Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

7 views

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- NCAA Playbook
- Man of Steel Pre Phase
- Sports News in Brief: July 2009
- kickoff reverse
- Sports News, Rohit Sharma In ICC’s Top 10 World Cup Debutants
- Aug 12, 2012 P2
- Georgia Tech Playbook
- John Rusin - FHT Workout Logs 1.1 1.2 1.3
- Squash 10 Countries in a Race for the European Team Cup in Poland
- Organizational Structure
- HISTORY OF CRICKET
- sirrobertCTY-27-06-08-021-WCTY
- yoxall 32004893 football 3
- ntcc
- 2014 Wahoo Brochure
- Some Important Sports Terminology
- Averages 11-8-11
- netherlands-1989-500535
- Life is Cricket
- Amenities

You are on page 1of 8

mining techniques

Viraj Phanse

Department of Computer Science

University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)

Los Angeles, USA

e-mail: vrphanse85@cs.ucla.edu

Sourabh Deorah

Department of Computer Science

University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)

Los Angeles, USA

e-mail: saurabh@cs.ucla.edu

AbstractThis paper deals with the evaluation of the

Duckworth Lewis method, identifying its limitation, and

devising a modification to address these limitations. The

Duckworth Lewis method, or D/L method, was created by

Frank Duckworth and Tony Lewis. The International Cricket

Council (ICC) adopted D/L method in 1999 to address the

issue of delayed one-day cricket matches due to interruptions

such as inclement weather conditions, poor light and floodlight

failures, and crowd problems. We have attempted to identify

the shortcomings in the existing Duckworth Lewis method

using data mining algorithms such as Random Forests and

C4.5.

We have also shown that the p-values and other data mining

techniques serve a dual purpose of not only evaluating whether

systems such as D/L method have been exploited by taking

advantage of their properties such as simplicity, but also

devising alternate and robust approaches (or models).

In the first part of this project, we have analyzed fifty one-day

international (ODI) cricket matches, in which the Duckworth

Lewis method has been applied, using tools such as WEKA and

Microsoft Excel. We have observed that the Duckworth Lewis

method has some limitations. As a result, using data mining

methods we have shown that the Duckworth Lewis system has

proven over time to be biased towards the team batting first

and the team winning the toss--a toss refers to the coin-flip at

the beginning of the match used to decide who bats or fields.

Bias in the context of the report is defined as taking advantage

of the properties of systems such as the Duckworth Lewis

method. We also seek to show that such an exploitation of

the system permits prediction of the match winner with

outcomes that are better than just chance. Using the analyses

described above, we propose a modification to the existing

Duckworth Lewis method to reduce this bias by considering

the venue of the game as an additional resource along with

the two existing resources- overs and wickets - to predict the

target score. We have done a basic evaluation of the reduction

in bias due to the proposed changes. The modification has

helped not only to reduce the bias but also to alleviate the

impact of factors such as toss and team batting first in

predicting the target scores in limited-overs cricket matches.

General Terms- Data mining, Cricket, Statistics, Heuristics

Keywords- Duckworth Lewis, Random Forests, C4.5, P-values,

Rain rules

I. INTRODUCTION

A. The game of cricket

As mentioned in [1], cricket is a bat-and-ball team sport that

originated in England and is one of the most popular games

in the world. It is contested between two teams of eleven

players each. One team bats with the objective of scoring as

many runs as possible while the other team bowls and fields

with an objective to dismiss the batsmen and thus limit the

runs scored by the batting team. The team winning the toss

decides which team bats first. A toss refers to the coin-flip at

the beginning of the match used to decide who bats or fields.

A batsman scores a run by hitting the ball with his bat,

running to the opposite end of the pitch and touching the

crease without being dismissed. The teams swap between

batting and fielding during an innings.

In professional cricket the game varies from a limit of twenty

overs per side (Twenty20), fifty overs per side (one day

match), to a game played over five days (Test match).

B. Duckworth Lewis Method

The Duckworth Lewis method or D/L method, created by

Frank Duckworth and Tony Lewis, was adopted by the

International Cricket Council (ICC) in 1999 to address the

issue of delayed one-day cricket matches due to bad weather

(rain, sandstorms and snowstorms), poor light and floodlight

failures, and crowd problems[2]. The Duckworth Lewis

Method, a system based on a mathematical model

considering only two resources -- wickets left and overs

remaining -- has been applied successfully in the one day

cricket matches to address the issue of interruptions such as

those due to bad weather conditions. The earlier rain rules

-- methods to handle interruptions in cricket matches --

suffered from certain disadvantages like favoring the team

batting second. The Duckworth Lewis method eliminates

such problems and is known for its comprehensibility,

simplicity and ease to calculate the target runs.

