Projectthesisof Bs

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/320273397
BEST PLAYER OF THE TEST CRICKET IN LAST YEARS 2014
Thesis · December 2015

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28691.37929
CITATIONS READS
0 889
2 authors:
Fayaz Ahmad Muhammad Zada

International Islamic University, Islamabad International Islamic University, Islamabad
6 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION 3 PUBLICATIONS 8 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Fayaz Ahmad on 08 October 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Best player of the test cricket in last year 2014
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1 ................................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 2
1.1 ICC Cricket Teams and Players Ranking System: ................................................................... 4
1.2 Rating and Ranking in Test Matches: ....................................................................................... 4
1.3 Statment of the problem: ........................................................................................................... 5
1.4 Objective: .................................................................................................................................. 6
CHAPTER 2 .................................................................................................................................. 7
LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................... 7
LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................... 8
METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 10
METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 11
(3.1) data collection tool: .............................................................................................................. 11
(4.1) Study design: ........................................................................................................................ 12
(4.2) Logistic regression: .............................................................................................................. 12
(4.4.2) Nominal Multinomial logistic regression:......................................................................... 13
(4.5)measuring batting, bowling, and fialding contribution: ........................................................ 14
(4.6) Actual Probability: ............................................................................................................... 14
(4.7) Hypothetical probability:...................................................................................................... 15
(4.8) Differences between the actual probability and hypothetical probability: ........................... 15
(4.9) Player individual contribution: ............................................................................................. 16
ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................... 18
ANALYSIS: .................................................................................................................................. 19
(5.1) Measures of individual players contributions: ..................................................................... 19
Table no:1 First match between Australia and south africa .......................................................... 19
Table no:2 Second match between Austrilia and south africa .................................................... 20
Table no:3 Third match between Austrilia and south Africa ........................................................ 21
Table no:4 Combine table of three matches or series .................................................................. 22
Table no:5 First match between australia and india.................................................................... 24
Table no:6 Second match between Australia and India .......................................................... 25
Table no:7 Third and last match between aus & INd ................................................................ 26
Table no:8 Combine ranking on three matches between Australia and India .............................. 27
Table no:9 Table of top three players ........................................................................................... 28
CHAPTWR 5 ................................................................................................................................ 29
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 29
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 30
References ..................................................................................................................................... 33
i
ABSTACT
Traditionally, the ICC (international cricket consile) measure the player individual
performances in test cricket is totally based on bowling and batting averages, with economy and
strike rate. There are clearly mention some disadvantages in this system and also having some
weakness.This traditionally system fail to take into account the all performances of player such
as in battingconceded runsin bowling given away weckts and espicially not cinsider the fielding
and keepingcontributions. For further more analysis of players performances the averages of
bowling and battingdo not sufficient for ranking and comparison of player and teams.Keeping in
mind the above limitation Akhter etal (2014)develop one new rating and rinkingsystemwhich
apply intestcricket. In our thesis we used this new rating system to analyize the two test series in
2013 to 2014 first between Australia and South Africa in February to March(2013). The second
series have been played in between Austria and India in December (2014). In rankingof these
two series the MG Johnson leading on top position, NM Lyon on second and SPD Smith is on
third position in the ranking.
ii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1
INTRODUCTION
Rating and ranking play very important role in sports. The rating and the ranking are two
measures of scale. Ranking is made on the basis of ratings. A major difference betweem rating
and ranking is that― a rating is a numerical ordersof teams and players on basis of their
contributions. On the other hand the ranking is a position of teams or players based on their
rating[1].The individual of team or player rating and ranking system is similarly treated to
analyzed [2].
Stefani (2011) reviewed recently rating system and mention that there are three basic
types of rating and ranking systems [1]. The first one is objective,which used the result to
estimate the stringths of competitors. Once we estimate the stringth then we directly provide
rating and ranking to teams and players[3].The rating and ranking system are gerenally based on
the combination of the obective and subjectiv systems,the result depend on objective component,
and giving order to measure the estimated result involving other factors,the importance of match,
series, or tournament is based on subjective component[4]. The world famous sports
organizations have their rating and ranking systems. Through their rating and ranking systems
they find out the best playerina match, a series, a league or a calendar year. e,g in football the
Federation of International football(FIFA) and Tennis the Association of Tennis
Professionals(ATP) similarly in cricket the International Cricket Council (ICC) etc.
In our study we focus on the rating and ranking systems of players in test cricket. The
game of cricket is popular sport in all over the world for a long time.It is one of the team game
which is played in many countries,almost over fifty countries. In Domistic and international
levels, there are 22 players playing in a single match between two teams both team have 11
players.There an indication that cricket was played firstly in 1550 at Guilford, Surrey, UK [5].
Generally there are three types of cricket, Test, One day, and T20 cricket which are played with
different levels in all over the world. The history of the cricket game has well known history
which started from the 16th century to present day. The first international match has been played
since 1844, and the official history of test cricket began in 1877. The cricket game is started from
its origins in England into a Commonwealth of Nations [6]. Throughout the 20th century test
cricket continued to be the highest standard level of sport.
2
The five days session by session test cricket was announced in 1939.It was the first time
in 1960s, Firstly the English nation’s teams played one innings of both teams to take maximum
over’s and set the target maximum as possible. The knockout system began in 1963, and limited
over’s start in 1969. Then they started the national league because in county tournaments
decreasing the number of matches. There are so many cricket fans like the shorter form of cricket
game. In limited-over cricket have advantage to provide the result to audiences within a day. The
first limited over international (one day) match was played at Melbourne Cricket Groundin 1971.
The limited-over internationals (LOIs or ODIs—one-day internationals) game become an
extremely popular especially for busy people who want to watch the entire match. For the
purpose of the development International Cricket Council (ICC) for improvement in cricket
game to organize the first Cricket Wold Cup at England in 1975. All the tests playing teams are
participating.
The Twenty 20 cricket, which is some time we can write T20 in abbreviated form . The
T20 is a very short form of cricket. It was first time introduced by the Wales Cricket Board
(ECB) at England 2003 inter-county competition. In a Twenty 20 game both team have a single
inning to play, which is limited to 20 over’s. Usual one Twenty 20 game is take time about three
and half hours, for each team having around about 75 to 90 minutes to complete has innings and
a10 to 20-minute break has been taken in between the two innings. The T20 is much shorter from
of cricket as compare to previously existing form (ODI & test cricket). The first official Twenty
20 match was played between English countries in 13 June 2003 Twenty 20 Cup [7]. While The
first Twenty 20 international cricket match was played between England and Australia Rose
Bowl, Hampshire on 13 June 2005, historical win by England having a margin of 100 runs, a
record victory until 2007 [8].
Rating and ranking are necessary for the teams to show their authority over each
other.The number one team in ranking based on highest points.The sports ratings are
performed for the purpose of imposing the authiraty of team and player on each
others.For this purpose, International Cricket Council (ICC) give the ranks to cricket
teams, players using an ad-hoc points system which is totally based on averages of
players and teams win lost ratios.
3
1.1 ICC CRICKET TEAMS AND PLAYERS RANKING SYSTEM:
International Cricket Council (ICC) is currently using the Reliance teams and players
ranking systems. The current sponsor of the ranking systems is Reliance Mobile, which has
signed a deal with the ICC that will last until 2015[9].That’s why it is called the ICC Reliance
which was developed at the suggestion of Ted Dexter in 1987.Initially, this rankings system were
developed only for the test cricket. The rankings for one day internationalwere introduced in
1998. Both types of rankings have now been calculated back to the start of those forms of the
game. These rankings systems the top 10 Test, ODI and T20I batsmen, bowlers and all-rounders
based on there performances.
The Reliance ICC rankings system is the classy moving average.The players are rated in a
scale of 0 to 1000 points. For example, if the players showing good performance,than his points
increase, and if the player performance is declining, than his points will go down. To calculate
the value of players performance within a match to be using an algorithm series (all pre-
programmed) based on various aspects in the match[5].All of the calculations of players
performances are to be find out using pre-programmed formula, to be using the information
published during in a test match scorecard. There is no human intervention in this calculation
process, and no subjective assessment is made.The International Cricket Council(ICC) employs
ratings formulas for the Test,One day,T20 cricket leagues to determine a champion.
1.2 RATING AND RANKING IN TEST MATCHES:

A single test cricket match has played in five days with each day broken into three
sessions designed as lunch, tea break and end of the day. There are total fifteen sessions in a test
match and each session has 30 overs, total 90 overs per day to play. Each team has two innigs to
pay.
According to the Reliance ICC ranking system, they give one point to a team for winning
a match after a series between two teams and adding a half-point to both teams for drawing a
match. They assign a bonus point to the team that won the series and give a half-point to each
team if the result of the series is draw.In beginning of the series when the ranking gap is less 40
points than we multiply the team's series result by 50 points more than the opponent's rating then,
give that total to the opponent's series result multiplied by 50 points less than the opponent's
rating. Multiply the stronger team's series result by 10 points more than their own rating (if the
4
ratings gap was equal to or more than 40 points), then add that total to the opponent's series
result multiplied by 90 points less than the team's own rating. The weaker team multiplies its
series result by 90 points more than their own rating, and then adds that total to the opponent's
series result multiplied by 10 points less than the team's rating. Then, they give the new point’s
totals to the team's points total before the series began and remove points from matches that no
longer fall within the past three years.
Update the number of matches by adding one more than the number of games in a series.
For example, if a series lasted for two matches, you would add three matches to the total.Then
they divide the total updated points by the total updated match. By this way represents the team's
rating, and comparisons of ratings as will as the team's ranking[10].
1.3 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM:

The traditionally, the ranking of every sports are directly based on win, loss or tie ratios.
Thereare some subjective rating for cricket, such as, the International Cricket Council(ICC) are
based on many ad-hoc rules according to [11]. So the present ranking system is badly ranking
system. They do not take account all the the performances of the players.
As a statistician’s point of view, every sports modeling is great oppertunity to model, the
finite outcomes of the match in limited ball in one over. Through these outcome we collect the
data and analyize the model for the result of the match. Besides, a great amount of data has been
collected on the cricket matches which is used for the analysis of different predictions in cricket.
Now the traditional measures of rating performance of players issuffer from serious drawbacks,
thus calling us for the new ideas. So in our study, we focus on measurment of the rating and
ranking of players in test cricket. We come to a new idea which is totally related with the rating
and ranking system of the players in test cricket. The multinomial logistic regression is used to
model match outcome probabilities session by session.Then we use these probabilities result to
measure the overall contribution of players to priduct the match outcome based on their
individual batting, bowling and fielding contributions during each session of the match. Through
the individual batting, bowling and fielding contribution, we then find out best player of the
session, of the day, of the match, of the series and of the year.
The signifficance of our work is that, our measure of players contribution has the
significance for rating of players overtime and to find out the ‘best’ playerina match, a series or a
calendar year.We reivew the companion paper Akhtar 2014Rating players in test
5
cricket[12].Webelieve that the measurepropose of thisprojectandthecompanionpaper Rating

players in test cricket of Akhtar take into account what is really important in winning a match or
to find out best player of the test match or a calendar year [12]. To do so, we use the methods of
Akhtar, use session by session probabilites and player contrubutions, logistic regression which
are statistical approaches, which has been published in Journal of the Operational Research
Society 2014,in the context of resetting targets in interruption (INSHA ALLAH).
1.4 OBJECTIVE:
a) To provide a new rating system based player’s performances session by session and find
out best player of the last year 2014.
b) To review the literature and existing approaches of rating and ranking in the analysis of
test cricket.
c) To review International Cricket Council (ICC) ranking system.
d) To analyse player performance session by session in a test cricket match.
e) To find out player’s contribution to words wins and draws.
6
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
7
LITERATURE REVIEW
In this chapter we discuss the literature review of some significant papers on rating and
ranking in test cricket. Traditionally, estimation of player performance in the game of cricket has
been based on averages of the batting, bowling and strike with economy rates. The present rating
systm have some disadvantages to assess the player performances. They do not consider runs
made or accepted and wickets taken or given away.
Further, more those estimates are insufficient for the purpose of comparing performances
of players in these two disciplines due to an incompatible scale.Keep in mind these issues;Akhtar
2014 developed new rating system for ranking of test cricket players [12]. They used
Multinomial logistic regression models to find outcome probabilities for each session of a test
match. Which are described in the previous chapter. Then they used these probabilities outcome
of the model to estimate the overall contribution of players based upon the individual
contributions batting bowling and fielding in each session of the match.
These measures have the potential to judge the player of the match, the player of the series,
the player of calendar year, and player ratings in general. They compare the measures with the
traditional statistics e.g. Batting averages, bowling strike rate. Part of this work has been
published in Scarf, Akhtar and Rasool, 2011 [13]. Some early development work was carried out
by Rasool, 2011 [13]. The system has some similarities with that developed, by Scarf, McHale,
2005, and McHale, 2010 in the football [14]. In our study we review on this work to explain the
methodology and compares that howthe existing estimates are sufficent, to determine the best
player of the last year 2014.
Importance in measuring of the player’s performance is go back to Johnston [15]. They
analyse player’s performance in one day cricket using dynamic programming. The advantages
of such measures over the currently used statistics are draw as well as their possible use to
choose 'man of the match' reward winners, to rank the best batsmen’s and bowlers and to give
support to selectors of one-day sides. Lewis, 2005 also estimates performance of players in one
day cricket [16]. The writer used Duckworth/Lewis (D/L) procedure to estimate a player‘s
contribution in relative to runs accepted by the stage of the innings. Also in relative to the
possessions that are motivated when bowling and batting contributed. The Duckworth Lewis
method, Duckworth and Lewis, 1998 to 2004, which is applied in limited overs (ODI) matches
8
when rain interrupted [17-18]. The methods are based on the idea of resources. While in their
analysis, resources are based on both teams over’s remaining and wicket remaining resources.
This method was used in many occasions like domestic and international one-day competitions
and contests.
Lewis, 2008 further extends his effort to assess player contribution over longer, terms [19].
Swartz and Beaudoin, 2003, also summarize and presented a very similar process to that of
Lewis [20]. Conversely these methods are related to (ODI) one day international cricket. Lately,
Borooah and Mangan, 2010 projected a new way to compute batting averages to describe the
two shortages [21]. Firstly, analyse of the player‘s career consistency and secondly, measure the
players batting performance relative of their team contribution, to the total. However, basically
these modifications do not judge the effect of a contribution on match outcome result.
There is other published work related to rating and ranking now we are going to discuss all
the related work with our thesis. Newly, Lenten, 2008, examined the concepts of decaling the
occurrence of draws matches in the test cricket during the previous fifteen years [22]. The similar
approach is used by Allsopp and Clark, 2004 [23]. They applied the multinomial logistic
regression to find out that, which factors affect outcomes in test cricket match, (Win, Draw or
Loss), at the final stage when both teams had completed their first innings. Crowe and
Middeldrop, 1996, studied the rates of (LBW) leg before dismissals wicket in Australian, and
others visiting teams for the test cricket series played between 1977 and 1994 in Australia
[24].Than the Ringrose, 2006 examined (LBW) leg before dismissals wickets in test cricket
using generalized linear & mixed regression models [25]. Clarke, 1988, Preston and Thomas,
2000 examined most advantageous batting strategies in (ODI) one day international matches [26-
27]. On the other hand, the test matches are different because in (ODI) one day international
matches there is no idea for playing out the remaining time for a draw result.
9
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
10
METHODOLOGY
In this section we discuss the methodology of work, we used the new rating and ranking
system of Akhtar 2014, in which the rating is based on player’s contribution like as, batting,
bowling and fielding, contributions in session by session of a test match [12]. Note that each
match is containing 5 days and one day is divided into three sessions, has name as morning
afternoon and evening. The length of each session is 2 hour. To find the player performances of
each session having many more advantages.
Firstly, the batting on the first day of the match is quite different from the batting on last
two days; because the pitches are get worse with the time passing. In the later stage of the
batting become more difficult.
Secondly, it gives more values to a player that he scored in pressure situation. For
example if a player A who make scores 50 runs when his team total score is 100 runs and 5
wickets are down and the other one player B who score 50 runs and total score of the team is 100
for 1 wicket down. Then the player A get more value from player B.
This new rating system can give the appropriate value to each wicket, that whether a
wicket down of a standard batsmen or bowler. This rating system we are measuring batting and
bowling and fielding, contributions on same scale. On this new rating system we can easily find
out main of the match or in a series, and also to find the new emerging player in a calendar year,
or the best player in a decide. Through this system we find the frontline, batsmen, bowler and all
_rounder as well as wicket keeper.
Now we using outcome probabilities, session by session of each match to find the effect
of all contribution of each player, runs scored or wickets taken during a session, the greater effect
will depend on the greater value of the performances should be rated first with high points. This
principle of rewarding players and teams is directly depend on contribution of player and teams
respectively.
3.1 DATA COLLECTION TOOL:

Our data were obtained from the EPSN cricinfo web site [5].All the related information
are available on website, including ball by ball commentary, partnerships, ground statistics, and
session by session match summaries. We obtain the data from above website to be used and
11
analyzed is presented in following chapters. The complete dataset of 62 matches relates to all of
the test matches which are not shown in this thesis.
To find out the strength of the team, we use the International Cricket Council’s official ratings
[9]. We calculate the ratings differences (RD) and win percentage differences (W%D).These
win percentages and runs difference will help in further analysis teams.
Through Duckworth/Lewis (D/L) procedure we can change the runs difference into the
wicket resources have been used. And also we convert the wicket down into runs through (D/L)
procedure. The Duckworth / Lewis method, which is applied in rain interrupted situation in
limited over’s matches, is based on used in resources [17-18]. The resources are based on both
teams over’s remaining and wickets at hand. Our opinion of wicket resources is basically the
comparative value of partnerships when it is completed in terms of runs scored.
3.2 STUDY DESIGN:

The structure of our research work as session by session prediction of outcome and the
match described. Then we analyze that how to predict model to determine player contributions.
Then we compare different rating and ranking system to measures of player contribution. The
each match outcomes session by session to be used to predict the player performance and
outcome of match (win loss and draw). Then we predicted these probabilities using a nominal
multinomial logistic regression to fit each session by session data on 62 test matches. Now we
have to explain in detail the concepts of logistic regression.
3.3 LOGISTIC REGRESSION

We used logistic regression for the prediction of our response variable because our
response variable is categorical and more than three. The logistic regression is the form of
generalized linear regression in which the response variable is categorical or dichotomous and
the predictor variables are of any types categorical discreet, or continue. Logistic regression is
useful to predict the probability of a discrete outcomes using set of independent variables. The
Logistic regression is widely applicable in health, sciences, social sciences and sports modeling.
The Logistic regression is analyzes and controls the various factors effect of dichotomous
outcome variable to estimating the probability of the event’s occurrence. It is determines the
relationship between one or more independent variables with the log odds of the dichotomous
12
outcome and to find changes in the log odds of the dependent and independent variables. The log
odds ratio is define the ratio of two odd to measure the summary of the relationship in between
the variables. The log odds ratios provide more sample description of probabilistic relationship
and simple interpretation in logistic regression.
3.3.1 NOMINAL MULTINOMIAL LOGISTIC REGRESSION:

Nominal multinomial logistic regression is simply an extension of binary logistic
regression. It is used when the response variable is nominal (unordered categories) with three or
more than three categories. Nominal multinomial logistic analyses take out using several
individual binary logistic models that are estimated simultaneously. In multinomial logistic
model, each category of the outcome variable is compared to the reference category. If the
outcome variable has N levels then the result is N-1 binary logistic models. Each binary logistic
regression model has its own intercept and regression coefficients (fixed effects).
With the three possible outcomes, we assume that the categories of the response variable
are coded 1, 0, -1. As the outcome variable has three categories, therefore, we need two logit
functions.This model is best fit in equivalent to two binary logistic regression models. The first
for the 1– 0 probability comparison, and the second for the -1– 0 probability comparison.
Nominal multinomial logistic regression then assumes.
( )
* ( ) + ( ) ( )
( ( )) * ( ( )) ( ( )+
( ( )) * ( ( )) ( ( )+
* ( ( )) ( ( )+
Here in above models p1 is the probability of wining, p-1 probability of losing and p0 is
the probability of draw the match.
13
3.4 MEASURING BATTING, BOWLING, AND FIELDING CONTRIBUTION:
In this section we measure the team and player performances which are totally depend on
contribution of teams and players respectively. Through multinomial logistic regression we fit
the model session by session to data on 6 test matches to predict the match outcomes. Data of all
6 matches were obtained from website, ESPN Cricinfo, and we calculate the complete data set of
6 matches in the period July 2013 to 2014 [5].
The multinomial logistic regression is interpreted, Y taking values (1,0,-1) to denote a
win, draw and loss respectively, X is covariates taking a draw (0) as a reference category. The
model of Y is assume to be multinomial distribution that is, Y ~ MN(p1, p0, p-1; Σpi=1), where
p1, p0 and p-1 represent the
Probability of a win, a draw and a loss, with:
( ( )) * ( ( )) ( ( )+
( ( )) * ( ( )) ( ( )+
* ( ( )) ( ( )+
In above models with predictors lead, ground effect and total wickets down for each team
is obtained. Through the above formula’s we can estimate the probability contribution of player
for win loss and draw respectively in session by session for individual player contribution in
each session, innings and finally in whole match
3.5 ACTUAL PROBABILITY:
On the help of the above models we can predict the probability of match outcome like (win, draw
and loss) give the position of at end of each session t (t=1, 2, 3…15). given below
( )
( )
Where PtA indicate the actual probabilities at the end of session t and W1, W2 and lead with
total wicket down of the reference team and total wicket down of opponent team with lead of
reference and opponent team respectively. The reference team bat first in the match. The actual
match position at the end of session t is(L=lt,W1,=w1, t,W2=w2, t).
14
( )
( )
The above formula is calculated the actual probability for the bowlers.
3.6 HYPOTHETICAL PROBABILITY

