IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rpanxx/v16y2016i1p80-95.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Wicket loss and risk taking during the 2011 and 2015 Cricket World Cups

Author

Listed:
  • Peter O’Donoghue

Abstract

The purpose of the current investigation was to determine whether there is an optimal strategy in one-day international cricket and whether there is an even distribution of wickets during a 50 over innings. The investigation included 92 matches from the 2011 and 2015 Cricket World Cups. An initial study used required run rate at the start of overs within second innings as an indication of strategy required to reach the target number of runs. This suggested that teams played optimally when 8 to 10 runs were required per over. The second study revealed that batting teams within the both innings lost fewer wickets and scored fewer runs during the first half of innings than during the second half. Despite winning teams within matches losing wickets significantly later than losing teams, this pattern of an increasing run rate and an increasing rate of wicket loss was observed for both winning and losing teams. Teams are not awarded any additional runs for having wickets remaining at the end of the 50 overs. International teams may be more successful if they are prepared to risk losing more wickets in the first half of innings in an attempt to score runs.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter O’Donoghue, 2016. "Wicket loss and risk taking during the 2011 and 2015 Cricket World Cups," International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(1), pages 80-95, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:rpanxx:v:16:y:2016:i:1:p:80-95
    DOI: 10.1080/24748668.2016.11868872
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/24748668.2016.11868872
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/24748668.2016.11868872?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rpanxx:v:16:y:2016:i:1:p:80-95. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RPAN20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.