However, certain factors such as the toss may play a crucial

role in deciding the winner of the match since it involves a

lot of thought and research while taking a decision after

winning the toss. As an illustration, the analysis of pitch

conditions, previous history of games played in the ground,

and weather are some of the factors that determine the

decision -- bat or field -- after winning the toss. Certain other

factors such as batting first play an important role especially

in rain affected cricket matches. After rain, the pitch

becomes soft and the ball bounces more erratically, making it

difficult for the batsman to bat and as mentioned in [3], in

matches where the teams batting first have their innings

curtailed, the D/L method tends to prop up their totals, thus

adding extra runs that the team batting first did not even

make. Thus, batting first may be more favorable in rain

affected games.

C. Duckworth Lewis Model [5]

The mathematical model is a two factor exponential

relationship (an exponential decay function):

Z(u, w) = Z

0

F(w)|1 - exp _

bu

F(w)

_]

where Z(u, w) is the average further number of runs

expected to be made when there are u overs remaining and w

wickets down. Z

0

F(w) is the asymptotic value of further

runs expected with w wickets down as u tends to infinity,

F(u) being set to unity. The parameters, b, Z

0

and the nine

values of F(w) were estimated from an analysis of a one-day

match database.

The ratio Z(u, w)Z(Su,u) --a 50 over model--was

calculated for all combinations of 300 values of balls

remaining (six balls per over) and ten values of wickets

down. These were multiplied by 100 and rounded to one

decimal place. This is how a Ready Reckoner of resource

percentages was created and from this reckoner, all target

revisions could be calculated.

Pattern 6, as shown in section III.A, indicates that the run

rates for the two teams differ on average by less than one

run. This is perhaps the basis of the entire D/L approach, as it

suggests a simple statistical model that can be used to

calculate the target score. Please note that the expected run

rate is the essence of the model, and that this also seems to

the basis of fairness or lack of bias in the D/L method

approach.

D. Controversial D/L method decided matches [3]

Mentioned below are some interesting scenarios from actual

ODIs that highlight the shortcomings in D/L method:

(Please note that in the scenarios below, we have used the

term x for y in z overs which means that the team made x

runs at a loss of y wickets in z overs)

1) South Africa v New Zealand, Durban, November

2000

New Zealand batted first, and were 81 for 5 in 27.2

overs when rain reduced the game to 49 overs per

side. Then, with New Zealand on 114 for 5 in 32.4,

their innings was called off, and the second innings

was truncated to 32 overs. South Africa's target,

according to the D/L charts at the time, was 153, but

according to their latest version, the target would

have been 156.At the time of the interruption, New

Zealand's run rate was 3.48 runs per over, with five

wickets down and 17.2 overs to spare. According to

D/L's latest calculations, South Africa's required run

rate would be 4.87.

2) West Indies v New Zealand, Port-of-Spain, 2002

New Zealand made 212 for 5 in 44.2 overs when

their innings was curtailed, and West Indies'

response was truncated to 33 overs. D/L calculated

their revised target at the time as 212. Again, a

comparison of run rates raises a few questions. New

Zealand's run rate at the end of their innings was

4.78; West Indies' required rate in 33 overs

according to D/L is 6.36, an increase of 33%.

3) South Africa v New Zealand, Johannesburg, World

Cup 2003

Replying to South Africa's imposing 306 for 6 in 50

overs, New Zealand, riding on Stephen Fleming's

outstanding century, were 182 for 1 in 30.2 when

rain reduced the chase to 39 overs. According to the

new D/L calculations, the revised target would have

been 229 (it was 226 at the time). The point of

contention is this: at the time of the interruption,

New Zealand's required rate was 6.35 runs per over,

stretching over a period of almost 20 overs. Going

by the current D/L calculations, the required run rate

on resumption is 5.42, over a period of just 8.4 overs

- obviously, the rain has simplified New Zealand's

task enormously (though the D/L contention is that

New Zealand are reaping the rewards of being well

ahead of the par score at the point of interruption).

