MATTHEW JOBLIN
05002515
SCHOOL OF SPORT
UNIVERISTY OF WALES INSTITUTE, CARDIFF
A COMPARISON OF THE TACTICS USED BY SUCCESSFUL AND
UNSUCCESSFUL BATSMEN IN TWENTY20 CRICKET TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Number
Acknowledgements i Abstract ii
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background of the Study 1 1.2 Rationale for the Study 1 1.3 Statement of the Problem 2 1.4 Aims of the Study 2 1.5 Hypothesis 3 1.6 Delimitations 3 1.7 Limitations 3 1.8 Key Terms 4
CHAPTER TWO
2.0 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 6 2.1 Notational Analysis 6 2.2 History of Notational Analysis 6 2.3 Computer Notation Systems 7 2.4 Tactics and Strategies in sport 9 2.5 Twenty20 Cricket Rule Changes 11 2.6 Review of Cricket Specific Literature 12
CHAPTER THREE
3.0 METHOD 18 3.1 Research Design 18 3.2 Equipment Used 18 3.3 Pilot Study 19 3.4 Operational Definitions 20 3.5 Procedure 32 3.6 Test – Retest Reliability 33 3.7 Reliability Results 34 3.8 Data 34 3.9 Data Analysis 35 CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 RESULTS 37 4.1Comparison of Successful and Unsuccessful Batsmen 37
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 DISCUSSION 51 5.1 Trends Common to Twenty20 Cricket 51 5.2 Differences Found in Batting Performance 53 5.3 Differences Found in Bowling Performance 58 5.4 Benefits of the System 61 5.5 Methodological Issues 61
CHAPTER SIX
6.0 CONCLUSION 63 6.1 Summary of Investigation Findings 63 6.2 Practical Recommendations 64 6.3 Recommendations for Future Research 65
Reference List 67
Appendices Appendix A. Blank system sample Appendix B. SPSS Output LIST OF TABLES
Table Number. Title Page Number.
Table 1. Pre pilot study system design 19
Table 2. Post pilot study system design 20
Table 3. Types of bowler 21
Table 4. Description of varying lines of delivery 23
Table 5. Variations in length 25
Table 6. Batsman intent and footwork definitions 26
Table 7. Definitions of each cricket shot 27, 28
Table 8. Results of the Kappa reliability tests 34
Table 9. Matches used for data collection 36
Table 10. A general comparison of batting figures between
successful and unsuccessful batsmen 37
Table 11. Breakdown of the run scoring strategies between
successful and unsuccessful batsmen 39
Table 12. Percentage values for the type of shot played by
successful and unsuccessful batsmen 44
Table 13. Percentage comparison of the different line of
delivery faced by successful and unsuccessful
batsmen 48
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Number. Title Page Number.
Figure 1. Line of delivery faced by batsmen 22
Figure 2. Length of delivery faced by batsmen 24
Figure 3. Direction of front foot drive variations 29
Figure 4. Fielding zone pitch map 30
Figure 5. Comparison of the accumulation of runs
between successful and unsuccessful
batsmen 38
Figure 6. Frequency comparison of boundaries
scored by successful and unsuccessful
batsmen 38
Figure 7. Frequency comparison of deliveries scored
from and deliveries that were not scored
from by successful and unsuccessful batsmen 39
Figure 8. Comparison of the deliveries struck to
each fielding zone by successful and
unsuccessful batsmen 40
Figure 9. Comparison of deliveries struck to the off
side, leg side and to the inner and outer
fielding zones 41
Figure 10. Frequency comparison of the shot selection
used by successful and unsuccessful batsmen 41
Figure 11. Comparison of the front foot and back
foot strokes played by successful and
unsuccessful batsmen 42
Figure 12. Comparison of the attacking and defensive
strokes played by successful and
unsuccessful batsmen 42
Figure 13. Frequency comparison of the additional footwork
tactics used by successful and unsuccessful
batsmen 43
Figure 14. Strokes played significantly more frequently
by successful batsmen 45
Figure 15. Frequency comparison for the variety of
front foot drives played by successful and
unsuccessful batsmen 45
Figure 16. Frequency comparison for the type of bowler
typically faced by successful and unsuccessful
batsmen 46
Figure 17. Frequency comparison of deliveries faced from
seam and spin bowlers by successful and
unsuccessful batsmen 47
Figure 18. Comparison of the length of delivery faced
by successful and unsuccessful batsmen 47 Figure 19. Frequency comparison of the line of delivery
faced by successful and unsuccessful batsmen 49
Figure 20. Frequency comparison of straight deliveries 49
Figure 21. Frequency comparison for mode of dismissal of
successful and unsuccessful batsmen 50
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my tutor Peter O’Donoghue for the commitment, assistance and guidance he has given me in my final year.
A big thanks to my parents, Graham and Sue for their continued support and giving me the opportunity and motivation to learn.
i ABSTRACT
Twenty20 cricket is a recent adaptation of One Day cricket being introduced to the elite level in 2003. Due to its short existence and the majority of research in cricket being focused toward biomechanical analysis of fast bowling and injury prevention to fast bowlers, a significant lack of literature exists. Specific rule changes have meant Twenty20 cricket is commonly referred to as a batsman’s game. Since its introduction there have been mixed views about the benefits of Twenty20 cricket to technical performance. The purpose of this investigation is to investigate whether any significant differences exist in the strategies and tactics adopted by batsmen from successful and unsuccessful teams.
Data was collected from 12 matches shown live on Sky Sports during the 2007 calendar year. A computer notation system was developed in order to record data relevant to specific performance indicators. Chi Squared Tests of Independence were used to statistically test the performance variables. Results indicated that of the nine performance indicators, only the type of batsman and the type of bowler showed a significant difference between successful and unsuccessful teams.
Findings from the investigation suggest that due to the elite level of cricket, strategies, tactics and methods between successful and unsuccessful batsmen are not distinctly different and it is the implementation of those tactics during an innings that have an influential bearing on the result of a match. Notably successful tactics however include keeping wickets in hand allowing for freedom in attack toward the end of the innings, advancing down the pitch to disturb a bowler’s line and length and the use of left hand batsmen in the line up.
