusted for the effect of extras, for the ith ball
P
remaining are achieved from ci ¼ siri {Z(50,0) ei}/
P
ð3aÞ Z(50, 0). Since the average of the total runs, ri, is
P
Z(50, 0) it is easily seen that ci ¼ SZ(50,0).
In the main, the net contribution for the bowler is the
ð3bÞ negative of that for the batsman facing the same ball, except
that extras weigh more heavily against bowlers. The extras
not counting against the bowler, in a particular innings, are

represented by Sgi. Thus, the net contribution by a bowler
on any ball, adjusted for the effect of extras, is represented
P
by ci ¼ ri fZð50; 0Þ  gi g=Zð50; 0Þ  ðsi þ hi Þ. It is again
easily seen that the total of the net contributions of
the bowlers over the 300 balls of the innings is
P P P
ci ¼ Zð50; 0Þ  S. Consequently, ci þ ci ¼ 0 so
that, after allowance for the different treatment of extras
between batsmen and bowlers, the zero-sum nature of the
game is captured.
If an innings is not completed, because the team batting
second has won the match within their 300 balls, then
P P
ci þ ci may differ slightly from zero. This discrepancy
is ignored in subsequent discussion but the effect on
conclusions is likely to be negligible.
Average runs for resources consumed and resources
contributed
The D/L methodology2,3 converts the Z(u, w) in (1) into the
proportion of the average total in 50 overs, Z(50,0) to
produce
Pðu; wÞ ¼ Zðu; wÞ=Zð50; 0Þ ð4Þ
This function is tabulated in percentages and used for
target resetting purposes. (http://www.cricket.org/link_
to_database/NATIONAL/ICC/RULES/ODI_PLAYING_
CONDITIONS_D-L_METHOD.pdf accessed 20 July
2004.) The function is interpreted as the percentage of
resources (relative to those for a 50-over innings) that a team
has remaining for the u overs it has left when w wickets have
been lost.
Again writing i ¼ 6u, the consumption of resource, pi, for
the ith ball remaining is represented by either
pi ¼ Pði; wÞ  Pði  1; wÞ ð5aÞ
or
pi ¼ Pði; wÞ  Pði  1; w þ 1Þ ð5bÞ
depending, respectively, on whether or not the batsman
survives that ball.
Comments that were made previously in relation to the
effects of extras on net contributions are relevant, in a
similar way, in the discussion of resource percentages.
Resources are not consumed by the batsman nor contributed
by the bowler for a no ball or a wide but these forms of
extras are debited against the bowler. Runs made by the
batsman off the no ball are credited to the batsman and
debited against the bowler.
Measure of resource utilization
For any ball i, the batsman scores si runs and consumes pi
resources. His average run contribution, per unit of resource
consumed, to the team’s total (shortened later to [batting]
AJ Lewis—Player performance in one-day cricket 807
P P
resource average) can be assessed by si/ pi where the
sums are over the number of balls that the batsman faced.
The bowlers’ performances are evaluated using the total of
the runs, no balls and wides that are conceded. A bowler’s
average run contribution per unit of resource contributed
(shortened later to [bowling] resource average) is measured
P P
by (si þ hi)/ pi where the sums are over the number of
balls the bowler has bowled.
For the batsman the higher the resource average the better
the performance. For the bowler the lower the resource
average the better the performance.
Beaudoin and Swartz5,6 use the D/L methodology in the
same way but multiply the two ratios obtained by 100 and
call the results ‘runs per match’ (RM). They interpret their
RM measures as the average performance of the batsman or
bowler if he were to do all of the team’s batting or bowling
himself. A batting RM above 235 would indicate a batting
performance above average whereas, for a bowler, a RM
below 235 would represent an above average performance.
Comparing and combining batting and bowling
performance measures
Traditional measures of performance of batting and bowling
are incompatible. These offer no objective way to evaluate
the worth of, say, a batsman scoring 100 runs against the
worth of a bowler taking, say, four or five wickets for not
very many runs in an innings. Similarly, over a series of
matches comparing a batting average of, say, 55 with a
bowling average of, say, 20 cannot be undertaken objec-
tively. Further, these traditional measures offer no way of
aggregating a player’s performance in batting and bowling
either for an individual match, over a series of matches, or
even over a player’s career.
Net contributions
The net batting and bowling contributions, proposed in this
paper, have a common ratio scale on which better
performances of both are represented by larger values. This
enables batting and bowling performances to be compared
directly and objectively. Further, they provide a simple and
objective way of combining a player’s performances in
batting and bowling to produce a measure of all-round
performance. A simple addition is all that is necessary.
Resource averages and runs per match
The author’s two resource averages and the corresponding
RM measures of Beaudoin and Swartz do not assist in being
able to compare batsmen with bowlers objectively since good
performances occur at opposite ends of the scale. Beaudoin
and Swartz6 suggest, however, that their two RM measures
could be used together to evaluate ‘all round’ performance.
808 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 56, No. 7
In their concluding comments, they suggest that subtracting
the bowling RM from the batting RM provides a measure of
all-round performance. The greater the difference, they
suggest, the better the player as an all-rounder. This
difference is interpreted as the average magnitude of victory,
in runs, for the player’s team had he been the only batsman
and the only bowler.
It is questionable whether the scale so produced is a valid
interval scale and the measure depends heavily on whether
or not the player is deemed, or purports to be, an all-
rounder. A batsman who does no bowling would almost
certainly have a measure exceeding an all-rounder as there
would be nothing to subtract. This is seen as a serious
problem with this suggested measure of a player’s all-round
ability in batting and bowling.
Illustrations of the performance measures
Illustrations of how the proposed measures of performance
operate will take two forms. One is an illustration of how
they operate in a single match; the VB Series final of 25th
January 2003. This will also highlight issues of the judgement
of players’ performances in awards made by officials for
performances in this match.
The second set of illustrations will be an overview of these
performance measures over the whole of the VB Series of
matches for 2002/03. (http://uk.cricinfo.com/link_to_data-
base/ARCHIVE/2002-03/OD_TOURNEYS/VBS/SCORE
CARDS accessed 20 July 2004.) in order to assess the
viability of the measures in the more medium term.
VB series final, 25 January 2003, Sydney
Tables 1 and 2 summarize several measures of performance
of the Australian team from this match. The standard
measures are provided on the left with the D/L measures
proposed in this paper on the right.
Since only one innings is considered the usual batting
average (total runs divided by total number of dismissals)
cannot be captured; only the total runs. In Table 1, Hogg,
Table 2
Bowler Runs Wkts Average
Lee 30 5 6.00
Warne 58 2 29.00
Hogg 41 1 41.00
Williams 46 1 46.00
Bichel 42 0 —
run out 1 þ 3.50
Byes & leg byes 7
Totals 224 10
who did not lose his wicket, scored more runs than Hayden
did for his dismissal. Hogg’s strike rate (92.20) is somewhat
higher than Hayden’s (75.82). On these measures, Hogg is
ranked as having performed better than Hayden. When the
stage of the innings is taken into account, via the D/L
methodology, Hayden is ranked ahead of Hogg. Hayden’s
net contribution is þ 21.39 runs compared with Hogg’s
þ 16.90. Using the batting resource average Hayden has
contributed 3.34 runs per unit of resource consumed but
Hogg contributed 3.03. (The corresponding RM measures
would be 334 and 303, respectively.)
It will be noted that Bevan made a modest contribution of
only 10 runs. But his batting resource average is almost as
high as Hayden’s. Bevan was not dismissed, having retired
hurt in this match, thereby not consuming resources for the
loss of his wicket. However, his net batting contribution of
þ 2.78 places his small contribution into the right perspec-
tive and places him lower down the rankings of player
batting performance. This example suggests that the net
batting contribution is less susceptible to distortion through
small volumes of input than is the case for the batting
resource average and corresponding RM measure.
Table 2 illustrates some of the issues concerning bowling
performance measures. If a batsman is run out then he is
debited with the loss of the wicket and the corresponding
resource consumption. But the bowler is not credited with
the wicket nor its resource contribution. Table 2 includes
these items for the purposes of accounting for the number of
wickets lost and associated resources.
It will be noted that, in Table 1, Australia’s total of 229
was six runs below the average of Z(50,0) ¼ 235. The total
net contributions of the batsmen correspond to this slight
underachievement to the average, by six runs.
Similarly, in Table 2, England’s total of 224 was 11 runs
below the 235 ODI average, consequently the combined net
contributions of Australia’s bowlers was a positive 11.
The various bowling performance measures show con-
sistency in this match and there is unlikely to be any dispute
in their message; Lee’s performance is assessed as being the
best by all the measures. Below this, however, it will be noted
that Warne had a better average and strike rate than Hogg.
England’s innings—bowling measures
Balls Strike Net bowling Bowling Bowling resource
bowled rate contribution resources average
57 11.4 þ 35.28 28.6 1.04
60 30 8.87 21.5 2.69
60 60 3.35 16.5 2.48
60 60 þ 0.64 20.5 2.24
60 — 16.16 11.3 3.71
1.5
11.0 99.9
 AJ Lewis—Player performance in one-day cricket 809