E. The VJD Method and other alternative `Rain Rule

Methods to D/L

As mentioned in the earlier sections, the D/L method treats

the overs to be played and the wickets in hand as resources,

and uses an exponential type of function to describe how the

remaining resources are depleted as the overs get used up

and/or the wickets fall during the progress of the innings [7].

This is a very limited model of the state of a game, assuming

a progressive acceleration in the rate of scoring, resting on

historical results. The anecdotal scenarios above illustrate

how its limitations have resulted in surprising results and

disappointment with the method. As a result, a number of

other Rain Rule Methods have been proposed [8]. For

example, the VJD method by V Jayadevan, uses a

regression-based approach. This method is based on data

selected from a set of closely fought matches and can handle

any number of interruptions during any stage of the game.

Although the VJD method and others are still under

consideration, D/L remains the standard method in use.

F. Project goals

The primary goal of the project is to evaluate the Duckworth

Lewis method and identify its limitations. As an addition, we

have proposed an interesting extension which addresses

these limitations. We do not intend to propose an entirely

new model. On the contrary, we try to identify the

shortcomings in the existing D/L using data mining

algorithms such as Random Forests and C4.5, and a heuristic

model, and propose an extension to D/L method to address

the shortcomings. We would also like to show that p-values

and other data mining techniques can be used as effective

tools to evaluate systems such as the D/L method and also

devise alternative models.

II. EVALUATION OF THE DUCKWORTH LEWIS METHOD

AND IDENTIFICATION OF ITS LIMITATIONS

A. Description of Dataset

The dataset we compiled consists of information pertaining

to fifty cricket matches in which the Duckworth Lewis rule

was applied over a period of ten years for India, Pakistan,

Bangladesh, England, West Indies, South Africa, Australia,

Sri Lanka and New Zealand. It consists of thirty two

features.

B. Description of Schema

TABLE I. DESCRIPTION OF SCHEMA

Column Name Description

Team 1 Represents the first team

Team 2 Represents the second team

Winner Represents winner of the game

Loser Represents loser of the game

Home/Away

Represents whether the team is at

home or away

Target Score-Duckworth Lewis

Represents the score set by

Duckworth Lewis rule

Over Limit for Duckworth Lewis

Represents the over limit in which

the score needs to be achieved

Actual Score of Winner

Represents the number of runs scored

by the winner of the game

Actual Score of Loser

Represents the number of runs scored

by the winner of the game

Overs played by Winner

Represents the number of overs

played by the winner of the game

Overs played by Loser

Represents the number of overs

played by the loser of the game

Date

Represents the date on which the

match was played

Venue Represents the venue of the match

Venue Country

Represents the country in which the

venue is located

Winners wickets

Represents the total number of

wickets lost by the match winner

Losers wickets

Represents the total number of

wickets lost by the match loser

Win by wickets

Represents the number of wickets by

which the winning team

outperformed the losing team.

Win by runs

Represents the number of runs by

which the winning team

outperformed the losing team.

Toss won by Represents the team that won the toss

Decision after winning the toss

Represents the decision that the team

takes after winning the toss: bat or

field

Month

Represents the month in which the

match was played

Winners wickets-Losers

wickets

Represents the difference between

the wickets lost by the winner and

wickets lost by the loser

Winners Runrate

Represents the runrate of the winner

calculated as follows:

Runrate=Total runs/Overs played

Losers Runrate

Represents the runrate of the loser

calculated as follows:

Runrate=Total runs/Overs played

Winners runrate-Losers runrate

Represents the difference between

the wickets lost by winner and

wickets lost by loser

Runs per Wicket of the winner

Represents the ratio of number of

runs scored and the number of

wickets lost by the winner

Runs per Wicket of the loser

Represents the ratio of number of

runs scored and the number of

wickets lost by the loser

Winners remaining wickets

Represents the difference between 10

and the number of wickets lost by the

winner

Losers remaining wickets

Represents the difference between 10

and the number of wickets lost by the

loser

Weight of Home or Away

Represents the weight for home or

away (0.0<weight<1.0)

Runs added by DL ratio

Represents the ratio of (modulus of

runs added or subtracted due to

application of Duckworth Lewis rule)

and (1 + the number of wickets

remaining for team 1). Here we are

adding one to the number of wickets

for team 1 because sometimes, no

wickets are lost by the team.