Elite cricket players are able to use the findings to make apparent tactical strengths and weaknesses and to give them a greater understanding of the nature of Twenty20 cricket.
ii
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Background of Study
The initial reference to the game of cricket was found in 1706 (Altham, 1962) and since the game has developed into an established professional sport played worldwide. Test cricket was introduced in 1877, however it wasn’t until 1971 that the first One Day International (ODI) was played (Allsopp, 2005). The game is governed by the International Cricket Council (ICC), and consists of One Day cricket and Test match cricket at international level. The most recent development has been a form of One Day cricket known as Twenty20 cricket, being developed in
England in 2003. According to Tong (2002), it (Twenty20 cricket) was introduced because of ‘the England and Wales cricket board’s (ECB) desire to make the game more appealing to a new audience of young supporters’ (p4). In a bid to entertain crowds and appeal to a wider population, various rule changes have been instigated within the One Day form of the game. Changes such as leg side wides, field restrictions and free hits all create further disadvantage for bowlers and therefore the game is constantly referred to as a batsman’s game (Haigh, 2007).
1.2 Rationale for the Study
Twenty20 cricket has undoubtedly been a success. Since its introduction it has developed into a worldwide competition and the first International World Cup was held in September 2007. Due to its short existence however, very little research exists that is specific to this format of cricket.
1 1.3 Statement of the Problem
Performance in cricket is usually measured by runs scored or wickets taken on an individual basis, or win / loss ratio and the extent of a winning margin on a team basis. There is very little information as to the tactics used by individuals. Notational analysis has provided research into strategies and tactics for a variety of different team and individual sports (see chapter 2.4) however the bulk of research in cricket looks at injury prevention and the biomechanics of fast bowling (see chapter 2.6).
This thesis looks into the tactics used by batsmen in Twenty20 style cricket. A comparison will be made between the tactics adopted by batsmen from the winning and losing sides. This study looks at a number of performance indicators, as research found that factors like tactical skills can not be gauged by simply looking at the runs scored. (Damodaran 2006).
1.4 Aims of the Study
The aim of the study is to develop a computerised notation system using twelve matches from the 2007 calendar year. The data from the system will identify the tactics used by batsmen in Twenty20 cricket and if there are any significant differences used by the batsmen from successful and unsuccessful teams. Results will identify reasons why teams were successful or unsuccessful by recognizing common strategies and differences in performance. Successful and unsuccessful teams will be able to make use of the findings in order to become more successful.
2 1.5 Hypothesis
Null Hypothesis: There will be no significant difference between the tactics used by batsmen from successful and unsuccessful cricket teams using the identified performance variables.
Alternative Hypothesis: There will be a significant difference between the tactics used by batsmen from successful and unsuccessful cricket teams in one or more performance variable.
1.6 Delimitations
The twelve matches used for analysis are from International and English domestic
Twenty20 cricket matches from the current era, therefore the results cannot be generalised to non elite forms of cricket. The study looks at Twenty20 cricket played by men.
1.7 Limitations
The data will be collected from twelve Twenty20 matches, recorded from the 2007 calendar year. Limitations may occur during the data collection stage of investigation as camera angles, instant replays and quality of recording may have a negative visual affect on the analysis. Some of the performance indicators used are based on researchers perception. Readers or other researchers may perceive performance indicators differently. For example recording the line of each delivery, the length, shot selection, shot played and the fielding zone are all based on the researchers
3 perception. The pitch map notating the line and length and fielding zones are not shown on the recorded footage providing another limitation. There are always slight variations to specific cricket shots, especially due to the short, aggressive format of
Twenty20 cricket. Therefore within this study only the main shots are to be included.
1.8 Key Terms
Twenty20 Cricket: A version of cricket being completed within one day. A game lasts for a maximum of 40 overs, with each innings lasting a maximum of 20 overs.
Test Match Cricket: A version of cricket lasting for a maximum of 5 days, played only by International teams.
One Day Cricket: A version of cricket being completed in one day. A game lasts for a maximum of 100 overs, with each innings lasting a maximum of 50 overs.
Free Hit: Specific to Twenty20 cricket. The delivery following a front foot no ball is deemed a free hit by the standing umpire. For any free hit, the striker can only be dismissed if they are run out.
Pitching: The specific area where the ball bounces on the wicket.
Inner Circle: A 30 metre circle around the pitch, established in a bid to maximise runs scored and make the game more exciting. During field restrictions, only 2 fielders are allowed outside the inner circle.
4 Leg Side: The half of the field that is behind the batsman when in normal batting stance.
Off Side: The half of the field that is in front of the batsman when in normal batting stance.
5 3.0 Method
3.1 Research Design
This chapter explains the methods used in carrying out the study, highlighting the equipment used, how the study changed as an outcome of the pilot study, operational definitions and how the data will be analysed. The data was collected from twelve televised Twenty20 cricket matches during the 2007 calendar year. All the matches were recorded onto blank videocassettes from their initial live showing on Sky
Sports. The matches were played back using a videocassette recorder and the relevant data was recorded using a computer notation system. The data was recorded directly into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.
3.2 Equipment Used
The following equipment was used during the data collection period:
• 1 Sony Television
• 1 JVC Video Cassette Recorder
• 11 Video Cassettes with recorded Twenty20 matches
• 1 Advent Laptop with Microsoft Excel software
• Blank paper to make any relevant notes
• Pen
6
3.3 Pilot Study
A pilot study was completed in order to strengthen the reliability of the study and make apparent strengths and weaknesses of the system. It gave an approximation of the amount of time the data collection would take. The match used for the pilot study was log 4, England v Zimbabwe. The computerized system used for the pilot study is shown in table 1.
Table 1. Pre pilot study system design
Type Of Type of Line Length Shot Shot Fielding Dismissal Runs
Batsman Bowler Selection Played Zone
The conduction of the pilot study identified areas of the system that needed modification. It was identified that on occasions a batsman will play a shot without moving their feet; therefore a symbol was devised accounting for no foot movement.
The pilot study demonstrated the importance that the line of the ball had to be notated when the batsman made contact with the ball. This is because the ball is liable to move through the air or sideways off the seam when it pitches, therefore affecting the tactics of the batsmen regarding shot selection and shot played. It became apparent that some shots played were difficult to define as either attack or defend. It became clear that no balls must be notated as a rule specific to Twenty20 cricket states that if a bowler bowls a front foot no ball, the following delivery is a
‘free hit’ where the only method of dismissal is being run out. An additional column was added to the system entitled ‘other’ in order to notate anything that was deemed
7 viable to have an affect on the results. The modified system is shown in table 2, with a blank sample available in appendix A.