But according to the D/L measures, Hogg’s performance is contribution is not only the best of the column but also is
rated better than Warne’s, reflecting the notion that bowling better than any net batting contribution. This quantitative
economy, and not just wickets, is an important factor in evidence supports the decision of the adjudicators in this
bowling performance. match to award the ‘man of the match’ to Lee. Although the
Williams has an inferior bowling average to that of Hogg match scorecard shows that four of his five wickets were the
but, by the D/L measures, Williams’ performance has been ‘cheaper’ lower order batsmen, which slightly devalues his
rated as the superior one reflecting the stage of the innings bowling average, he was instrumental in turning around a
when Williams conceded his runs and took his wicket match that England looked very likely to win. No doubt the
compared with Hogg. adjudicator was influenced not only by his superior bowling
Bichel would not normally be ranked as he took no average, as in Table 2, but also, subjectively, by Lee’s
wickets but by his net contribution and resource average, his significant effect on the outcome of the match.
performance can be placed in context with his fellow It will also be noted, from Table 3, that in addition to his
bowlers, albeit as the lowest-ranking performance. bowling Lee made a small positive contribution when
batting that added to his overall positive contribution to
the match. The evidence from the analysis, summarized in
Combined analysis Table 3, supports the judgement that awarded Lee the man-
As indicated previously, the traditional measures of perfor- of-the-match accolade. Table 3 also illustrates, however, that
mance cannot be used to compare or combine the separate Caddick’s bowling performance (despite a slight negative
performances for batting and bowling. The net contribu- contribution for his batting) resulted in a strong total
tions, however, possess these qualities so that overall contribution in the match for England. In quantitative
performance in a particular match can be assessed objec- terms, the award to Lee of the man-of-the-match was not
tively. This is an important characteristic as nearly every quite so clear-cut as it might have seemed.
match has a ‘man-of-the-match’ award. In major tourna- The measure of total net contribution as an indicator of
ments usually a media personality makes the judgement for all-round performance would be a potentially valuable aid to
this award. The net contribution would be a valuable the adjudicator in determining the man-of-the-match award.
measure to assist in this decision. Table 3 provides the
summary of net batting, bowling and match contributions of
the players from Australia (Aus) and England (Eng) that Assessment of the D/L performance measures in the
took part. medium term
Looking first, in Table 3, at just the net batting and In order to observe how the measures of performance
bowling contributions it can be seen that Lee’s bowling proposed in this paper would apply over more than one
match, the complete VB series of 2002–03, which contained
Table 3 Net player contributions, Aus v Eng, 14 matches, will be used for the purposes of evaluation. This
25 January 2003
series was a ‘round robin’ competition between Australia,
Net batting Net bowling Match England and Sri Lanka (SriL) that resulted in a best-of-three
Name Country contribution contribution contribution set of final matches between England and Australia. After 14
Lee Aus þ 2.70 þ 35.28 þ 37.98 matches, several of the traditional performance measures
Caddick Eng 2.00 þ 31.20 þ 29.20 can be compared more meaningfully with the measures
Hayden Aus þ 21.39 0 þ 21.39 proposed in this paper and by Beaudoin and Swartz. In
Stewart Eng þ 19.91 0 þ 19.91 addition, the combined contribution measure can be used to
Vaughan Eng þ 24.35 8.49 þ 15.86 evaluate the appropriateness of the ‘player-of-the-tourna-
Hogg Aus þ 16.90 3.35 þ 13.55
Collingwood Eng þ 4.27 0 þ 4.27 ment’ award. Squads for each team contained up to 18
Irani Eng 12.54 þ 16.33 þ 3.79 players so that some 54 players took part in at least one
Bevan Aus þ 2.78 0 þ 2.78 match. For brevity, only the top 20–22 players for each
Gilchrist Aus þ 0.99 0 þ 0.99 measure will be presented in order to discuss the relative
Williams Aus 0 þ 0.64 þ 0.64
merits of the measures.
Hussain Eng 1.06 0 1.06
Blackwell Eng 3.50 0.98 4.48
Flintoff Eng +1.87 8.23 6.36
Martyn Aus 10.45 0 10.45 Batting performance measures
Bichel Aus +0.81 16.16 15.35
Warne Aus 7.38 8.87 16.25 Table 4 provides the traditional batting averages for the
Ponting Aus 16.78 0 16.78 series. It will be noted that, based on total runs to times out,
Symonds Aus 16.95 0 16.95 Clarke has been placed at the head of the table, as his
Trescothick Eng 17.00 0 17.00 average was ‘infinite’. He was not dismissed in his one
Knight Eng 20.41 0 20.41
innings of 36 runs. Traditionally he, and several other
810 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 56, No. 7

