Representation of Overs Limitation for an Individual in Rain-Affected Match

Authors

  • Muhammad Arslan Department of Mathematics, University of Management and Technology, C II Johartown, Lahore, 54770, Punjab, Pakistan Author
  • Tabasam Rashid Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics, University of Management and Technology, C II Johartown, Lahore, 54770, Punjab, Pakistan. Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54536/ajssi.v1i1.6971

Keywords:

Bowling, Strike Rate, Interrupted Play, Overs Limitation, Rain, Sports, Team Squad

Abstract

This paper proposes a method for determining overs limitations for individual bowlers in rain-affected cricket matches by integrating analysis of bowling strike rates with the number of remaining overs, constrained by time limits. The strategy is developed in opposition to the current Duckworth-Lewis (D/L), Duckworth-Lewis-Stern (DLS), ICC, and PCB rules, which tend to stabilize the number of overs that individual bowlers can have at a fifth of the total amount of overs. As much as this rule is operationally easy, it is not always fair to competing teams. Specifically, it does not consider the contribution of the best or worst bowlers since there is no limit constructed regarding the performance related to aspects like bowling strike rate, pace, ball speed, and the average run rate of the ongoing match, particularly when there are breaks after the midpoint of the play is achieved. In addition, there may be an over as the number of overs may not be a multiple of five. In these cases, the extra over is devolved to the whims of the bowling team and is frequently distributed to the most talented of the bowlers instead of according to some objective, factor-based criterion. This discretionary allocation can bring bias and disrupt the balance of the competition. The suggested overs-limitation method solves these apprehensions by estimating “n” or “(n + R)”, i.e., how many overs each bowler is entitled to, with the help of the mean bowling strike rate of the team and the individual bowling strike rates of the team bowlers. The method will increase fairness and transparency by combining objective performance measures and practical decision-making.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abbas, K., & Haider, S. (2019, December). Duckworth-Lewis-Stern method comparison with machine learning approach. In 2019 International Conference on Frontiers of Information Technology (FIT) (pp. 197-1975). IEEE.

Bhattacharya, R., Gill, P. S., & Swartz, T. B. (2011). Duckworth–Lewis and twenty20 cricket. Journal of the operational research society, 62(11), 1951-1957.

Carter, M., & Guthrie, G. (2004). Cricket interruptus: fairness and incentive in limited overs cricket matches. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 55(8), 822-829.

Clarke, S. R. (1998). Test statistics. Statistics in sport, 83-101.

Cohen, G. L. (1999). MATHEMATICS-One Day Cricket: Inferences From Bowler’s Strike Rates. Mathematics Today-Bulletin of the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications, 35(2), 45-47.

De Silva, B. M., Pond, G. R., & Swartz, T. B. (2001). Applications: Estimation of the Magnitude of Victory in One‐day Cricket RMIT University, Mayo Clinic Rochester and Simon Fraser University. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Statistics, 43(3), 259-268.

Duckworth, C., & Lewis. (1999). Mathematics of one day cricket. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 24(1), 64-66.

Duckworth, F. (2004). A fair result in foul weather. Significance, 1(2), 94-96.

Duckworth, F. C., & Lewis, A. J. (1998). A fair method for resetting the target in interrupted one-day cricket matches. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 49(3), 220-227.

Duckworth, F., Lewis, T., & Stern, S. (2019). Cricket’s raining champion: Two decades of Duckworth–Lewis (and Stern). Significance, 16(3), 30-35.

Duckworth, F.C. (2008). The Duckworth/Lewis method: an exercise in Maths, Stats, OR and communications. MSOR connections, 8, 11-14.

Ghosal, D., & Prakash, C. D. (2025). International Cricket Council: rethinking growth strategy of cricket. Emerald Emerging Markets Case Studies, 15(2), 1-63.

Jayadevan, V. (2002). A new method for the computation of target scores in interrupted, limited-over cricket matches. Current Science, 83(5), 577-586.

Kimber, A. (1993). A graphical display for comparing bowlers in cricket. Teaching Statistics, 15(3), 84-86.