Table 2. Post pilot study system design
Type Of Type of Line Length Shot Shot Fielding Dismissal Runs Other
Batsman Bowler Selection Played Zone
3.4 Operational Definitions
The operational definitions used are subject to how the investigator perceives the game.
Type of Batsman
The type of batsman will be recorded by simply notating whether they are a right- handed or left-handed batsman. The symbols used are:
RHB – Right handed batsman
LHB – Left handed batsman
Type of Bowler
It was first notated whether the bowler delivered the ball with their right arm or left arm. The bowler type was then notated using descriptions from Hughes (2001).
Bowler descriptions provided on the video footage by Sky Sports were used as an aid if there were any uncertainties about the type of bowler. Bowler descriptions are shown in table 3.
8
Table 3. Types of bowler
Bowler Type Description
Fast Bowler: A bowler regularly capable of delivering the ball at over 90mph.
Fast Medium: A bowler typically delivering the ball between 85 and 90 mph.
Medium Fast: A bowler typically delivering the ball between 80 and 85 mph.
Medium: A seam bowler who delivers the ball between 70 and 80 mph,
typically aspiring for accuracy rather than speed.
Off Spin: A spin bowler who makes the ball spin from off to leg (left to
right) when the ball pitches (assuming bowling to right handed
batsmen).
Leg Spin: A spin bowler who makes the ball spin from leg to off (right to
left) when the ball pitches (assuming bowling to right handed
batsmen).
Left Arm A spin bowler delivering the ball with their left arm, with the ball
Orthodox: pitching and spinning away from the right handed batsman (from
right to left).
(Hughes, 2001)
9
Line
The line of each delivery was notated as the batsman made contact with the ball and not where the ball pitched. This was because bowlers of great skill are able to make the ball deviate off the pitch (Hughes, 2002). This is consequently likely to have an affect on the tactical decisions made by batsmen. The line of the ball is described in relation to its position with the stumps as shown in figure 1.
WOO OO O MO M ML L OL
Figure 1. Line of delivery faced by batsmen
Figure 1 is typical for a right-handed batsman. For a left-handed batsman the off and leg stump are the other way around. A ball that is wide outside leg stump will not be notated as anything down the leg side in this form of cricket is called a wide. A ball
10 slightly outside leg stump may still be in the batsman’s reach therefore will be notated.
Table 4. Description of varying lines of delivery
Symbol Description of line
WOO Wide outside the off stump.
OO Outside the off stump
O Off stump
MO In between the middle and off stumps
M Middle stump
ML In between the middle and leg stumps
L Leg stump
OL Outside the leg stump
Length
The length of the ball is where the ball pitches on the wicket in relation to where a batsman will typically be standing. It is commonly referred to as the place where the ball lands (Hughes, 2002) and is shown in figure 2.
11
Bowlers end Batsman’s end
HV
L
SL
FL
Y
Figure 2. Length of delivery faced by batsmen
12 Table 5. Variations in length
Length Description
Yorker (Y): A ball pitching close to, or level with the batsman’s feet aimed to
go under the bat.
Half Volley (HV): A ball pitching close to the batsman that he can drive easily
without risk of hitting the ball in the air.
Full Length (FL): A ball landing in a spot, where, the batsman can’t easily attack it.
It will roughly pitch 4 – 6 yards in front of the batsman.
Length (L): This will pitch roughly 8 yards from the batsman and force him on
to the back foot.
Short Length (SL): A short ball directed into the middle of the pitch.
(Hughes, 2002)
On occasions a bowler may deliver the ball that does not bounce before reaching the batsman. If this delivery is below the batsman’s waist height it is known as a full toss, a legitimate delivery. This will be recorded as FT. In the unlikely circumstances that the delivery is above waist height, the delivery is deemed a no ball, as it is potentially dangerous. This delivery is known as a beamer and recorded as B.
13 Shot Selection
It was recorded as to whether the batsman was playing off the front foot, the back foot or not moving their feet at all. It was also recorded as to whether the batsman was attacking or defending.
Table 6. Batsman intent and footwork definitions
Variable Description
Attack (A): A batsman plays the delivery in a positive manner, with the aim of
scoring runs.
Defend (D): No attempt is made by the batsman to score runs off the delivery,
only to preserve their wicket.
Other: When uncertainty occurs as to whether a batsman is attacking or
defending, it will be notated as OTHER.
Front Foot (F): The batsman’s foot closest to the bowler when he’s standing in his
stance. A shot off the front foot is one played with the weight on that
front leg.
Back foot (B): The foot furthest away from the bowler when he’s standing in his
stance (the right foot for the right handed batsman). To a short ball, a
batsman may take a step backwards to play the ball off the back foot.
No foot movement (Other): A batsman plays a shot without significantly moving
their feet either forwards or backwards.
14 (Hughes, 2002).
Shot Played
The batting symbols devised by Hughes and Franks (2004) will be used to notate the type of shot played. The symbols are shown in table 7. Although the definitions devised by Hughes and Franks (2004) successfully covers the majority of batting shots, batsmen in Twenty20 cricket often adopt rare, high risk shots not taken into consideration. Further definitions were added in order to notate a wider range of shots. Definitions were adapted from Hughes (2002).
Table 7. Definitions of each cricket shot
Front Foot Strokes Back Foot Strokes • Forward Defensive (F/) – A • Back Defense (B/) – A back defensive stroke played to a full foot, defensive shot played to a delivery. The batsman gets short of length delivery. Batsman forward and smothers the ball. is sideways on, with the hips aligned and pointing down the wicket. No ambition to score • Straight Drive (FSD) – • Square Cut (BSQC) – An Attacking, front foot shot played attacking, back foot shot, played to an over pitched delivery that on the off side with a downward the batsman can punch back past axe like movement of the bat. the bowler with the full face of the bat.
• Off Drive (FOD) – Attacking, • Off Drive (BOD) – An attacking, front foot shot played to an over back foot shot played with the pitched delivery when the ball full face of the bat to a short pitches a little wider. Hit through delivery that offers a little bit of the off side rather than straight. width.