Table 4 VB series 2002–03 batting averages Table 5 VB series 2002–03 net batting contributions
Player Country Runs Innings Times out Average Rank Net Batting
Net contribution average
Clarke Aus 36 1 0 — — Player Country contribution rank rank
Nissanka SriL 12 1 0 — —
Lehmann Aus 202 4 2 101.00 1 Hayden Aus 152.76 1 3
Hogg Aus 89 3 1 89.00 2 Collingwood Eng 121.05 2 8
Hayden Aus 458 9 7 65.42 3 Jayasuriya SriL 116.65 3 6
Bevan Aus 221 7 4 55.25 4 Gilchrist Aus 105.25 4 11
Samaraweera SriL 55 2 1 55.00 5 White Eng 62.29 5 14
Jayasuriya SriL 359 7 7 51.28 6 Lehmann Aus 46.28 6 1
Knight Eng 461 10 9 51.22 7 Ponting Aus 43.14 7 12
Collingwood Eng 289 8 6 48.16 8 Trescothick Eng 37.58 8 20
Martyn Aus 276 8 6 46.00 9 Knight Eng 36.18 9 7
Gunawardene SriL 45 1 1 45.00 10 Bichel Aus 23.22 10 15
Gilchrist Aus 310 8 7 44.28 11 Sangakkara SriL 20.49 11 17
Ponting Aus 306 8 7 43.71 12 Jayawardene SriL 20.19 12 16
Watson Aus 86 5 2 43.00 13 Martyn Aus 18.04 13 9
White Eng 121 4 3 40.33 14 Watson Aus 17.22 14 13
Bichel Aus 39 2 1 39.00 15 Atapattu SriL 16.35 15 18
Jayawardene SriL 261 8 7 37.28 16 Vaughan Eng 14.24 16 19
Sangakkara SriL 234 8 7 33.42 17 Nissanka SriL 8.75 17 —*
Atapattu SriL 265 8 8 33.12 18 Clarke Aus 7.97 18 —*
Vaughan Eng 130 4 4 32.50 19 Samaraweera SriL 7.72 19 5
Trescothick Eng 316 10 10 31.60 20 Hogg Aus 7.46 20 2
Maher Aus 94 4 3 31.33 21
*These players were not dismissed and so do not qualify for a standard
Hussain Eng 278 10 10 27.80 22
batting average.