Lemmer, H. H. (2002). The combined bowling rate as a measure of bowling performance in cricket. South African Journal for Research in Sport, Physical Education and Recreation, 24(2), 37-44.

Lemmer, H. H. (2011). The single match approach to strike rate adjustments in batting performance measures in cricket. Journal of sports science & medicine, 10(4), 630.

Malhotra, A., & Krishna, S. (2018). Release velocities and bowler performance in cricket. Journal of Applied Statistics, 45(9), 1616-1627.

McHale, I. G., & Asif, M. (2013). A modified Duckworth–Lewis method for adjusting targets in interrupted limited overs cricket. European Journal of Operational Research, 225(2), 353-362.

Olivier, B., Martin, C., Zumana, N., & Godlwana, L. (2019). Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of six musculoskeletal preparticipatory screening tests. South African Journal of Physiotherapy, 75(1), 1-10.

Omkar, S. N., & Verma, R. (2003, September). Cricket team selection using genetic algorithm. In International congress on sports dynamics, Melbourne, Australia (pp. 1-9).

PCB. (2025). https://www.pcb.com.pk/downloads/Stan- dard%20ODI%20July%202015.pdf

Preston, I., & Thomas, J. (2002). Rain rules for limited overs cricket and probabilities of victory. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series D: The Statistician, 51(2), 189-202.

Ray, S., & Roychowdhury, S. (2021). Cricket mix optimization using heuristic framework after ensuring Markovian equilibrium. Journal of Sports Analytics, 7(3), 155-168.

Saikia, H., Bhattacharjee, D., & Mukherjee, D. (2019). Cricket Performance Management. Cham: Springer Nature.

Sargent, J. R., & Bedford, A. (2012). Using Conditional Estimates to Simulate In-Play Outcomes in Limited Overs Cricket. Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, 8(2).

Schall, R., & Weatherall, D. (2013). Accuracy and fairness of rain rules for interrupted one-day cricket matches. Journal of Applied Statistics, 40(11), 2462-2479.

Schall, R., & Weatherall, D. (2013). Accuracy and fairness of rain rules for interrupted one-day cricket matches. Journal of Applied Statistics, 40(11), 2462-2479.

Shah, H., Sampat, J., Savla, R., & Bhowmick, K. (2015). Review of duckworth lewis method. Procedia Computer Science, 45, 95-100.

Singh, T., Singla, V., & Bhatia, P. (2015, October). Score and winning prediction in cricket through data mining. In 2015 international conference on soft computing techniques and implementations (ICSCTI) (pp. 60-66). IEEE.

Stern, S. E. (2009). An adjusted Duckworth–Lewis target in shortened limited overs cricket matches. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 60(2), 236-251.

Stern, S. E. (2016). The Duckworth-Lewis-Stern method: extending the Duckworth-Lewis methodology to deal with modern scoring rates. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 67(12), 1469-1480.

Swartz, T. B., Gill, P. S., & Muthukumarana, S. (2009). Modelling and simulation for one‐day cricket. Canadian Journal of Statistics, 37(2), 143-160.

Swartz, T. B., Gill, P. S., & Muthukumarana, S. (2009). Modelling and simulation for one‐day cricket. Canadian Journal of Statistics, 37(2), 143-160.

Swartz, T. B., Gill, P. S., Beaudoin, D., & DeSilva, B. M. (2006). Optimal batting orders in one-day cricket. Computers & operations research, 33(7), 1939-1950.

Tsakonas, A., Dounias, G., Shtovba, S., & Vivdyuk, V. (2002, May). Soft computing-based result prediction of football games. In The First International Conference on Inductive Modelling (ICIM’2002). Lviv, Ukraine.

Downloads

Published

2026-04-07

How to Cite

Arslan, M. ., & Rashid, T. . (2026). Representation of Overs Limitation for an Individual in Rain-Affected Match. American Journal of Sports Science and Innovation, 1(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.54536/ajssi.v1i1.6971