• Cover Drive (FCD) – Attacking, • Pull Shot (BP) – An attacking, front foot shot played to an over back foot, leg side shot played to pitched, wide delivery. Classic a ball rising just above the waist. position involves head over the Cross batted shot similar to a ball, high elbow and a bent front baseball shot. knee. • On Drive (FOND) – Attacking, • Hook Shot (BH) – An attacking, front foot shot played to an over back foot shot usually played by
15 pitched delivery aiming at the swivelling inside the line of the batsmans legs. Batsman can ball and helping it on its way. A punch just wide of the bowler on cross batted shot to a short ball the leg side with the full face of rising above chest height. the bat. • Leg Glance (FG) – Attacking, • Leg Glance (BG) – Attacking, front foot shot played to a back foot shot played to a delivery on leg stump. Playing delivery on leg stump. Playing the ball off the legs with a the ball off the legs with a glancing shot. glancing shot.
• Square Drive (FSQD) – An • Cover Drive (BCD) – Attacking, attacking, front foot shot played back foot shot played to a short to a very wide, full delivery. ball offering some width. Played Played by swinging the bat down with a straight bat. in a vertical arc away from the body.
ADAPTED SHOTS • Sweep Shot (FSWP) – An • On Drive (BOND) – Attacking, attacking, front foot shot hitting back foot shot played with the across the line of the ball with a full face of the bat. Punched just cross bat. Batsman is low to the wide of the bowler on the leg ground, usually with their back side. leg parallel to the floor. • Reverse Sweep (FRSWP) – An attacking shot similar to the sweep shot. The batsman adjusts his grip, with the bat and wrists pointing the wrong way. • Front foot pull shot (FP) - An attacking, front foot shot played to a short ball rising just above the waist. Usually played off the back foot, however if the length is picked up early there is an opportunity to play the shot off the front foot. Similar to a baseball shot. • Heave (SLOG) – A hefty, cross batted shot to leg. Also known as a slog. Very aggressive in nature.
(Hughes, 2002)
16
In addition it was recorded using the symbol N / S when a batsman chose to leave
the ball and let it travel through to the wicket keeper. Common methods of leaving
the ball include shouldering arms, playing inside the line and dropping your hands
(Hughes, 2001).
It is important to note that with front foot drives, whether square drive, off drive,
cover drive, straight drive or on drive, shots are played to a particular direction with
the only characteristic difference between the shots derived from the angle at which
the ball is struck (Richards and Beckles, 1998). The directions in which the drives
are typically played for right-handed batsmen are shown in figure 3.
Off Side Leg Side
Batsman’s End
Key
On Drive
Straight Drive
Off Drive
Cover Drive
Figure 3. Direction of front foot drive variations Square Drive
17 Fielding Zone
The fielding zone refers to the sector of the entire field that the ball is either picked
up by a fielder in or the sector the ball comes to a stop in. The pitch is divided into
six sections with each section further subdivided into an inner and outer sector,
creating a total of twelve fielding zones. The fielding zones are shown in figure 4.
The Leg Side
The Off Side
Zone 6 Zone 1 - - Outer Outer
Zone 6 - Zone 1 - Inner Inner
Zone 5 Zone 2 - - Inner Inner Zone 5 Zone 2 - - Outer Outer
Zone 4 - Zone 3 - Inner Inner
Zone 4 - Zone 3 - Outer Outer
Figure 4. Fielding zone pitch map
18 Figure 4 is typical for a right-handed batsman. In the case of a left handed batsman being at the crease, the off side and leg side are the other way around.
Dismissal
It was notated whether a batsman was dismissed or not by using a simple Yes or No for each delivery. In the case of a wicket, a brief description was recorded under the
‘other’ heading as this assisted the identification of a batsman’s tactics.
Runs
The number of runs scored from each specific delivery was recorded. If no runs were scored, a simple black dot was used as this is the method used in a cricket scorebook and provides easy reading. In the case of a wicket, a W was used, again similar to the cricket scorebook.
Other
Simply stating the type of dismissal does not allow for tactical analysis of the dismissal therefore a brief description of what happened was recorded. For example gave room, edge, caught slip. The type of extra was recorded here, e.g. no ball.
Different types of footwork were recorded, for example batsmen at times advance down the pitch. Any additional notes were recorded.
19 3.5 Procedure
Before the data collection began, the videos were checked to make sure the quality was good enough to provide accurate results. A Microsoft Excel spreadsheet was opened and the performance indicators as well as the team competing and the team to bat first were recorded at the top. The video was placed into the video cassette recorder and began playing. Before play began the type of batsman on strike and the type of bowler was recorded. If unsure, the player profiles from Sky Sports shown on the video aided notation. To avoid later confusion regarding which batsman is on strike, the initials of the batsman on strike each delivery was recorded. As the bowler was running up to deliver the ball, the tape was paused just prior to the ball leaving their hand. The slow motion function on the remote control was used by continually pressing the pause button. The tape was paused again as the ball bounced to record the length of the delivery. The slow motion function was again used until the batsman made contact with the ball. The tape was again paused to record the line of the delivery and the shot selection. The tape was rewound to the beginning of the delivery at this point and viewed in normal speed. The shot played and fielding zone were then recorded as watching it in normal speed gave a more definitive picture of the type of shot being played. Watching the batsmen run between the wickets when visibly possible and viewing the live Sky Sports scoreboard on the video helped notate the number of runs. Any extras or additional comments were made after the delivery had been viewed in full speed. The video was then rewound again and the delivery viewed in normal speed one final time to check that all the details were correct. The procedure was replicated for every delivery. The total data collection covered a period of approximately twenty-four hours.
20
3.6 Test – Retest Reliability
Reliability refers to the consistency of the results obtained and how truthful a studies conceptual framework is (Gratton and Jones, 2004). To enhance the reliability of the study, a test – retest reliability procedure was completed. The purpose being to identify whether the research would provide the same measurements if repeated at a different time, consequently providing the same score over and over again (Gratton and Jones, 2004). The procedure recorded the first ten overs of the match between
England and Zimbabwe on three separate occasions. Each occasion was split up by a minimum of a week long break as to avoid the investigator having any memory influence on the data collection. A comparison was made firstly between the data from Test 1 (T1) and Test 2 (T2), and then Test 2 (T2) was compared with Test 3
(T3) using a Kappa statistical test. A Kappa test was used as it compares the agreement against that which might be expected by chance. Performance indicators dismissal, runs, type of batsman and type of bowler were not tested as a perfect
Kappa score of 1.000 was undoubtedly going to occur due to the identical data collected for each test. Table 4 indicates the Kappa values found for the remaining variables.