players in a similar situation such as Nissanka, would be
excluded from the head of the table and placed below all
players who have a finite average. Since these players had
not been dismissed, they did not qualify for inclusion in the
rankings. This is clearly a deficiency of the standard batting
average. And even when a player has qualified through at
least one dismissal, the batting average exhibits weakness as
a valid measure of performance. In Table 4, Lehmann and
Hogg head the list for the standard batting average largely
because in two of their innings they were not out; their ‘true’
average performance has clearly been distorted. Several of
the other players’ rankings are also distorted by the low
frequency of dismissals for the number of times they batted.
Bichel, for example, averages 39 from two innings but only
one dismissal.
Net batting contribution
Table 5 provides rankings based on net batting contribution.
This measure enables the performances of Clarke, Nissanka
and others, legitimately and objectively, to be included for
ranking purposes. With this measure, Lehman falls down the
rankings as the effect of being ‘not out’ is reduced. Similarly
for Hogg; who descends to 20th place after the reduction of
the effect of only having been dismissed once in his three
innings.
Conversely, several recognised batsmen who were quite
low in the rankings in Table 4 have been promoted using the
net batting contribution measure. Hayden becomes top and
Collingwood, Jayasuriya, and Gilchrist are promoted to the
next three positions. Similarly other more recognized bats-
men, such as Jayasuriya and Ponting have their perfor-
mances more highly rated than through the simple batting
average.
This measure is accounting more fairly for all of a
batsman’s innings and putting much less weight on whether
or not the batsman loses his wicket, which is the outcome
from only one ball. It is also making allowance for the stage
of the innings that batsmen score their runs. Since the D/L
model (1) expects more runs per ball towards the end of the
overs available when there are wickets in hand then net
contributions from the final overs, colloquially called the
‘slog’ overs, are lower. For example Bevan, who was fourth
in the batting averages of this tournament and, in January
2004, was ranked fifth in the PriceWaterhouseCoopers
ratings (http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/STATS/RATINGS/PW
CODIINDIV.html accessed 20 July 2004), scores many of
his runs towards the end of the innings and is frequently not
out. Under the net contribution measure, the value of a
wicket, in terms of loss of run-scoring potential, becomes less
and less important as the team’s innings progresses, and
declines to zero right at the end. These aspects of the net
contribution measure are reflected in Bevan slipping from
fourth place to be outside the top twenty batsmen of the
tournament.
Batting resource average
Table 6 summarizes the top 20 players of the VB 2002-03
series using the batting resource average as defined
 AJ Lewis—Player performance in one-day cricket 811

Table 6 VB series 2002–03 batting resource averages

Batting Bat. res Res Batting average Net contribution
Player Country Runs resource avge avge rank rank rank

Nissanka SriL 12 1.5 8.10 1 — 17

Bichel Aus 39 7.0 5.56 2 15 10
White Eng 121 26.8 4.52 3 14 5
Collingwood Eng 289 77.2 3.75 4 8 2
Gilchrist Aus 310 91.6 3.39 5 11 4
Hayden Aus 458 137.4 3.33 6 3 1
Jayasuriya SriL 359 115.5 3.11 7 6 3
Clarke Aus 39 13.7 2.85 8 — 18
Lehmann Aus 202 71.0 2.85 9 1 6
Watson Aus 86 31.2 2.75 10 13 14
Samaraweera SriL 55 21.3 2.58 11 5 19
Ponting Aus 306 118.9 2.57 12 12 7
Trescothick Eng 316 127.2 2.49 13 20 8
Vaughan Eng 130 52.7 2.47 14 19 16
Flintoff Eng 16 6.5 2.46 15 30 23
Hogg Aus 89 36.4 2.45 16 2 20
Gunawardene SriL 45 18.7 2.41 17 10 21
Knight Eng 461 192.8 2.39 18 7 9
Sangakkara SriL 234 99.3 2.36 19 17 11
Martyn Aus 276 118.5 2.33 20 9 13

previously. The corresponding RM measures as defined by Bowling performance measures