New Target

Represents the target score for the

team batting second based on the

proposed model

C. Data Extraction

The required information--team performances on various

grounds, performances when D/L was applicable, over all

performances of teams etc. over a period of ten years -- is

available on websites [4]. The list covers all the matches in

which D/L was applied. However, the data can also be

found in scorecards, news extracts and match reports.

Therefore, instead of using web scrapers/crawlers, we

extracted the data manually. As a result, it was not

necessary to cleanse the data.

III. EXPLORATION OF THE DATASET AND RESULTS

In this part of the project tools such as WEKA were used to

identify some interesting patterns in the data. These patterns

laid the foundation of part 2 of the project in which we

present an alternative approach.

A. Patterns observed based on existing Duckworth

Lewis Method

We observed the following patterns in the data collected:

1) Pattern 1: Team winning the toss wins the matches

in 66% cases (Figure 1)

Teams winning the toss have won 33 out of 50 matches for

which Duckworth Lewis Method was applied.

Figure 1: Team winning the toss

2) Pattern 2: Team batting first wins the match in 64%

cases (Figure 2)

Teams batting first have won 32 out of 50 matches for

which Duckworth Lewis Method was applied.

Figure 2: Team batting first

3) Pattern 3: 54% of teams winning the toss decides to

field first in rain affected matches (Figure 3)

Teams winning the toss decide to field first in 27 of the 50

matches for which the Duckworth Lewis method was

applied.

Figure 3: Team decides to field first

4) Pattern 4: 82% matches are interrupted due to rain

(Figure 5)

41 out of 50 matches for which the Duckworth Lewis

Method was applied were affected by rain. From the graphs

below it can be seen that New Zealand and Sri Lanka are

more prone to rain. Also, Pakistan is the only country in

which the Duckworth Lewis was applied twice due to power

failure.

Figure 4: Interruption types

5) Pattern 5: In certain months during the year, rain is

more frequent (Figure 5)

February, March and November contain a significant

number of matches affected by rain

Figure 5: Rain interruptions in months

6) Pattern 6: Average of difference in run rate between

winning team and losing team scores is not significant

(Figure 6)

The average of difference in the run rates of the winning and

the losing team is 0.687

Figure 6: Difference between Runrates of Winner and Loser

7) Pattern 7: Difference in runs per wicket between

winning team and losing team is significant (Figure 7)

The average difference in runs per wicket between the

winning team and the losing team is 27.192(which is much

more significant than difference in run rate).

Figure 7: Difference between Runs per Wickets for Winner and Loser

8) Pattern 8: More stress on wickets (Figure 8)

Losing teams have lost an average of 8 wickets in matches

in which the Duckworth Lewis Method was applied.

Figure 8: Wickets of losing teams

B. p-value for the first two patterns

Assuming an unbiased binomial distribution, pattern 1 and

pattern 2 have a p-value of 0.9923267 and 0.9835804

respectively. That is, in the absence of bias, the probability

of the team the team that won the toss, or the team that bat

first, would obtain fewer victories in D/L matches is almost

1.

C. Inferences from above patterns

From the above 8 patterns and the p-values mentioned in

sections III.A and III.B respectively, we can infer the

following:

1. Historically, Duckworth Lewis has been biased

towards the team batting first.

2. Historically, Duckworth Lewis has been biased

towards the team winning the toss.

3. Duckworth Lewis stresses wickets more than runs

and run rate.

4. As far as possible, in order to avoid D/L bias, either

matches should be avoided in rain-prone months of

the year, or indoor stadiums similar to those

constructed in Australia should be used.

5. There is a general perception in cricket that in

interrupted matches, the team batting second has an

advantage over team batting first. This is reflected in

pattern 3. However, pattern 2 signifies that in most

of the matches, teams batting first have won. Thus

the perception appears wrong.

D. Heuristic model in predicting the winner in

Duckworth Lewis decided matches

Historically, in matches decided by Duckworth-Lewis:

I. The team batting first won on 64% of the occasions

involving two of the top nine teams

II. In 66% of the occasions, the team winning the toss

has won

III. In 54% of the occasions, the team winning the toss

decides to field

IV. In 82% of the occasions, matches were affected by

rain

Also, it rains more in certain months of the year.