21 3.7 Reliability Results
Table 8. Results of the Kappa reliability tests
PERFORMANCE T1 v T2 T2 v T3
INDICATOR
Line 0.990 0.980
Length 0.986 1.000
Shot Selection 1.000 1.000
Shot Played 0.991 0.991
Fielding Zone 0.972 0.981
According to research by Landis and Koch (1977), a Kappa value between 0.81 and
1.00 is accepted as almost perfect. This suggests therefore that the results from the reliability test performed have a high degree of agreement beyond chance. As a result, the results of this study can be deemed reliable.
3.8 Data
The data was collected from the first ten overs of twelve Twenty20 matches from the
2007 calendar year. The research is of a quantitative nature with the data being notated from matches broadcast live on Sky Sports. Due to a live public audience, subject consent was not required. Once collected, the data was split into two categories, winning and losing. Only data that was viewed live by the operator was recorded, excluding deliveries interrupted by replays or technical faults.
22 3.9 Data Analysis
The data was split into two different groups; the winning and losing teams data. For reference, the winning teams data was referred to as successful and losing teams as unsuccessful. All the data was inserted into a single Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, which was loaded into SPSS to allow for statistical analysis of the data. The data was cross tabulated in SPSS to give descriptive statistics of the data. Chi Squared Tests of Independence were used for all performance indicators. Chi Squared Tests of
Independence were used as it examines whether there is an association between two categorical variables (Field, 2005). If the data analysis produced a p value of 0.05 or below then the data is significantly different and therefore the difference is unlikely to be a coincidence. If a p value greater than 0.051 occurs, no significant difference between the variables exists and it’s possible that the findings were coincidence
(Gratton and Jones, 2004). The SPSS output sheet can be seen in appendix B.
23 Table 9. Matches used for data collection
Successful team is shown in bold.
Log Match Venue Date
1 England Vs Australia Neutral 14.9.07
2 Sussex Vs Essex Sussex 3.7.07
3 England Vs West Indies England 28.6.07
4 England Vs Zimbabwe Neutral 13.9.07
5 England Vs India Neutral 19.9.07
6 South Africa Vs West Indies South Africa 11.9.07
7 South Africa Vs England South Africa 16.9.07
8 Lancashire Vs Yorkshire Lancashire 27.6.07
9 Sussex Vs Yorkshire Sussex 18.7.07
10 Warwickshire Vs Northants Warwickshire 26.6.07
11 Lancashire Vs Gloucester Neutral 4.8.07
12 Kent Vs Sussex Neutral 4.8.07
24 4.0 Results
4.1 Comparison of Successful and Unsuccessful Batsmen
The purpose of the investigation was to compare the tactics used by batsmen from successful and unsuccessful Twenty20 cricket teams. The performance variables were tested by means of Chi Squared Tests of Independence. This identified whether the results were significantly different between the successful and unsuccessful
Twenty20 cricket teams.
Runs scored and wickets taken directly influence the outcome in cricket therefore this chapter begins by identifying this difference and some further general batting comparisons.
Table 10. A general comparison of batting figures between successful and unsuccessful batsmen
Number of Team times play Runs Scored Wickets Lost LHB RHB and miss
Successful 412 19 231 521 77
Unsuccessful 418 29 125 616 75
There was a significant difference found between successful and unsuccessful teams type of batsman (P<0.001).
There was no significant difference found between successful and unsuccessful number of dismissals (P>0.05).
25 250 250 Successful 210 Unsucessful 200
150 114 100 93
53 50 47 Number of Occasions 2519 10 9 0 1's 2's 3's 4's 6's Number of Runs
Figure 5. Comparison of the accumulation of runs between successful and unsuccessful batsmen
There was no significant difference of runs scored between successful and unsuccessful teams (P>0.05).
114 120 4's 6's 93 100
80
60
40 25 Boundaries Hit 19 20
0 Successful Unsuccessful Team
Figure 6. Frequency comparison of boundaries scored by successful and unsuccessful batsmen
26 412 418 450 340 400 323 350 300 250 200 150 100 Number of Deliveries 50 0 Balls Not Scored From Balls Scored from
Successful Team Unsuccessful Team
Figure 7. Frequency comparison of deliveries scored from and deliveries that were not scored from by successful and unsuccessful batsmen
Table 11. Breakdown of the run scoring strategies between successful and unsuccessful batsmen
Runs Successful (%) Unsuccessful (%) 1's 27.9 33.7 2's 7.0 6.3 3's 1.3 1.2 4's 15.2 12.6 6's 3.3 2.6 Boundaries 18.5 15.1 Deliveries scored from 54.8 56.4 Deliveries not scored from 45.2 43.6
27
Z1O
Z6O 10% 61
6% 36 10% 60 12% 72
Z6I Z1I
4% 22 3% 20 4% 23 4% 23
Z2I Z5I
12% 73 11% 67 12% 77 14% 91
Z5O Z2O
7% 41 Z4I 14% 82 5% 32 Z3I 13% 80 9% 54 8% 51 7% 43 8% 50
Z4O
Z3O 6% 36 6% 35 7% 41 8% 48
Figure 8. Comparison of the deliveries struck to each fielding zone by successful and unsuccessful batsmen
Results shown as a percentage and frequency. The successful teams data is shown in bold.
There was no significant difference in the fielding zone the ball was struck towards between successful and unsuccessful teams (P>0.05).
28 330 320 321 320 314 315 310 304 303 300 290 Successful 280 279 280 Unsuccessful 270 Number of Deliveries 260 250 Off Side Leg Side Inner Circle Outer Circle Fielding Area
Figure 9. Comparison of deliveries struck to the off side, leg side and to the inner and outer fielding zones
400 Successful 350 Unsuccessful
300
250
200
150
Number of Deliveries 100
50
0 B / A B / F / D N / S OTHER OTHER / D Shot Selection
Figure 10. Frequency comparison of the shot selection used by successful and unsuccessful batsmen