Beaudoin and Swartz5,6 would involve the multiplication of
the resource averages values in Table 6 by 100. For
comparative purposes, the same players’ rankings by the
other batting measures are included.
Table 6 clearly shows a strength and a weakness of the
batting resource average (and batting RM measure). A
strength, as with the net contribution measure, is that it
enables players who were not dismissed to be ranked, such as
Nissanka and Clarke. A further strength is that it also places
less weight on not being dismissed as reflected in the slides
down the rankings of Lehman and Hogg and the promo-
tions of the more recognized batsmen such as Collingwood
and Gilchrist.
A weakness in these measures can be identified through
Nissanka’s topping of the rankings and the surprise
elevation of Bichel to second place. One aspect of this
ranking is that these two players’ resource averages are
based on few innings and so, in a similar way to the standard
batting average, cannot be relied upon to be representative.
Further, and importantly, these two players batted late in
their respective innings and in matches where there was no
hope of winning the matches. Runs earned have thus come
from the consumption of very little resource. When most of
the wickets have been lost in an innings and plenty of overs
are in hand the D/L curves (1) and (4) have virtually zero
gradient so that little is contributed to the denominator of
the resource percentage average for the balls received.
This criticism is also relevant to the measure of net
contribution but its effect is less pronounced as the measure
is additive and not a ratio.
The bowlers’ performances will be ranked under the two
measures suggested by the D/L methodology and compared
with the standard bowling averages.
Standard bowling averages
Table 7 provides the standard bowling averages of the VB
Series of 2002-03. Bracken heads the list with an average of
13.50 runs conceded per wicket taken. Behind him are
several of the more regular bowlers in Muralitheran, Lee and
Caddick. Bracken’s low average comes partly from his
playing in only two games. In one of these, he took three
wickets for 21 runs in a low-scoring innings. His top-place
ranking has therefore come about from one very good
performance in his small total input to the tournament. This
illustrates, again, how measures using averages are prone to
distortions when based on small volumes of data. The
regular bowlers Lee and Caddick played in nine matches
each. Consequently, the effects of outstanding, or poor,
single performances are smoothed over the larger number of
games. This means that bowling averages provide a mean-
ingful measure of performance only for bowlers whose input
has been substantial. Bowlers with low volume input cannot
fairly be compared and ranked through the standard
bowling average.
Table 8 summarizes all the performance measures of the
top 20 bowlers, as ranked by the net bowling contribution
measure proposed in this paper. The final three columns
show the rankings of these players under the three
812 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 56, No. 7

mechanisms. It will be seen that there is some agreement but oppositions’ innings and so consisted of many ‘tail-end’
also significant variations that deserve comment. batsmen not possessing the batting expertise of the higher-
order batsmen. Further, his performance in the final

The Australian bowler Lee is not ranked in the top three match of the series, as outlined previously, gave him a
by any of the three measures—yet he received the ‘Player- high profile towards the end of the tournament that may
of-the-Series’ award. Analysis of the score sheets, on the have coloured the objective judgement of the award’s
pages of the Internet previously cited, shows that many of adjudicators.
his 18 wickets were taken towards the end of the
Bracken’s first ranking by the standard bowling average is
mirrored by being placed in the same position, and by a
clear margin, using the bowling resource average (and the
Table 7 VB 2002–03 series, standard aggregate bowling corresponding RM measure). As both of these measures
averages are based on averages, the small volume of input with one
Player Country Runs/wkts Avge Rank outstanding performance in only two games is arguably
having a distorting effect on the ratios, whereas the
Bracken Aus 54/4 13.50 1 averages of most other bowler are based on several more
Muralitheran SriL 107/7 15.28 2
Lehmann Aus 83/5 16.60 3 matches. The net bowling contribution measure, with its
Lee Aus 338/18 18.77 4 additive structure places less weight on that one out-
Clarke Aus 24/1 24.00 5 standing performance and ranks him second, by a clear
Caddick Eng 324/13 24.92 6 margin, behind Caddick.
Williams Aus 178/7 25.42 7
The England bowler Caddick was ranked sixth under the
Watson Aus 262/10 26.20 8
FernandoCRD SriL 355/13 27.30 9 standard bowling average but ranked first using net
Blackwell Eng 303/11 27.54 10 bowling contribution. As the opening bowler, his wickets
Warne Aus 167/6 27.83 11 include many of the higher order batsmen who have
Hogg Aus 341/12 28.41 12 greater run scoring potential and whose dismissal attracts
Collingwood Eng 57/2 28.50 13 greater merit than the dismissal of the less skillful lower-
Anderson Eng 373/13 28.69 14
Lakshitha SriL 65/2 32.50 15 order batsmen. This contributes to his top ranking.
Bichel Aus 230/7 32.85 16
Under the standard bowling average Mubarak and
Vaughan Eng 67/2 33.50 17 Jayawardene do not qualify for a finite average, as they
Nissanka SriL 174/5 34.80 18 did not take any wickets, yet their performances can be
Jayasuriya SriL 300/8 37.50 19 evaluated, and ranked, by using the two D/L-based
de Silva SriL 197/5 39.40 20
measures.