Next, to determine performance of player performance on session by session, we have to
identify the hypothetical position for batting and bowling. For the batting team, we identify a
hypothetical position at the end of each session t in which batsmen have not scored any runs in
session t, so he not get any points and not progress in match outcome probabilities given the
hypothetical position:
( ) ( )
The hypothetical position for the batting side at the end of session t is (L=lt −
1,W1,=w1,t,W2=w2,t); if the batsman do not score in the session then their lead remain the same
at t − 1, which indicate the lead of previous session t−1.
In the same fashion for this procedure will repeat for bowling side, for bowling we define
a hypothetical position at the end of session t in which bowlers have not taken any wicket in that
session t will remain same the lead of wicket (t-1) of previous session.
( ) ( )
Thus, the hypothetical position for the bowling team in session t is (L=lt, W1=w1, t − 1,
W2=w2, t − 1). In this way, when the bowling team do not take any wickets in the session t then
the wickets down of previous session remains same at wt − 1.
3.7 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE ACTUAL PROBABILITY AND HYPOTHETICAL

PROBABILITY:
Evaluate the significance contribution of players we use the concepts of hypothetical and
actual outcomes probabilities of match. In each session the concepts is different for the measures
of batters and bowlers contribution to the total player’s contribution. Probability procedures
awarded to batter according to his share runs scored in the session. While to a bowler according
15
to his share of wickets taken in the session. The bowling contributions also share to fielders. The
following are the details of the above procedures.
However, matters are not straightforward. This is because we can look at probabilities in
relative to alternate outcomes: winning, drawing or at least one of these, equivalently, or not
losing. Hence, there are two situation to be described that the value of a contribution for winning
or the value of a contribution to not losing. In first situation the batters play for not losing. Some
time if the target is moderate then the batsmen’s play for win and when the target is high then
they play for draw the match. The second situation is for bowlers are that they are play always
for win. The fielder and bowler play for winning the match however the will moderate or very
high but they will always play for win the match. The numerical results considered later in
Section 4 (Figure 1) provide a further justification of these choices of criteria. Alternatively, one
might use an expected ‘points’ gained criterion for both batters and wicket takers that assumes 1
point for a win and 2 points for a draw.
3.8 PLAYER INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTION
To find out the player contribution we use the following formula’s depend on batters play for not
losing and bowlers and fielders are always play for win.
Ct; bat = PtA ({not lose}) – PHt,bat ({not lose}),
Ct; bowl = PtA({win}) – PHt,bowl ({win}).
The value of player individual contribution as:
( )
Where ( ) is the scored of player i in session t and (rt) is the total scored by his team in
session t. For wickets taken, similar procedure is repeated.
Additionally, in this rating system we take account of fielding contribution like, catches,
run-outs and stumping, and awarded each share of the player performances. The wicket taking
contribution has many types like, catches, Lbw, run-outs, stampings etc. So there are j= (1,…, n)
types of wicket taking contribution, each have won share and αj points. Thus, j=1 corresponds to
a wicket taken by the bowler (bowled, lbw, α1=1), j=2 and to a catch taken by a fielder (
α2=0.25) and j=3 corresponds to the bowler contribution in this case (α3=0.75). Some time in
run-out contributions is involved more than one fielder. Stampings are relatively same to catches
procedures. For example player i in session t, the contributions of type j, zitj, can be obtained
16
from the scorecard. If the total number of wickets down in session t is denoting by zt then the
wicket taking point’s award to player i in session t is.
∑ α
Then the sum of contributions from all sessions as:
∑( )
On the base of the above expression we suppose that no change is occurs in a session
therefore no difference is occurs between hypothetical and actual probabilities. While the other
hand we assume that the effect of change within session of the innings is a fundamental session
end. The fundamental session end and outcomes probabilities are estimated by the interpolating
between the probabilities estimated by actual session end. Furthermore we carry the interpolation
in linear way with weight determined by the numbers of over’s with in session in each innings.
The calculation details are skipping here.
When a players did some score in batting and taken wicket in session t then he will got
some points according to his performances and will change the situation of match. Importantly
note that first model match outcome than lead is estimated session by session performance
counted of all performances of each player. Note that the batsmen play for not losing while
fielders and bowlers always play only for winning.
The team which is bowling first like opponents team, the criterion of not losing will be
used to interpret the result bowling performance in each session. Then we will calculate the
probabilities at end of each session of match to estimate the hypothetical position for
comparison. Then we use different criterion for batter not losing and bowler is only for win. So
finally our focus is to produce a rating and ranking system where the total batting and wicket
taking points should be the same of over all time.
17
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS
18
ANALYSIS
4.1 MEASURES OF INDIVIDUAL PLAYERS CONTRIBUTIONS
In this section we compare the batting and wicket taking points of the individual players which is
calculated from the two test cricket series. First one between Australia and South Africa and
second between Australia and India on the help of previous section approaches. The points are
plotted in the following tables, 1 to 9 which is calculated form test matches played on July
2013to end of 2014. We use statistical software’s as a helping tool for data analysis e.g.
MANITAB, SPSS, and MS EXCEL. First we calculate the ratings for 3 match’s series which
have been played between two top class teams of the world Australia and South Africa. We are
consider here only two series later on we analyze it for all matches to find out the main of the
day, of a match, of a series, of a year and to find out new emerging player in cricket.
First match between Australia and South Africa played in centurion match number 2119.
TABLE NO: 1 FIRST MATCH BETWEEN AUSTRALIA AND SOUTH AFRICA
RunsWickets Run outs Catches Fielding Batting Wicket-taking Fielding Total Rank
share (fielding) (fielding) Share Points Points Points Points
Australia
CJLrogers 5 0 0 0 0 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.003 22
AD warner 127 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.188 0.000 0.012 0.200 7
AJ doolan 116 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.190 0.000 0.028 0.218 5
SE marsh 192 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.305 0.000 0.025 0.329 3
MJ Clarke 40 0 0 0.75 0.75 0.063 0.000 0.037 0.100 15
Smith 100 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.141 0.000 0.017 0.158 8
Haddin(+ ) 0 0 0.5 1.25 1.75 0.000 0.000 0.116 0.116 13
Johnson 33 9.25 0 0.25 0.25 0.059 0.550 0.012 0.622 1
Harris 19 1.5 0 0 0 0.030 0.102 0.000 0.132 9
Siddle 2 3 0 0 0 0.003 0.212 0.000 0.214 6
NM Lyon
4 1.75 0.5 0 0.5 0.006 0.085 0.034 0.125 11
South Africa
GC smith* 14 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.019 0.000 0.045 0.064 18
AN petersen 3 0 0 0 0 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.004 21
HM Amla 52 0 0 0 0 0.071 0.000 0.000 0.071 17
Du Plessis 21 0 0 0 0 0.047 0.000 0.000 0.047 20
AB Villiers† 139 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.089 0.000 0.029 0.118 12
JP Duminy 35 0.75 0 0.25 0.25 0.023 0.088 0.017 0.128 10
R McLaren 14 1.5 0 0 0 0.007 0.099 0.000 0.107 14
RJPeterson 31 2.75 0 0.5 0.5 0.010 0.265 0.033 0.308 4
VDPhilander 41 0.75 0 0.25 0.25 0.013 0.047 0.028 0.088 16
DW Steyn 10 4.75 0 0 0 0.005 0.387 0.000 0.393 2
M Morkel 1 0.75 0 0 0 0.000 0.052 0.000 0.052 19
19
First match description:

In the above statistics if we see to column of total points, the maximum point of the player
can lead to top position in all players. Here in the above information the Johnson got the
maximum points (0.622) in all 22 players is leading on top position. Secondly DW Steyn, got the
(0.393) is leading on second position in all 22 players and thirdly Marsh got the total points is
(0.329) leading on third position in ranking.
Second match in between Australia and South Africa played in port Elizabith match no:
2121.
TABLE NO: 2 SECOND MATCH BETWEEN AUSTRALIA AND SOUTH AFRICA
Wicket- Ran
RunsWickets Run outs Catches Fielding Batting taking Fielding Total k
share (fielding) (fielding) share points points points points
South Africa
GC Smith* 9 0 0 0 0 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.006 19
D Elgar 61 0 0 0 0 0.054 0.000 0.000 0.054 11
HM Amla 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 22
F du Plessis 55 0 0 0 0 0.047 0.000 0.000 0.047 12
AB de Villiers† 116 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.059 0.000 0.000 0.059 9
Q de Kock 32 0 0 0 0 0.072 0.000 0.000 0.072 7
JP Duminy 133 0 0 0 0 -0.162 0.000 0.000 -0.162 2
VD Philander 6 1 0 0 0 -0.020 0.000 0.000 -0.020 16
WD Parnell 66 0.75 0 0.25 0.25 0.092 0.000 0.000 0.092 6
DW Steyn 12 1 0 0 0 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.001 21
M Morkel 1 0.75 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 22
Australia
CJL Rogers 17 0 0 0 0 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.004 20
DA Warner 121 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.055 0.000 0.005 0.060 9
AJ Doolan 31 0 0 0.75 0.75 0.006 0.000 0.037 0.044 14
SE Marsh 0 0 0 0.75 0.75 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.025 15
MJ Clarke* 19 0 1 0.25 1.25 0.016 0.000 0.047 0.063 8
NM Lyon 15 0 0 0 0 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.011 17
SPD Smith 53 0 0 0.5 0.75 0.007 0.000 0.037 0.045 12
BJ Haddin† 19 5 0 0 0 0.002 0.290 0.000 0.292 1
MG Johnson 44 3 0 0 0 0.005 0.127 0.000 0.131 5
RJ Harris 18 1.75 0 0 0 0.001 0.138 0.000 0.138 4
PM Siddle 0 2.5 1 0 1 0.000 0.048 0.111 0.159 3
Substitute 0 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.004 20
Second match description:

In the above output of calculator is showing all information about every contribution of player
(e.g, runs, run out, catches, fielding, batting points,…., rank) if here we see to column the
20
maximum points (0.292) is got the RJ Haddin of Australian player leading on top position in all
22 players. Secondly the maximum points (0.162) got by JP Duminy and thirdly the maximum
points (0.159) got by Siddle. The Johnson got (0.131) points fifth in ranking positions.
TABLE NO: 3 THIRD MATCH BETWEEN AUSTRALIA AND SOUTH AFRICA
Ran
RunsWickets Run outs Catches Fielding Batting Wicket-taking Fielding Total k
share (fielding) (fielding) share points points points Points
Australia
CJL Rogers 64 0 0 0 0 0.019 0.000 0.000 0.019 14
DA Warner 280 0 0 0 0 0.110 0.000 0.000 0.110 7
AJ Doolan 57 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.015 0.000 0.012 0.027 13
MJ Clarke* 161 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.125 0.000 0.015 0.140 4
SPD Smith 120 0 0 0 0 0.074 0.000 0.000 0.074 9
SR Watson 65 1 0 0.5 0.5 0.013 0.113 0.056 0.183 3
BJ Haddin† 16 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.003 0.000 0.015 0.018 15
MG Johnson 0 3.25 0 0.75 0.75 0.000 0.216 0.044 0.260 2
RJ Harris 4 2.5 0 0 0 0.001 0.139 0.000 0.140 4
JL Pattinson 0 4.5 0 0 0 0.000 0.349 0.000 0.349 1
NM Lyon 0 0.75 0 0 0 0.000 0.044 0.000 0.044 10
South Africa
GC Smith* 8 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.002 0.000 0.028 0.030 12
AN Petersen 62 0 0 0 0 0.018 0.000 0.000 0.018 15
D Elgar 11 1 0 0 0 0.003 0.028 0.000 0.031 11
HM Amla 79 0 0 0.75 0.75 -0.001 0.000 0.008 0.006 18
AB Villiers† 53 0 0 0.5 0.5 -0.008 0.000 0.021 0.014 17
F du Plessis 81 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.017 16
JP Duminy 4 3 0 0 0 0.001 0.088 0.000 0.089 8
VD Philander 37 3 0 0.25 0.25 0.011 0.106 0.000 0.117 6
KJ Abbott 10 0 0 0 0 -0.001 0.000 0.000 -0.001 20
DW Steyn 28 1.5 1 0.25 1.25 0.007 0.083 0.036 0.125 5
M Morkel 7 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.002 19
Third match description:

In the above output of calculator is showing all information about every contribution of
player in a match (e.g, runs, run out, catches, fielding, batting points,…., rank) if here we see to
column of total points the maximum points (0.349) is got the JL Pattinson of Australian player
leading on top position in all 22 players. Secondly the maximum points (0.260) got by has
country mean Johnson and thirdly the maximum points (0.183) got by SR Watson also
Australian.
21
The above table (1), table (2) and table (3) is showing to viewer the all contribution in
each matches in the series in between the two top class teams in the world. Now we are going to
calculate all contribution of all players of this series individually and giving rank to all players of
both teams.
The following table no (4) is complete description of players contribution in the three
matches series between Australia and South Africa which has been played in February and
march 2014 at South Africa and matches number 2119,2121 and 2122.
TABLE NO: 4 COMBINE TABLE OF THREE MATCHES OR SERIES
Names country Total Total Total Total fielding Batting Wickets Fielding Total Ranki
runs wkts run catches points points points points ng
out
AB de Villiers† South Africa 308 0 0 1 0.5 0.140 0.000 0.060 0.194 14
AJ Doolan Australia 204 0 0 1.5 1.5 0.211 0.000 0.077 0.289 12
AN Petersen South Africa 126 0 0 0 0 0.076 0.000 0.000 0.076 22
BJ Haddin† Australia 35 5 0.5 1.5 2 0.005 0.290 0.134 0.426 3
CJL Rogers Australia 86 0 0 0 0 0.026 0.000 0.000 0.026 27
D Egar South Africa 86 0 0 0 0 0.026 0.000 0.000 0.026 27
DA Warner Australia 528 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.351 0.000 0.170 0.370 6
DW Steyn South Africa 50 7.25 1 0.25 1.25 0.013 0.470 0.036 0.519 2
F du Plessis South Africa 157 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.111 0.000 0.000 0.111 17
GC Smith* South Africa 31 0 0 0.75 0.75 0.027 0.000 0.073 0.098 19
HM Amla South Africa 131 0 0 0.75 0.75 0.700 0.000 0.008 0.077 21
JL Pattinson Australia 0 4.5 0 0 0 0.000 0.349 0.000 0.349 8
JP Duminy South Africa 172 3.75 0 0.25 0.25 -0.138 0.176 0.017 0.055 24
KJ Abbott South Africa 10 0 0 0 0 -0.001 0.000 0.000 -0.001 28
M Morkel South Africa 9 1.5 0 0.25 0.25 0.002 0.052 0.000 0.054 25
MG Johnson Australia 77 15.5 0 1 1 0.064 0.838 0.126 1.013 1
MJ Clarke* Australia 220 0 1 1.25 2.25 0.204 0.000 0.099 0.303 10
NM Lyon Australia 23 2.5 0.5 0 0.5 0.017 0.129 0.034 0.180 16
PM Siddle Australia 2 5.5 1 0 1 0.003 0.260 0.111 0.373 5
Q de Kock South Africa 32 0 0 0 0 0.072 0.000 0.000 0.072 23
R McLaren South Africa 14 1.5 0 0 0 0.007 0.099 0.000 0.107 18
RJ Harris Australia 41 5.75 0 0 0 0.032 0.379 0.000 0.410 4
RJ Peterson South Africa 31 2.75 0 0.5 0.5 0.010 0.265 0.033 0.308 9
SE Marsh Australia 192 0 0 1.25 0.5 0.305 0.000 0.062 0.354 7
SPD Smith Australia 273 0 0 0.75 1 0.222 0.000 0.128 0.277 13
SR Watson Australia 65 1 0 0.5 0.5 0.013 0.113 0.056 0.183 15
VD Philander South Africa 84 4.75 0 0.5 0.5 0.022 0.153 0.028 0.297 11
WD Parnell South Africa 66 3.75 0 0.25 0.25 0.092 0.000 0.000 0.092 20
22
The complete detail of each player of each part of the game (e.g, runs, run out, catches,
fielding, batting points,…., rank) is shown in above table. But here we are going to discuss only
the total points and ranking.
Basically ranking defined on total points of a player or a team and points defined on the
performance of players and teams. If a player or teams got maximum points they will lead on
top of ranking. Now if we see to the above table the maximum points (1.013) got by Johnson
leading on top position in ranking of these three matches series. Secondly the maximum point
(0.519) has gotten by DW Steyn leading on second position in ranking. Thirdly the maximum
points (0.426) have gotten by BJ Haddin leading on third position in test cricket ranking.
Not only is a man-of-the-match award based on maximum rating point’s winner some
time given losers. But this is a very good system for all of the better bowlers and all-rounder.
Commonly the bowlers play a more decisive role than batters because usually the credit goes
bowler to select man of the match, tournament, or in calendar year.
The disadvantage of our developed rating system is that the total number ofpoints is same
achieved for every match. Thus, through regularity moderates this effect. So, the advantage of
this technique is the unadjusted contributions method will givegreater rewards to players in
contests. Now we including one another series between Australia and India has been played in
December 2014 at Australia. These matches have played in Adelaide, Brisbane and Centurion
and matches number are 2148, 2149, and 2152. Now we discribe one by one match and find out
contribution of each player in batting, bowling, and fielding.
23
TABLE NO: 5 FIRST MATCH BETWEEN AUSTRALIA AND INDIA