Based on the above observations, we developed a heuristic

model to predict the winner in a match decided by D/L

method. In this model, we calculate a weighted score for

each of the two teams using the following formula:

wcigbtcJ Scorc

= (o:croll probobility o winning)

| o(toss winncr or toss loscr) +

[(botting or iclJing) +

y(roiny scoson or no roiny scoson)

(bomc or owoy or ncutrol)]

1) Description of various terms involved in the

weighted score

Overall (prior) probability of winning: This is obtained from

[3] and is calculated as:

0:croll probobility o tcom A winning ogoinst tcom B

=

motcbcs won by tcom A ogoinst tcom B

totol numbcr o motcbcs ploycJ

o = u.66

o From II.

Toss Winner/Toss Winner: the team that has won the toss is

given one point while the team losing the toss is given zero

points.

[ = u.64

o From I.

Batting/Fielding: the team that is batting first is given one

point while the team fielding first is given zero points.

y = u.82 u.S4 u.S6

o From IV, III: 0.36 is obtained by

subtracting 0.64 from 1 in order to

account for the probability of winning the

game fielding first.

Rainy season or No rainy season

o If it is a rainy season at the venue of the

match, one point is assigned. Otherwise,

zero points are assigned.

Home or Away or Neutral

o Teams playing at home have an advantage

over the away teams. In order to nullify

this effect, the team playing at home is

given zero points; the away team is given

one point and if the venue is neutral, then

each team is assigned 0.5 points

respectively.

2) Predicting the winner

We claim that the D/L method is biased, in the sense that the

properties of D/L method are taken advantage of and that

this exploitation of the D/L system permits prediction of the

match winner with outcomes that are better than chance. We

show this in the forthcoming sections: using data mining

methods a winning score can be calculated for each of the

two teams playing a match, and the team with a higher

weighted score then be predicted as the winner. By training

this kind of method on historical data, tests of prediction

accuracy have yielded results that are extremely good, much

higher than what would be expected by chance.

As an illustration, let us consider the match between New

Zealand and Bangladesh. This match was played at

Bangladesh in which Bangladesh won the toss and elected

to bat first. The season was rainy.

Using the weighted score formula, New Zealand obtained 0

points while Bangladesh obtained 0.32 points and was thus

predicted the winner.

3) Accuracy of the model and further optimization

Using Microsoft Excel, it can be seen that the model has an

accuracy of 64% in predicting the winner. As mentioned in

table below, we further optimized the weighted score

formula and obtained an accuracy of 72%.

TABLE II. OPTIMIZATION OF HEURISTIC MODEL

Accuracy of prediction

0.66 0.64 0.82*0.54*0.36 64%

1 0.6 0.2 68%

0.6 0.2 0.3 70%

0.8 0.4 0.2 72%

E. Using C4.5 and Random Forests classifiers to

show the bias

We applied C4.5 and random forests classifiers (10 folds)

on the dataset to predict the winner.

C4.5 is an algorithm developed by Ross Quinlan and is used

to generate a decision tree. Random Forests is a classifier

developed by Leo Breiman. It consists of many decision

trees and outputs the class that is the mode of the output by

individual trees for the given class.

Using standard supervised learning methods in the Weka

Explorer data mining platform, C4.5 and Random Forests

with 10-fold cross-validation gave accuracies of 72% and

80% respectively. In other words, standard classification

models from machine learning were able to correctly predict

the outcome of 70 to 80 percent of the D/L matches. This

indeed suggests that the D/L method is biased.

F. Inferences and observations from the heuristic

model, C4.5 and Random Forests

We can infer from the above model and from the results

obtained by using C4.5 and Random Forests that it is

possible to predict a winner in D/L decided matches with a

fairly high accuracy, using our dataset of D/L matches

obtained from various sites on the web. Also, we can see

that the winner is predicted based on features such as toss

and venue features that are not used by the D/L method to

set the target score.

IV. EXTENSION TO THE DUCKWORTH LEWIS METHOD

In part 1 of the project, using data mining methods we have

shown that the D/L method has proven over time to be

biased towards the team batting first and the team winning

the toss. Bias in the context of the report is defined as taking

advantage of the properties of systems such as D/L method.

We hold that this exploitation of the system permits

prediction of the match winner with outcomes that are

better than just chance.

A. Motivation

I. The dependency between different features was

analyzed using covariance and correlation matrix.

Some interesting results that were observed are as

follows:

a. As per the analysis above, the winner is

dependent mostly on target_dl, i.e., the

target set by Duckworth Lewis.

b. The venue country is most correlated with

the target score set according to

Duckworth Lewis.