29 There was no significant difference in shot selection between successful and unsuccessful teams (P>0.05).
60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00
Value (%) 20.00 10.00 0.00 Front foot strokes Back foot strokes Successful 59.84 34.97 Unsuccessful 57.62 39.41 Foot Work
Figure 11. Comparison of the front foot and back foot strokes played by successful and unsuccessful batsmen
90 80 70 60 50 40 Value % 30 20 10 0 Attacking Shots Defensive Shots Successful 81.25 13.30 Unsuccessful 81.11 15.38 Type of Shot
Figure 12. Comparison of the attacking and defensive strokes played by successful and unsuccessful batsmen
30
49 50 46 45 45 40 35 30 30 25 Successful 20 Unsuccessful 15 10 Number of deliveries 5 0 Advanced Down Pitch Made Room Additional footwork tactics
Figure 13. Frequency comparison of the additional footwork tactics used by successful and unsuccessful batsmen
31
Table 12. Percentage values for the type of shot played by successful and unsuccessful batsmen
Shot Played Successful (%) Unsuccessful (%) Back foot defence 6.52 7.96 Back foot cover drive 0.80 0.94 Back foot leg glance 7.85 8.10 Hook shot 0.53 0.13 Back foot off drive 3.32 4.45 Back foot on drive 0.40 0.81 Back foot pull shot 6.78 6.48 Square cut 8.78 9.85 Front foot defence 6.52 7.69 Front foot cover drive 7.98 9.04 Front foot leg glance 7.58 7.29 Front foot off drive 6.91 5.67 Front foot on drive 4.52 5.53 Front foot pull shot 1.99 3.24 Reverse sweep 1.60 0.94 Front foot straight drive 3.19 3.78 Front foot square drive 4.79 4.99 Sweep shot 6.52 3.10 N / A 0.00 0.13 Left alone 4.12 1.89 No footwork defensive shot 0.53 0.27 No footwork cover drive 0.27 0.27 No footwork leg glance 0.13 0.00 No footwork off drive 0.13 0.27 Slog / Heave 8.24 7.15
There was no significant difference of shot played between successful and unsuccessful teams (P>0.05).
32 70 62 Successful Unsuccessful 60 53 49 50
40 31 30 23
20 14
Number of Times Played 10
0 SLOG FSWP N / S Shot Played
Figure 14. Strokes played significantly more frequently by successful batsmen
70 67 Successful 60 Unsuccessful 60 52 50 42 41 40 36 37 34 30 28 24 20 Number of Times Played 10
0 FCD FOD FOND FSD FSQD Type of Front Foot Drive
Figure 15. Frequency comparison for the variety of front foot drives played by successful and unsuccessful batsmen
33 RAOS 48 52 Unsuccessful Team 143 RAMF 97 Successful Team 48 RAM 76 30 RALS 56 339 RAFM 370 49 RAF 22
Type of Bowler 24 LAO 54 6 LAMF 0 54 LAFM 25
0 100 200 300 400 Number of Deliveries
Figure 16. Frequency comparison for the type of bowler typically faced by successful and unsuccessful batsmen
There was a significant difference found between successful and unsuccessful teams type of bowler (P<0.001).
Each type of bowler can be typically placed in either a seam bowling category (fast and medium typed bowlers) or spin bowling category (leg and off spin).
34 700 639 568 600
500
400 All Seam Bowling 300 All Spin Bowling 162 200 102
Number of Deliveries 100
0 Successful Unsuccessful Team
Figure 17. Frequency comparison of deliveries faced from seam and spin bowling by successful and unsuccessful batsmen
LENGTH 42% 318 HALF VOLLEY FULL TOSS 43% 316 9% 71 5% 36 9% 68 4% 26
YORKER FULL LENGTH SHORT LENGTH 3% 25 23% 172 17% 130 2% 16 22% 162 21% 153
Figure 18. Comparison of the length of delivery faced by successful and unsuccessful batsmen
35 Results shown as a percentage and frequency. The successful teams data is shown in bold.
There was no significant difference found between successful and unsuccessful teams length of delivery faced (P>0.05).
Table 13. Percentage comparison of the different line of delivery faced by successful and unsuccessful batsmen
Successful Unsuccessful Line (%) (%) Leg 5.05 5.26 Middle 6.12 5.80 Middle and Leg 7.71 9.18 Middle and Off 10.51 8.91 Off 18.75 19.16 Outside Leg 9.04 8.37 Outside Off 32.71 32.12 Wide Outside Off 10.11 11.20
36 250
200
150
100
Number of Deliveries 50
0 L M ML MO O OL OO WOO Successful 38 46 58 79 141 68 246 76 Unsuccessful 39 43 68 66 142 62 238 83 Line
Figure 19. Frequency comparison of the line of delivery faced by successful and unsuccessful batsmen
There was no significant difference found between successful and unsuccessful teams line of delivery faced (P>0.05).
Straight deliveries are ones that would go on to hit the stumps if missed by the batsmen.
400 350 300 250 200 150 100
Number of Deliveries 50 0 O MO M ML L Total Successful 141 79 46 58 38 362 Unsuccessful 142 66 43 68 39 358 Line of Delivery
Figure 20. Frequency comparison of straight deliveries
37 18 18 Successful 16 16 Unsuccessful 14
12
10
8
6 5 4
Number of Dismissals 4 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 Caught Bowled LBW Run OutStumped Mode of Dismissal
Figure 21. Frequency comparison for mode of dismissal of successful and unsuccessful batsmen
38 6.0 Conclusion
6.1 Summary of Investigation Findings
The system devised can be seen as extremely reliable. The Kappa test produced near perfect results for all the variables tested on the T1 v T2 and T2 v T3 tests, implying that the results have a high degree of agreement beyond chance.
The results from the investigation have shown that there is no significant difference found in the runs scored, number of dismissals, fielding zone, shot selection, shot played, length of delivery and line of delivery between successful and unsuccessful teams. There was s significant difference found in the type of batsman and type of bowler between successful and unsuccessful teams. A significant difference was found in two variables therefore the alternative hypothesis can not be rejected.
It was hypothesised there would be a significant difference found in more than two variables due to the short nature of Twenty20 cricket. This was not the case therefore it is thought that differences in on field tactics do not have a direct influence on the outcome of an elite Twenty20 cricket match. Rather, findings identify that it is the implementation of tactics that has a direct influence of the success of a Twenty20 cricket team.
39
6.2 Practical Recommendations
Findings from this investigation into elite level Twenty20 cricket propose that:
1. Although against the short nature of Twenty20 cricket, batsmen should take
their time and keep wickets in hand in order to attack the bowlers towards the
end of the innings without the risk of being bowled out before their allotted
20 overs.
2. Batsmen should attempt to strike as many boundaries as possible as this has a
greater influence on the success of a team than scoring singles and rotating
the strike.