RunsWickets Run outs Catches Fielding Batting Wicket-taking Fielding Total Rank
share (fielding) (fielding) share Points points points points
Australia
CJL Rogers 84 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.052 0.000 0.031 0.083 10
DA Warner 193 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.089 0.000 0.031 0.120 7
SR Watson 92 0 0 0.75 0.75 0.045 0.000 0.046 0.092 9
MJ Clarke* 76 0 0 0 0 0.036 0.000 0.000 0.036 15
SPD Smith 195 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.138 0.000 0.020 0.158 4
MR Marsh 107 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.098 0.000 0.031 0.129 5
NM Lyon 3 9.75 0 0.25 0.25 0.005 0.923 0.020 0.948 1
BJ Haddin† 14 0 0 1 1 0.000 0.000 0.050 0.050 14
MG Johnson 0 5 0 0.25 0.25 0.000 0.340 0.031 0.371 2
2PM Siddle 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 17
RJ Harris 0 1.75 0 0.25 0.25 0.000 0.167 0.006 0.173 3
India
M Vijay 152 0 0 0.25 0.25 -0.109 0.000 0.000 -0.109 21
S Dhawan 33 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.012 0.000 0.048 0.061 11
CA Pujara 94 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.053 0.000 0.003 0.055 13
V Kohli* 251 0 0 0.25 0.25 -0.520 0.000 0.020 -0.500 19
AM Rahane 62 0 0 0 0 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.025 16
RG Sharma 49 0.75 0 0.25 0.25 -0.045 0.000 0.000 -0.045 18
WP Saha† 38 0 0 0.25 0.25 -0.107 0.000 0.000 -0.107 20
KV Sharma 8 4.25 0 0 0 -0.036 0.147 0.000 0.111 8
Moh Shami 39 2 0 0 0 -0.021 0.079 0.000 0.058 12
I Sharma 1 0.75 0 0.25 0.25 -0.010 0.072 0.020 0.083 10
VR Aaron 4 2.25 0 0 0 -0.007 0.132 0.000 0.125 6
Interpreting the result of first match:

Here in the point column if we see the maximum (0.948) is gotten by NM Lyon leading on first
position. Secondly the maximum points, (0.371), gotten by MG Johnson and thirdly the
maximum points (0.173) is gotten by RJ Harris. All top three players are Australian.
24
TABLE NO: 6 SECOND MATCH BETWEEN AUSTRALIA AND INDIA

Name RunsWickets Run outs Catches Fielding Batting Wicket-taking Fielding Total Rank
share (fielding) (fielding) share Points points points Points
India
M Vijay 171 0 0 0 0 0.239 0.000 0.000 0.239 9
S Dhawan 105 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.142 0.000 0.019 0.161 13
CA Pujara 61 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.072 0.000 0.016 0.088 19
V Kohli 26 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.032 0.000 0.010 0.042 22
AM Rahane 85 0 0 0 0 0.115 0.000 0.000 0.115 17
RG Sharma 32 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.054 0.000 0.029 0.082 20
MS Dhoni*† 33 0 0.5 1.25 1.75 0.073 0.000 0.125 0.199 12
R Ashwin 54 1.75 0 0.5 0.5 0.091 0.150 0.022 0.264 8
UT Yadav 39 3.75 0.5 0 0.5 0.051 0.151 0.020 0.222 11
VR Aaron 7 1.5 0 0 0 0.012 0.134 0.000 0.146 14
I Sharma 2 5 0 0 0 0.003 0.469 0.000 0.473 3
Australia
CJL Rogers 110 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.304 0.000 0.015 0.319 6
DA Warner 35 0 0 0 0 0.050 0.000 0.000 0.050 21
SR Watson 25 0.75 0 0.25 0.25 0.034 0.045 0.015 0.095 18
SPD Smith* 161 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.406 0.000 0.015 0.422 4
SE Marsh 49 0 0 0 0 0.143 0.000 0.000 0.143 15
MR Marsh 17 0.75 0 0 0 0.052 0.072 0.000 0.124 16
BJ Haddin† 7 0 0 2.25 2.25 0.019 0.000 0.214 0.232 10
MG Johnson 90 3.25 0 0 0 0.214 0.299 0.000 0.513 2
MA Starc 52 1.75 0 0 0 0.124 0.181 0.000 0.305 7
NM Lyon 23 4 0 0.5 0.5 0.055 0.302 0.048 0.405 5
JHazlewood 32 5.5 0 0.25 0.25 0.076 0.508 0.021 0.605 1
substitute 0 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.304 0.000 0.015 0.319 6
Interpreting the result of second match:

Now if we see to second match points table the maximum points (0.605) gotten by J Hazlewood
leading on first position in this match ranking MG Johnson with (0.513) points and I Sharma
with (0.473) points leading on second and third respectively.
25
TABLE NO:7 THIRD AND LAST MATCH BETWEEN AUS & IND
Name RunsWickets Run outs Catches Fielding Batting Wicket-taking Fielding Total Rank
share (fielding) (fielding) share Points points points points
Australia
CJL Rogers 126 0 0 0 0 0.129 0.000 0.000 0.129 12
DA Warner 40 0 0 0 0 0.066 0.000 0.000 0.066 15
SR Watson 69 0.75 0 0.25 0.25 0.067 0.054 0.000 0.121 13
SPD Smith* 206 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.312 0.000 0.063 0.375 3
SE Marsh 131 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.061 0.000 0.101 0.163 10
JA Burns 22 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.031 0.000 0.083 0.114 14
BJ Haddin† 68 0 0 1 1 0.109 0.000 0.104 0.213 6
MG Johnson 43 4 0 0 0 0.060 0.663 0.000 0.723 1
RJ Harris 86 5 0 0 0 0.105 0.504 0.000 0.609 2
NM Lyon 11 1.75 0 0 0 0.014 0.146 0.000 0.160 11
J Hazlewood 0 1.75 0 0.25 0.25 0.000 0.250 0.021 0.271 4
India
M Vijay 79 0 0 0 0 0.041 0.000 0.000 0.041 16
S Dhawan 28 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.015 0.000 0.024 0.039 17
CA Pujara 26 0 0 0 0 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.013 18
V Kohli 223 0 0 0 0 0.184 0.000 0.000 0.184 9
AM Rahane 195 0 0 0.5 0.5 -0.041 0.000 0.004 -0.037 19
KL Rahul 24 0 0 0 0 -0.276 0.000 0.000 -0.276 21
MS Dhoni*† 35 0 0 2.25 2.25 -0.306 0.000 0.154 -0.152 20
R Ashwin 8 4.5 0 0 0 -0.107 0.306 0.000 0.199 8
Mohd Shami 19 4 0 0 0 -0.078 0.282 0.000 0.203 7
UT Yadav 0 4 0 0 0 0.000 0.214 0.000 0.214 5
I Sharma 0 1.5 0 0 0 0.000 0.013 0.000 0.013 18
Analysis of the third match result:

In the last match of the series again MG Johnson leading with (0.723) points secondly has
country man RJ Harris with (0.609) points on second position and the third one is also Australian
has name is SPD smith with (0.375) points leading on third position in the last match ranking.
Now if we give rank to order to all 28 player names are ascending form.
26
TABLE 8: COMBINE RANKING ON THREE MATCHES BETWEEN

AUSTRALIA AND INDIA
Wick Run Catch Fieldin Wicket-
Names country Runs ets outs es g Batting taking Fielding Total Rank
AM 26
Rahane India 81 0.75 0 0.5 0.5 0.009 0 0.029 -0.037
BJ Haddin† Australia 89 0 0 4.25 3.25 0.128 0 0.368 0.495 7
CA Pujara India 181 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.138 0 0.019 0.156 19
CJL Rogers Australia 310 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.485 0 0.046 0.531 6
DA Warner Australia 268 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.205 0 0.031 0.236 16
I Sharma India 3 6.75 0 0.25 0.25 -0.007 0.554 0.02 0.569 5
JA Burns Australia 22 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.031 0 0.083 0.114 20

Jhazlewoo
d Australia 32 6.25 0 0.5 0.5 0.076 0.758 0.042 0.876 4
KV Sharma India 8 4.25 0 0 0 -0.036 0.147 0 0.111 21

18
M Vijay India 402 0 0 0.25 0.5 0.171 0 0 0.171
MA Starc Australia 52 1.75 0 0 0 0.124 0.181 0 0.305 12

MG 12.2
Johnson Australia 133 5 0 0.25 0.25 0.274 1.302 0.031 1.607 1
MJ Clarke* Australia 237 0 0 0 0 0.036 0 0 0.036 24

Moh 14
Shami India 58 4 0 0 0 -0.099 0.361 0 0.261
MR Marsh Australia 124 0.75 0 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.072 0.031 0.253 15
MS Dhoni India 68 0 0.5 2 4 -0.233 0 0.02 0.047 23
NM Lyon Australia 37 15.5 0 0.75 0.75 0.074 1.371 0.068 1.513 2
PM Siddle Australia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25
26
RG Sharma India 81 0.75 0 0.5 0.5 0.009 0 0.029 -0.037
RJ Harris Australia 86 6.75 0 0.25 0.25 0.105 0.671 0.006 0.173 17

14
S Dhawan India 166 0 0 1.25 1.25 0.169 0 0.091 0.261
SE Marsh Australia 180 0 0 0 0 0.204 0 0.101 0.306 11
SR Watson Australia 186 1.5 0 0.25 1.25 0.146 0.069 0.061 0.308 10
UT Yadav India 39 7.75 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.051 0.365 0.222 0.436 9
V Kohli* India 500 0 0 0.5 0.5 -0.304 0 0.03 -0.301 29

13
VR Aaron India 11 3.75 0 0 0 0.005 0.266 0 0.271
27
WP Saha† India 38 0 0 0.5 0.25 -0.107 0 0 -0.107
27
Now the interpret the above combine ranking table, the MG Johnson agian got the maximum
(1.607) and leading on top position in the ranking of this series. Secondly NM Lyon with (1.513)
points leading on second position in ranking. Thirdly SPD Smith with (0.955) points leading third
position in this series ranking. Now we find the top three player in these tow series first one
between Australia and South Africa and second series between Australia and India. These three
teams are very strong teams of the world.
TABLE 9: TABLE OF TOP THREE PLAYERS
Run
out Catc Fieldin Wicket-
Names country Runs Wickets s hes g Batting taking Fielding Total Rank
MG Johnson Australia 210 27.75 0 1.2 1.25 0.338 2.14 0.157 2.62 1
5
NM Lyon Australia 60 17.7 0.5 0.7 1 0.091 1.50 0.102 1.693 2
5
5
The above table (9) showing the top three players of these tow series which have been played
in feburary and march 2014 and the second series in december 2014. The MG Johnson got the
(2.62) points leading on first position , the NM Lyon got the (1.693) points leading on second
position and SPD Smith got (1.232) points leading on third position in ranking of two series
,(six matches).
28
CHAPTWR 5
CONCLUSION
29
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this work is to assess the performance of players’ contribution in test cricket
using session by session data. We measure Contribution in the form of batting, bowling and
fielding contribution. Than we suggest a new rating system for test cricket players on the base of
their individual batting, bowling and fielding contribution to the overall contribution of a match.
We used the methodology of nominal multinomial logistic regression models and model the
outcome probabilities for hypothetical and actual positions.
Through this methodology we measures the payer’s performance and calculates the
session by session probabilities for win, loss, and draw. One of the advantage of this method is
that to calculate the contribution of each player in each session. Through this we can find out the
actual performance of players in different sessions of the match. Another advantage of this rating
systems is that to calculate the fielding and wicket keeping contributions first time in the rating
system. The International cricket conical (ICC) reliance rating system dost not measures the
fielding contribution in there rating system. Furthermore in this new rating system we find out
man of the match, player of the tournament, player of the year, or new emerging player of the
year etc. This new rating system is now easy for the selectors or cricket boards like Pakistan
cricket Board (PCB) to select best team for the coming tours or series on the base of players
existing performances.
The disadvantage of our work is that the batting, bowling and fielding contributions are
treated using a different procedures. The Bowling and fielding are assumed to contribute for only
wining of matches. While batters are to contribute for not losing. The above different
performance required to measure again on one common scale. So for this we need to achieve one
common approach to the total runs scoring contributions of a team is same to with the total
wicket taking contributions of a team over the history of the game or match. This a present
challenge for researcher’s but a more basic challenge for researcher’s is to transfer wicket taking
contribution to fielders for catches and run out. We give value for the due to a fielder share.
One another limitation on this rating system is that some prediction model for the match
outcome are weak. Like for example if both the team lost all of their wickets in the first day of
the match than the selected model cannot take account the number of wicket down for both
teams Akhar & Scarf , 2012. So bowlers and fielders of both teams will not awarded on this
30
stage of the match. However, the potential of this rating system is more reliable for the
measurements of player’s performance in the term of batting and wicket taking. Also the
comparing of the performances between these two disciplines. The method also apply for series
matches not only for individual matches. The methodology is included or displace both the
existing commercial and standard measures of performance and ratings. Furthermore the
evaluation of the methods is very necessary, particularly concerning how the measure would
perform into the long term. To validate this more matches data need to be analyzed.
A good point of this system is that it will find best players as well as the players who
played best cricket. For a consistent player the rating increase based on their contribution than
we can find the beast emergefrontline batters and frontline bowlers in present time of the history.
So many more people will in favor of that particular player through thier performances. The
inconsistency of the player will drop from game and the average will be decrees with to play
more matches and also people will be in disfavor of that player.
For the justification of this new rating system we calculate only six matches’ result of
two series which have been played first one is between Australia and South Africa second series
in between Australia and India. Both the series was played in 2013 to 2014 respectively. The
final result is shown in table (9). The top three players related to Australia the first one is MG
Johnson, second one is NM Lyon and third one is SPD Smith. Through this rating system we can
find the best player of the match, best player the tournament, best player of the year or to find out
new emerging player of the year.
31
Finally, the contribution measure of past players of the history might be used to
determine the top legends of the test cricket history. It could be interesting to define, for
example, the great all -rounder’s of the past time is eg, Imran Khan, Ian Botham, GarrySobers,
top of the list, and where the best batters eg, Don Bradman, Brian Lara, SachinTendulkar, and
lastly the best bowlers eg, Muttiah Muralitharan, Richard Hadlee, Michael Holding.
32
References
1) Stefani R (2011). The methodology of officially recognized international sports rating