II. Second, from part 1, it is observed that Duckworth

Lewis is biased towards the team batting first and

the toss winner (evident from the p-value which is

almost 0.99 for the two patterns).

III. Third, the existing Duckworth Lewis Method is

based on only two resources--wickets and overs.

Intuitively, we can observe that (II) points out that in order

to reduce the bias, the p-values for the patterns in (II) need

to be reduced. (III) indicates the simplicity of the D/L

method, and (I) suggests that in the extension, venue can be

considered as an additional feature along with the wickets

and overs remaining, to set the target score.

B. Terminology used in calculating D/L score for a

team batting second [2]

Let S be team 1s score, R1 be the resource percentage

available to team 1, R2 be the resource percentage available

to team 2, and T be the target score for team 2.

Then, as mentioned in [2],

i R1 < R2, I = S _

R1

R2

] + 1 onJ i R2 > R1,

I = S +

0Su(R2 - R1)

1uu

+ 1 (I)

When Team 1s innings have been interrupted, it often

happens that Team 2 has more resources at their disposal

than had Team 1 and it is necessary to adjust Team 2s

target upwards. In this case the adjustment is based on the

runs that would be expected to be scored on average from

the extra resources at their disposal. The number of these

extra runs required is calculated by applying the excess

resource percentage to the average total score in a 50-over

innings, referred to as G50. For matches involving ICC full

member nations, the value of G50 to be used at present is

235.

C. How to reduce the bias

The extension to D/L proposed below is just one of the

many ways to reduce the bias in the D/L method. The new

method brings to forth that it is possible to strengthen the

existing D/L method by introducing additional features and

that the p-value and other statistical or data mining methods

can be employed to verify the accuracy of these methods.

Based on the motivations in section IV.A, we have come up

with a model that reduces the target for the team batting

second in a D/L match and results in reducing the bias. This

approach takes into consideration an additional resource--

venue -- along with the existing resources (wickets and

overs).

The new target score T is calculated by subtracting the

product of the value of impact for home venue or away

venue, and the absolute value of the runs added or

subtracted by D/L from the target calculated by the existing

D/L method.

Thus we have the following:

I = S _

R1

R2

] + 1 - x _S _1 -

R1

R2

] + 1 _

Or

I

i

= S +

0Su(R2 -R1)

1uu

+ 1 -

x _S - _S +

0Su(R2 - R1)

1uu

+ 1__ . (II)|rom (I)]

where x is the weight representing the value of impact for

home or away and u.u < x < 1.u Please note that value of

impact for home should be greater than the value of impact

for away.

This formula has reduced the percentage in pattern 1 from

66% to 58% and in pattern 2 from 64% to 56%. The

corresponding p-values are 0.8986806 and 0.8388818

respectively.

Thus the model suggested above mitigates the effect of

winning the toss and batting first on predicting the winner of

the match, and results in setting a fairer and more optimized

target score.

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

This paper presents a detailed evaluation of the Duckworth

Lewis method used to predict the target scores in cricket

matches when one or both the teams have had their innings

shortened due to interruptions such as inclement weather

conditions or poor visibility after the match has begun.

Using sophisticated data mining techniques such as C4.5

and Random Forests, and the p-value we discover a bias

in the D/L method. The bias is observed to be favoring the

team batting first and the team winning the toss. The

modification that we devised considered additional features

such as venue that helped reduce the bias and alleviate the

impact of factors mentioned above in predicting the target

scores in limited-overs cricket matches. This modification

has been evaluated using the p-values.

In conclusion, data mining techniques serve a dual purpose.

They aid in testing whether systems such as D/L method

have been exploited by taking advantage of their properties

such as simplicity, and they can also help in devising

alternate and robust approaches.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Our thanks to Prof. Stott Parker, Prof. Duckworth, Prof.

Lewis, Shivani, Raghu, Shashwat, Bhadkya, Juilee, Smiti,

Ameya and Karan.

REFERENCES

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket

[2] http://www.duckworth-lewis.com/mags/dlmethod/

[3] http://www.espncricinfo.com/

[4] http://www.bbc.com/

[5] Frank Duckworth, The Duckworth/Lewis method: an

exercise in Maths, Stats, OR and communications in

MSOR Connections Vol 8 No 3 August October 2008

[6] http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/1408

59.html

[7] A new method for the computation of target scores in

interrupted, limited-over cricket matches in Current

Science, Vol. 83, No. 5, 10 September 2002.