3. Fielders within the inner circle should stand on the very edge as stopping a
ball destined to go to the boundary is of greater importance than stopping a
single.
4. Bowlers should mix up their bowling with different variations as much as
possible and attempt to make it difficult for batsmen to hit the ball through
the leg side.
5. Captains should attempt to strengthen the leg side field.
40 6. Whoever is responsible for team selection should utilize left handed batsmen,
especially at the top of the innings, and include left arm bowlers in their
team.
6.3 Recommendations for Future Research
There is still a significant lack of research within Twenty20 cricket. Further research could make a comparison between all forms of cricket (Test, One Day and Twenty20 cricket) and the tactics and strategies adopted. A direct comparison between specific batsmen and specific bowler types could be researched. As Twenty20 cricket is now a Worldwide domestic competition, an investigation could research what makes teams from different countries successful. With the next Twenty20 World Cup in
England in 2009, there is an opportunity to identify the tactics used to win a World
Cup competition. Comparisons could be made in to home and away advantage as unlike other forms of cricket, Twenty20 cricket regularly has full crowds therefore there could be a significant crowd influence on the result. Under the laws of cricket, both One Day cricket and Twenty20 cricket must have field restrictions for 20 overs and 6 overs respectively. Future research could make a comparison between the tactics in One Day cricket and Twenty20 cricket during these field restrictions.
Very little research exists in women’s cricket due to limited coverage and minimal popularity until recently. Twenty20 cricket is now played at the elite level by female cricket teams, therefore providing an area for future research into the strategies and tactics used. An interesting investigation could compare the tactics used by elite males against elite female Twenty20 players, especially as female cricketers are not
41 as powerful as males and therefore other scoring methods other than striking boundaries would have a greater influence on the tactics used and the final outcome.
42 REFERENCE LIST
Allsopp, P. (2005). Measuring Team Performance and Modelling the Home
Advantage Effect in Cricket. Unpublished Dissertation.
Altham, H.S. (1962). A History of Cricket. Great Britain. George Allen and Unwin ltd.
Angel, G.M., Evangelos, T., and Alberto, L. (2006). Defensive Systems in
Basketball Ball Possessions. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport.
University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, 6(1), 98 – 107.
Bal, S. (2006). The Wisden Cricketer, Volume 3(7), London.
Bartlett, R.M., Stockill, N.P., Elliott, B.C., and Burnett, A.F. (1996). The
Biomechanics of Fast Bowling in Men’s Cricket: A Review. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 14(5), 403 – 424.
Beashel, P., Sibson, A., and Taylor, J. (2001). The World of Sport Examined 2nd
Edition. United Kingdom. Nelson Thornes ltd.
Beaudoin, D. (2001). The Best Batsmen and Bowlers in One Day Cricket. Laval
University. Unpublished Dissertation.
43 Bell, P.A. (1992). Spondylolysis in Fast Bowlers: Principles of Prevention and a
Survey of Awareness among Cricket Coach’s. British Journal of Sports
Medicine.26(4), 273 – 275.
Booth, L. (2005). The Wisden Cricketer, 2(11), London.
Brooks, R., Bussiere, L.F., Jennias, M.D and Hunt, J. (2003). Sinister Strategies at the Cricket World Cup. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Biological Sciences,
271(3), 64 – 66.
Burnett, A.F., Elliott, B.C., and Marshall R.N. (1995). The Effect of a 12 Over Spell on Fast Bowling Technique in Cricket. Journal of Sports Sciences, 13(4), 329 – 341.
Burnett, A.F., Barrett, C.J., Marshall, R.N., Elliott, B.C., and Day, R.E. (1998).
Three Dimensional Measurement of Lumbar Spine Kinematics for Fast Bowlers in
Cricket. Clinical Biomechanics, 13(8), 574 – 583.
Buthcer, M. cited in Hault, N. (2004). The Wisden Cricketer, 1(12), London.
Clarke, S.R. (1988). Dynamic Programming in One Day Cricket – Optimal Scoring
Rates. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 39(4), 331.
Clarke, S.R. (1991). In Measuring Team Performance and Modelling the Home
Team Advantage Effect in Cricket (edited by Allsopp, P. 2005). Cardiff, UK:
U.W.I.C. Unpublished Dissertation.
44
Croucher, J.S. (1987). A Guide to Cricket-Stat. A System for the Statistical Analysis of Cricket Matches. (Version 2.2).
Damodaran, U. (2006). Stochastic Dominance and Analysis of ODI Batting
Performance: The Indian Cricket Team 1989 – 2005. Journal of Sports Science and
Medicine, 5, 503 – 508.
Dennis, R., Farhart, P., Clements, M., and Ledwidge, H. (2004). The Relationship
Between Fast Bowling Workload and Injury in First Class Cricketers : A Pilot Study.
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 7(2), 232 – 236.
De Silva, B.M. and Swartz, T.B. (1997). Winning the Coin Toss and the Home Team
Advantage in One-Day International Cricket Matches. The Cricket Statistician:
Journal of the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians, 107, 23-29.
Dewell, R. (2004). Multimedia Learning Aids to Improve Cricket Coaching.
University of Gloucestershire: UK. Unpublished Dissertation.
Dungarpur, R.S. (2006),Twenty20 harmful for batters. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com The Times of India (Online). Accessed on 27 / 02
/ 08.
ECB Cricket Coach Manual 1 (no date).
45 Elderton, W.E., and Elderton, E.M. (1909). Primer of Statistics. London. Black.
Elliott, B.C. (2000), Back injuries and the fast bowler in cricket. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 18(12), 983-991.
Elliott, B., and Khangure, M. (2002). Disk Degeneration and Fast Bowling in
Cricket: An Intervention Study. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise,
34(11), 1714 – 1718.
Field, A. (2005). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS Second Edition. London. Sage
Publishers.
Franks, I.M. (1983) In Notational Analysis of Sport (edited by Hughes, M., and
Franks, I.M. 1997), pp. 50 – 51. London: E & FN Spon.
Franks, I.M., Goodman, D. and Miller, G. (1983). In Notational Analysis of Sport
(edited by Hughes, M., and Franks, I.M. 1997), P.51. London: E & FN Spon.
Gratton, C., and Jones, I. (2004). Research Methods for Sports Studies. London.
Routledge.