Table 8 VB series 2002–03 summary of bowling performance measures and rankings

Std bowl Net bowl Bowl Bowl res Std avge Res avge Net cont
Player Country Run/wkts avge cont. res avge rank rank rank

Caddick Eng 324/13 24.92 54.27 165.6 1.95 6 4 1

Bracken Aus 54/4 13.50 48.29 44.1 1.22 1 1 2
Muralitheran SriL 107/7 15.28 47.56 69.1 1.54 2 2 3
Lee Aus 338/18 18.77 41.94 166.4 2.03 4 6 4
Blackwell Eng 303/11 27.54 37.25 149 2.03 10 7 5
Williams Aus 178/7 25.42 29.77 90.9 1.95 7 5 6
Lehmann Aus 83/5 16.60 29.34 48.8 1.70 3 3 7
Bichel Aus 230/7 32.85 22.68 110.8 2.07 16 8 8
Watson Aus 262/10 26.20 6.65 117.7 2.22 8 9 9
Warne Aus 167/6 27.83 3.78 74.5 2.24 11 10 10
Jayawardene SriL 8/0 —* 0.40 3.2 2.47 34 15 11
Vaughan Eng 67/2 33.50 0.89 28.7 2.33 17 11 12
Clarke Aus 24/1 24.00 2.17 9.4 2.56 5 18 13
Mubarak SriL 29/0 —* 2.97 11.1 2.61 34 19 14
Martyn Aus 96/1 96.00 6.88 39.0 2.46 30 12 15
Flintoff Eng 56/1 56.00 8.23 20.6 2.72 26 21 16
Symonds Aus 82/1 82.00 8.32 32.6 2.51 28 17 17
Collingwood Eng 57/2 28.50 10.11 20.7 2.75 13 22 18
White Eng 162/3 54.00 11.26 65.8 2.46 25 13 19
Lakshitha SriL 65/2 32.50 13.11 23.0 2.83 15 24 20
*See footnote of Table 5.
 AJ Lewis—Player performance in one-day cricket 813

Combined performance measure
As outlined in relation to the VB Series final, net
contribution can compare performances between batting
and bowling and evaluate performances in the combination
of these two facets of the game. Table 9 provides the batting
and bowling net contributions, and their totals, for the top
20 players over the whole of the 14 matches of the VB Series
2002-03.
Table 9 provides information to assist in making
judgements concerning players’ performances over the whole
of the VB Series. It must be stressed that just the batting and
bowling performances are included in this analysis. Other
aspects of players’ games such as wicket keeping, fielding
and catching are not accounted for and are more difficult to
quantify. As a consequence, in assessing overall player
performances an adjudicator needs to make subjective
allowance for these further aspects of the game, such as
the number of catches taken, runs saved or run-outs effected.
Nevertheless, it would seem that the Australian bowler Lee’s
nomination as the ‘Player of the Series’ ignored the strong
contributions made by many other players in the series.
From Tables 5 and 8, straight comparisons of the batting
and bowling contributions places Lee well behind others.
Looking at Table 9, which summarizes candidate players’
batting and bowling contributions and their total, Lee is
ranked 14th. His total net contribution of þ 33.99 is well
below those of countrymen Hayden and Gilchrist, below
Englishman Collingwood and below Sri Lankan Jayasuriya.
The Australian player Lehman was the highest ranked
player who made positive net contributions in both batting
and bowling. It could be argued, therefore, that he could be
regarded as the best all round player in the tournament.
The resource average measures and the RM measures of
Beaudoin and Swartz5,6 do not have the ability to compare
batsmen and bowlers on the same scale of measurement.
Beaudoin and Swartz indicate that the difference of the RM
measures of an individual who has batted and bowled in the
match would provide an indicator of the best ‘all round’
performer in the match. This difference is interpreted as the
runs the player scored or conceded if they undertook all of
the batting and bowling, respectively, for the team; the
higher the figure the better the all-round performance.
Table 10 summarizes the RM measures of appropriate
players that utilize information in Tables 6 and 8.
Several comparisons of interest can be made between
Tables 9 and 10. First is the exclusion from Table 10 of any
player, such as Hayden, Gilchrist and Bracken who have not
contributed in both batting and bowling; the latter through
not having batted in any of his matches for his country. If
Table 10 were used to assist adjudicators of Player-of-the-
Series awards then there is an automatic bias against
batsmen who do not bowl and towards bowlers, most of
whom will have batted in the series of necessity.
Table 10 shows Nissanka and Bichel heading the list. Both
of these players took only a small part in the tournament so
that their RM measures are distorted for this and for other
reasons outlined previously. Consequently, their top rank-
ings need to be viewed with considerable caution. Through
the total net contribution of Table 9, however, these two
players have their more limited contributions placed into
context in the whole VB series of 14 matches; Nissanka is
not ranked in the top 20 and Bichel is placed 10th overall.
A further issue in relation to the RM difference is whether
it is a valid interval scale for the measure of all-round