systems. Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports 7(4): 1–22.
2) Stefani R (1977). Football and basketball predictions using least squares. IEEE Transactions on
Systems, Man and Cybernetics 7(2): 117–121.
3) Koning RH (2009). Sport and measurement of competition, De Economist 157(2): 229–249.
4) FIFA (2012). FIFA/Coca-Cola World Ranking, www.fifa.com/world
ranking/rankingtable/index.html, accessed 10 May 2015.
5) EPSN Cricinfo (2015). Test match records, http://www.espncricinfo.
com/ci/engine/series/index.html, accessed 01 May 2015.
6) Altham, H.S. (1962). A History of Cricket, Volume 1 (to 1914), George Allen &Unwin
Sourchttp://en.wikipedia.org wiki/History % 20 of % 20 cricket? oldid =650744644 accessed 3
may 2015.
7) Matches played 13June 2003 ESPNcricinfo. Retrieved 9 June 2008,
8) ―Records / Twenty20 Internationals / Team records / Largest margin of victory (by runs)".
ESPNcricinfo. Retrieved17May2012.
9) ("Reliance Mobile to sponsor ICC rankings" 2015)The Economic Times. 16 Ap.
10) ICC(TheRelianceICC,2014)http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/ICC%20Player%20
Rnkings?oldid=661153657 accesed 11 May 2015.
11) http://www.ehow.com/how_6916968_calculate-icc-rankings.htmlaccessed on 12 may 2015.
12) Akhtar et_ al (2014) Rating players in test cricket Journal of the Operational Research Society
(2014).
13) Rasool, Z. (2011) Rating players in test match cricket. MSc Thesis, University of Salford.
14) McHale, I.G., Scarf, P.A. and Folker, D.E. (2010) on the development of a soccer player
performance rating system for the English Premier League.
15) Johnston, M. I., Clarke, S. R. and Noble, D.H. (1993) Assessing player performance in one day
cricket using dynamic programming. Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research, 10, 45–55.
16) Lewis, A.J. (2005) towards fairer measures of player performance in one-day cricket. Journal of
the Operational Research Society, 56, pp. 804-815.
17) Duckworth, F.C. and Lewis, A.J. (1998) a fair method for resetting the target in interrupted one-
day cricket matches. Journal of the Operation Research Society, 49, pp. 220-227.
18) Duckworth, F.C. and Lewis, A.J. (2004) A successful operational intervention in oneday cricket,
Journal of the Operational Research Society, 55, pp. 749-759.
33
19) Lewis, A.J. (2008) Extending the range of player-performance measures in one-day cricket.
Journal of the Operational Research Society, 59, pp. 729-742.
20) Beaudion. (2003),towards fairer measures of player performance in one-day cricket.

Journal of the Operational Research Society 56, 804-815, July
2005,|doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601876.
21) Borooah VK and Mangan JE (2010). The ‘Bradman class’: An exploration of some issues
in the evaluation of batsmen for test matches, 1877–2006. Journal of Quantitative
Analysis in Sports 6(3): 1–21.
22) Lenten, J.A. (2008). Is the decline in the frequency of draws in test match cricket
detrimental to the long form of the game? Economic Papers: The Journal of Applied
Economics and Policy, 4, pp.364-380.
23) Allsopp,P.E.,&Clarke,S.R.(2004).Rating teams and analysing outcomes inone-day and
test cricket. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A,167,657–667.
24) Crowe, S. M., & Middeldrop, J. (1996). A comparison of leg before wicket rates between
Australians and their visiting teams for test cricket series played in Australia, 1977–1994.
The Statistician, 4, 255–262.
25) Ringrose, T. (2006). Neutral umpires and leg before wicket decisions in test cricket.
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 169, 903–911.
26) Clarke, S. R. (1988). Dynamic programming in one-day cricket: optimal scoringrate.
Journal of the Operational Research Society, 39, 331–337.
27) Preston, I., & Thomas, J. (2000). Batting, strategy in limited over’s cricket, The
Statistician, 49, 95–106.
34
View publication stats

Projectthesisof Bs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Projectthesisof Bs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

BEST PLAYER OF THE TEST CRICKET IN LAST YEARS 2014

Thesis · December 2015

Fayaz Ahmad Muhammad Zada

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1.1 ICC CRICKET TEAMS AND PLAYERS RANKING SYSTEM:

1.2 RATING AND RANKING IN TEST MATCHES:

1.3 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM:

cricket[12].Webelieve that the measurepropose of thisprojectandthecompanionpaper Rating

3.1 DATA COLLECTION TOOL:

3.2 STUDY DESIGN:

3.3 LOGISTIC REGRESSION

3.3.1 NOMINAL MULTINOMIAL LOGISTIC REGRESSION:

3.4 MEASURING BATTING, BOWLING, AND FIELDING CONTRIBUTION:

3.5 ACTUAL PROBABILITY:

3.6 HYPOTHETICAL PROBABILITY

3.7 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE ACTUAL PROBABILITY AND HYPOTHETICAL

3.8 PLAYER INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTION

Then the sum of contributions from all sessions as:

First match description:

Second match description:

Third match description:

TABLE NO: 5 FIRST MATCH BETWEEN AUSTRALIA AND INDIA

Interpreting the result of first match:

TABLE NO: 6 SECOND MATCH BETWEEN AUSTRALIA AND INDIA

Interpreting the result of second match:

Analysis of the third match result:

TABLE 8: COMBINE RANKING ON THREE MATCHES BETWEEN

JA Burns Australia 22 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.031 0 0.083 0.114 20

KV Sharma India 8 4.25 0 0 0 -0.036 0.147 0 0.111 21

MA Starc Australia 52 1.75 0 0 0 0.124 0.181 0 0.305 12

MJ Clarke* Australia 237 0 0 0 0 0.036 0 0 0.036 24

NM Lyon Australia 37 15.5 0 0.75 0.75 0.074 1.371 0.068 1.513 2

RJ Harris Australia 86 6.75 0 0.25 0.25 0.105 0.671 0.006 0.173 17

V Kohli* India 500 0 0 0.5 0.5 -0.304 0 0.03 -0.301 29

1) Stefani R (2011). The methodology of ofﬁcially recognized international sports rating

20) Beaudion. (2003),towards fairer measures of player performance in one-day cricket.

View publication stats

You might also like