Gregory, P.L., Batt, M.E., and Wallace, W.A. (2004). Is Risk of Fast Bowlers Injury in Cricketers Greatest in Those who Bowl Most? A Cohort of Young English Fast
Bowlers. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 38, 125 – 128.
46 Gwyn, S. (2003). A Notational Analysis of the Performance of 3 Batsmen in Test
Matches and One Day International Cricket. Cardiff, UK: U.W.I.C. Unpublished
Dissertation.
Haigh, G. (2007). Overcooked third-raters pave way for march of Twenty20. The
Guardian (Online), http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cricketworldcup2007. Accessed on 16
/ 01/ 08
Hardcastle, P., Annera, P., Foster, D.H., Chakera, T.M., McCormick, C., Khangure,
M., and Burnett, A. (1992). Spinal abnormalities in Young Fast Bowlers. British
Journal of Bone and Joint surgery, 74B(3), 421 – 425.
Hault, N. (2004). The Wisden Cricketer, 2(1), London.
Hollioake, A. cited in Brigham, D. (2004). The Wisden Cricketer, 1(10), P30.
London.
Howells, C. (2000). A Comparison of the Tactics used by 3 Groups of Teams in the
First 15 Overs of the 1999 Cricket World Cup. Cardiff, UK: U.W.I.C. Unpublished
Dissertation.
Hughes, S. (2001). Jargonbusting. The Analysts guide to Test Cricket. London.
Channel four books.
47 Hughes, S. (2002). Jargonbusting. Mastering the Art of Cricket. London. Channel four books.
Hughes, M., and Franks, I.M. (1997). Notational Analysis of Sport. London. E & FN
Spon.
Hughes, M., and Franks, I.M. (2004). Notational Analysis of Sport: Second Edition.
London. Routledge.
Jackson, N., and Hughes, M. (2001).Patterns of Play of Successful and Unsuccessful
Teams in Elite Women’s Rugby Union. In Pass.com, (edited by Hughes, M., and
Franks, M.). Centre for Performance Analysis, UWIC, Cardiff. P.111.
James, N., Mellalieu, D., and Hollely, C. (2002). Analysis of Strategies in Soccer as a Function of European and Domestic Competition. International Journal of
Performance Analysis in Sport, University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, 2(1), 85 –
103.
Kellaway, S., and Hughes, M. (2001). Patterns of Defensive Play of Elite Teams. In
Play.com, (Edited by Hughes, M., and Franks, M.). Centre for Performance
Analysis, UWIC, Cardiff.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 1159-1174.
48 Leary, T., and White, J.A. (2000). Acute Injury Incidence in Professional County
Club Cricket Players (1985 – 1995). British Journal of sports Medicine, 34, 145 –
147.
Marks, V. (1999). Mind Games. 1999 Cricket World Cup Yearbook. Absolute Sports
Publications.
Mexas, K., Tsitskaris, G., Kyriakou, D., and Garefis, A. (2005). Comparison of
Effectiveness of Organised Offences Between two Different Championships in High
Level Basketball. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport.
University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, 5(1), 72 – 82.
Orchard, J., James, T., Alcott, E., Carter, S., and Farhart, P. (2002). Injuries in
Australia Cricket at First Class Level 1995 / 1996 to 2000 / 2001. British Journal of
Sports Medicine, 36, 270 – 274.
Ovens, M., and Bukiet, B. (2006). A Mathematical Modelling Approach to One Day
Cricket Batting Orders. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 5, 495 – 502.
Preston, I., and Thomas, J. (2000). Batting Strategy in Limited Overs Cricket. The
Statistician, 49(1), 95 – 106.
49 Portus, M.R., Sinclair, P.J., Burke, S.T., Moore, D.J.A., and Farhart, P.J. (2000).
Cricket Fast Bowling Performance and Technique and the Influence of Selected
Physical Factors During an 8 Over Spell. Journal of Sport Sciences, 18(12), 999 –
1011.
Powell, S. (2005). A Comparison of Tactics and Strategies Used by Successful and
Unsuccessful Twenty20 Cricket Teams. Cardiff, UK: U.W.I.C. Unpublished
Dissertation.
Richards, V., and Beckles, H. (1998). A Spirit of Dominance: Cricket and
Nationalism in the West Indies. West Indies. Canoe Press.
Seth, A. (2002). Patterns of Play in Test Match and One Day International Cricket.
Cardiff, UK: U.W.I.C. Unpublished Dissertation.
Simpson, B. (2006). Cricket Then and Now. Australia. Allen and Unwin.
Snape, J. (2007). Snape’s Guide to Twenty20 Bowling. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket
BBC (Online). Accessed on 7 / 12 / 2007.
Stretch, R.A., Nurick, G.N., Balden, V., and McKellar D.K. (2004). The Position of
Impact of a Ball Striking a Cricket Bat: Assisting Coaches with Performance
Analysis of Cricket Technique and Skill Levels. International Journal of
Performance Analysis in Sport. University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, 4(2), 74 – 81.
50 Stuelcken, M.C., Portus, M.R., and Mason, B.R. (2005). Cricket : Off Side Front
Foot Drives in Men’s High Performance Cricket. Sports Biomechanics, 4(1), 17 –
36.
Swartz, T.B., Gill, P.S., Beaudoin, D and Desilva, B.M. (2004). Optimal Batting
Orders in One Day Cricket. Computers and Operations Research, 33, 1939 – 1950.
Takahashi, H., Wada, J., Maeda, A., Kodama, M., Nishizono, H., and Kurata, H.
(2006). The Relationship Between Court Surface and Tactics in Tennis Using a
Computerised Scorebook. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport.
University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, 6(2), 15 – 25.
Tong, A. (2002). The Cricketer International, 83(5), London.
Twenty20 Cup Playing Conditions (2007). www.ecb.co.uk Accessed on 23 / 01 / 08
Wallis, R., Elliott, B., and Koh, M. (2002). The Effect of a Fast Bowling Harness in
Cricket: An Intervention Study. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20(6), 495 – 506.
Yates, C. (2003). A Comparison of Patterns of Play Between Two International
Cricket Teams and Two Playing Conditions in One Day Cricket. Cardiff, UK:
U.W.I.C. Unpublished Dissertation
51 Yiannis, L., and Panagiotis, K. (2005). Evolution in Men’s Volleyball Skills and
Tactics as Evidenced in the Athens 2004 Olympic Games. International Journal of
Performance Analysis in sport. University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, 5(2), 1 – 8.
52