Table 9 Net contributions for batting, bowling and their total

Player Country Batting contribution Bowling contribution Total net contribution Rank

Hayden Aus 152.76 0.00 152.76 1

Collingwood Eng 121.05 10.11 110.94 2
Gilchrist Aus 105.25 0.00 105.25 3
Jayasuriya SriL 116.65 19.47 97.18 4
Lehmann Aus 46.28 29.34 75.62 5
Caddick Eng 1.73 54.27 56.00 6
White Eng 62.29 11.26 51.03 7
Bracken Aus 0.00 48.29 48.29 8
Muralitheran SriL 0.31 47.56 47.87 9
Bichel Aus 23.22 22.68 45.90 10
Ponting Aus 43.14 0.00 43.14 11
Trescothick Eng 37.58 0.00 37.58 12
Knight Eng 36.18 0.00 36.18 13
Lee Aus 7.95 41.94 33.99 14
Williams Aus 0.00 29.77 29.77 15
Watson Aus 17.22 6.65 23.87 16
Sangakkara SriL 20.49 0.00 20.49 17
Jayawardene SriL 20.19 0.40 19.79 18
Atapattu SriL 16.35 0.00 16.35 19
Vaughan Eng 14.24 0.89 13.35 20
814 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 56, No. 7

Table 10 Beaudoin and Swartz6 all-rounder rankings for VB 2002–03 series

Batting Batting Bowling Bowling RM RM all-rounder
Player Country RM RM rank RM RM rank difference rank

Nissanka SriL 809.71 1 292.96 25 516.75 1

Bichel Aus 555.63 2 207.60 8 348.03 2
White Eng 451.62 3 246.20 13 205.42 3
Lehmann Aus 284.70 9 170.02 3 114.68 4
Collingwood Eng 374.53 4 275.44 22 99.09 5
Muralitheran SriL 229.18 22 154.94 2 74.24 6
Watson Aus 275.27 10 222.55 9 52.72 7
Jayasuriya SriL 310.73 7 279.14 23 31.59 8
Caddick Eng 226.31 23 195.70 4 30.61 9
Clarke Aus 285.42 8 256.16 18 29.26 10
Vaughan Eng 246.65 14 233.18 11 13.47 11
Hogg Aus 244.80 16 246.40 14 1.60 12
Martyn Aus 232.83 20 246.07 12 13.24 13
Jayawardene SriL 230.98 21 247.52 15 16.54 14
Lee Aus 183.62 33 203.16 6 19.54 15
Flintoff Eng 245.85 15 272.02 21 26.17 16
Blackwell Eng 155.39 37 203.34 7 47.95 17
Warne Aus 176.00 36 224.12 10 48.12 18
Harmison Eng 210.18 29 293.22 27 83.04 19
de Silva SriL 176.93 35 297.99 28 121.06 20

performance. Consider Caddick and Clarke in Table 10.
Their RM differences are approximately equal at around 30.
Caddick’s figure is the difference of a slightly below average
batting RM of 226.31 and a better than average bowling
RM of 195.70. Both these are relative to the 235 average
runs scored in ODIs. Clark has a better batting performance
than Caddick, but a much worse bowling performance yet
they end up with approximately the same RM difference and
hence adjacent rankings.
In Table 9, Caddick is ranked very highly with a total net
contribution of þ 56.00. Clarke, on the other hand, features
outside the top 20 in 22nd place with a net contribution of
þ 5.80. It would be for Beaudoin and Swartz to argue
whether a 30-point difference in RM measures has the same
meaning for whatever two RM batting and bowling
measures gave that difference. This paper argues that
combined net contribution retains the additive ratio-scale
nature of the net batting and bowling contributions and
hence produces a more meaningful and reliable measure of
all-round performance. It also avoids the arbitrary decision
of whether or not the player regards himself as an all-
rounder in batting and bowling.
Summary
The standard measures of batting and bowling average are
simple to calculate and have been used to assess player
performances over many years. In the one-day form of
cricket, they provide some indication of a player’s abilities in
batting and bowling, for a particular match, for a series, and
even throughout their careers. These measures, however, are
insufficient in that they do not take into account the context
in which runs are made or conceded and wickets are taken or
given away. Compared with the longer version of the game,
there are more occasions in which the performance of the
individual needs to take second place to the strategy for the
team in its objective in trying to win the match. Further,
these batting and bowling averages are incompatible for the
purposes of comparing performances in the two disciplines
and combining them in order to assess all-round perfor-
mance.
The methodology of measures proposed in this paper
is based on the Duckworth/Lewis model and the D/L
resource percentages that are used for resetting targets in
one-day cricket. It requires data on the outcome of every ball
of a match. Although this is available in verbal form on
the Internet (http://www.cricket.org/link_to_database/
ARCHIVE/ accessed 29 January 2004), the data’s avail-
ability commercially in electronic form has enabled sub-
stantial analysis to be undertaken. Using several matches
over a series, players’ performances can be more reliably
evaluated taking into account the context in which runs and
wickets are earned or conceded. The measures of net batting
and bowling contribution have the considerable virtue of
being in the same units and hence they provide a common
and additive scale of measurement for the comparison and
aggregation of batting and bowling performances.
A further measure of performance evaluation using the D/
L methodology is the resource average. This is the average of
runs earned or conceded per unit of resource consumed by
batsmen or contributed by bowlers. This measure, equiva-
lent to the runs per match measure of Beaudoin and
Swartz,5,6 may well have considerable virtue in the longer