[8] Rain Rule Methods:

http://www.cricketarchive.com/Miscellaneous/Rain_Rule_

Methods.html

- NCAA PlaybookUploaded byeretria
- Man of Steel Pre PhaseUploaded byManu Gonzalo
- Sports News in Brief: July 2009Uploaded byAbhijit Jadhav
- kickoff reverseUploaded byMichael Schearer
- Sports News, Rohit Sharma In ICC’s Top 10 World Cup DebutantsUploaded byLatest News India
- Aug 12, 2012 P2Uploaded byNElitreview
- Georgia Tech PlaybookUploaded bycbt_higi
- John Rusin - FHT Workout Logs 1.1 1.2 1.3Uploaded byj1c
- Squash 10 Countries in a Race for the European Team Cup in PolandUploaded byPolska Federacja Squasha
- Organizational StructureUploaded byWaqar Mahmood
- HISTORY OF CRICKETUploaded bysports info
- sirrobertCTY-27-06-08-021-WCTYUploaded byrockophilia
- yoxall 32004893 football 3Uploaded byapi-443401356
- ntccUploaded byAayush Saxena
- 2014 Wahoo BrochureUploaded bywinchesterpandr
- Some Important Sports TerminologyUploaded byBhanu Kiran
- Averages 11-8-11Uploaded bydhnsachin
- netherlands-1989-500535Uploaded byIbnu Gifar Ramzani
- Life is CricketUploaded bymastpawan
- AmenitiesUploaded bykirbyriggs
- 061313 Reading Fightins Game NotesUploaded byfightinsradio
- ffUploaded byjusio rae reyes
- New Microsoft Word Document (2)Uploaded byconvasive
- SportUploaded byIriNa En
- [Harry L.mike Harkins] Zone Offenses for Men's andUploaded byigida
- Great Western.pdfUploaded byCass Coffey
- In TramsUploaded byMargel Flores
- volleyball campsUploaded byapi-245317427
- McDermottUploaded bybahuguna_45
- Zhang JikeUploaded byJrPelayo

- Keys Before My Eyes Written - ThaoUploaded byJam Jam
- Ch11 Ib Org Gases Design Assign 2012Uploaded byAninda Shafayet
- THE CONSENSUS ON THE CONSENSUSUploaded byGlenn Kessler
- Poem Rain of the RoofUploaded byharshitakashmiri
- 1.2.2 Thermodynamics and HYSYS_5.pdfUploaded byWelisson Silva
- poetryunitexam-summativeUploaded byapi-279609624
- RimWorld Changelog 2015.04.15Uploaded bydaskir
- Food_Safety_Forms.xlsUploaded byHamada Ahmed
- ravenloft - book of crypts v2nd.pdfUploaded byMauricio Yap
- MASTERSEAL 200H v3.pdfUploaded byRajesh Kumar
- Why Do Bears HibernateUploaded byDelia Savu
- Soal Semester 2 Kelas XI 16042018Uploaded byRayis Shirahata
- Combat Clothing System From Beyond TacticalUploaded bysolsys
- Mumbai Product Guide RetailUploaded bySatya Saha
- goulding newsletter 10-12-18Uploaded byapi-421579595
- Automatic Weather Station 2700Uploaded byPaolo Arrunátegui
- Cooling Tower Fundamentals 1 25Uploaded bysagar
- MSW-60MAX CECOELUploaded byEber.CV
- A Woman in the Dying WoodsUploaded byAlbert Ocno Almine
- Piping Interview QuestionsUploaded byPradeep Beserwal
- Namdrik Atoll Rapid Coastal Hazard Assessment Instructions[1]Uploaded bynamdrikalele
- Friess 2017Uploaded byYukeling Tay
- Clarcel Advantages in PaintsUploaded byhomeros76
- Haywood, John_ Reale, Marco_ Tunnicliffe Wilson, Granville-Models for Dependent Time Series-CRC Press LLC (2015).pdfUploaded byManmatha Krishnan
- Grammar Booster UNIT 4Uploaded byLizCaroliina
- Prediction of Solidification Time 1Uploaded byscribdzt
- Computer Hardware Removal Handout 12 DryingUploaded byRico
- A Rhetorical Analysis of Newspaper ArticlesUploaded bystryc9
- May-June 2003Uploaded byMarcel Lucas
- soils mass movements pdfUploaded byapi-239855791