term where the ratios are not based on small divisors. But, as
has been shown through the examples, they are not as
reliable measures of comparing performances in batting and
bowling in individual matches or in a short series as the net
contribution measures. Further, the resource averages (and
the corresponding RM measures) do not enable objective
comparison to be made of batting and bowling perfor-
mances, and the use of the difference of a player’s batting
and bowling RMs as a measure of ‘all-round’ performance is
questionable.
Further developments
Net contribution shows potential for the more reliable
assessment of player performances in batting and bowling,
and in comparing performances between these two dis-
ciplines. In addition, it provides a valuable measure in
assessing players’ all-round ability in batting and bowling.
This potential has been shown not just for an individual
match but also for a series of matches. Further evaluation of
this potential is necessary on how the measure would
perform in the longer term if the methodology were to be
incorporated into or to supplant the existing standard and
commercial measures of performance and rankings. For this
to be achieved, several more series of matches need to be
analysed and across more countries in order for there to be a
greater pool of data to assess how the measures will reflect
and rank these attributes of cricketers.
The resource averages have been shown to have more
limited reliability over a few matches. But, over more
matches, reliability of resource averages (and their equiva-
lent in RMs) in assessing just batting and bowling
performance is likely to increase. Again analysis of more
matches will confirm this expectation or otherwise.
The availability of ball-by-ball data is an essential element
in undertaking the extensive analysis of this methodology.
For the longer term, this would need to be organized
through suitable sports data-collection organizations. A
further necessity is the development of software that will
process this ball-by-ball data accurately and quickly. This is
AJ Lewis—Player performance in one-day cricket 815
regarded as essential so that the summary statistics and
player rankings can be produced in a timely manner
following the conclusion of the many one-day matches that
are now played regularly around the world.
Acknowledgements—The author would like to acknowledge, with
thanks, the assistance received in preparing this paper. In particular
thanks are due to his colleague Frank Duckworth for valuable
comments on the draft manuscript. Further thanks are expressed also
for the comments of the anonymous referees that have led to
improvements in the presentation of the paper. Finally, additional
thanks are due to Champion Data (Australia) and the Press
Association (Sports) for the provision, in electronic form, of the
ball-by-ball details of matches that have been absolutely essential for
undertaking the analysis summarized in this paper.
References
1 Engels M (ed) (2004). Wisden Cricketers’ Almanack. John Wisden
& Co. Ltd.: Hampshire.
2 Duckworth FC and Lewis AJ (2004). A successful operational
research intervention in one-day cricket. J Opl Res Soc 55:
749–759.
3 Duckworth FC and Lewis AJ (1998). A fair method for resetting
the target in interrupted one-day cricket matches. J Opl Res Soc
29: 220–227.
4 Lewis T (2003). Towards fairer cricketing averages. In:
Bulletin of the International Statistical Institute, Contributed
Papers, Volume LX, Book 1. International Statistical Unit:
Voorburg, The Netherlands, pp 722–723.
5 Swartz T and Beaudoin D (2003). The best batsmen and bowlers
in one-day cricket. In: Bulletin of the International Statistical
Institute, Contributed Papers, Volume LX, Book 2. International
Statistical Unit: Voorburg, The Netherlands, pp 499–500.
6 Beaudoin D and Swartz TB (2003). The best batsmen and
bowlers in one-day cricket. South African Statist J 37:
203–222.
7 Johnston MI, Clarke SR and Noble D (1993). Assessing player
performance in one-day cricket using dynamic programming.
Asia Pac J Op Res 10: 45–55.
8 Clarke SR (1988). Dynamic programming in one-day cricket:
optimal scoring rates. J Opl Res Soc 39: 331–337.
Received January 2004;
accepted July 2004 after one revision