The evolution of competitive balance in men’s international cricket

Figures & data

Table 1: Previous research on CB in football.

Author(s)	Leagues examined	Timeframe	Findings of CB
Feddersen and Maennig (2005)	German first division (men)	1969–2004	No changes in CB
Goossens (2006)	Top 5 European leagues (men)	1964–2005	Decline in English and Italian first divisions
Groot (2008)	Top 5 European leagues (men)	1946–2006	Decline in English, German, Italian and Dutch first divisions
Kringstad (2018)	Top divisions of Sweden, Denmark and Norway (men and women)	1995–2015	Significant difference between men’s and women’s football
Michie and Oughton (2004)	Top 5 European leagues (men)	1948–2004	Decline in English, German, Italian and Spanish first divisions
Mondal (2021)	Top 5 European leagues (women)	1996–2019	Improvement in England, Sweden and Norway
Plumley et al. (2018)	English Premier Division (men)	1992–2016	Decline in English Premier Division
Plumley et al. (2020)	Top 5 Asian leagues (men)	1996–2017	Decline in Iranian top division
Ramchandani et al. (2018)	Top 5 European leagues (men)	1995–2018	Decline in top 5 European leagues
Szymanski (2001)	English first division (men)	1978–1998	No changes in CB
Vales-Vazquez et al. (2017)	Top divisions of Spain (men and women)	2015	Significant difference between men’s and women’s football

Figure 1. Median NHICB scores across various formats of international cricket.

Figure 2. Average NHICB scores in different formats of international cricket across different time periods.

Table 2. Results for test of normality (Shapiro–Wilk test).

Format	Observations	W	V	z	p
Test	15	0.856	2.801	2.037	0.021
ODI	10	0.792	3.210	2.274	0.011
T20I	8	0.936	0.893	−0.180	0.571

Table 3. Correlation between time trends and NHICB.

Format	Observations	r	p
Test	15	−0.144	0.607
ODI	10	0.103	0.777
T20I	8	−0.724	0.042

Table 4. Correlation between number of teams and NHICB.

Format	Observations	r	p
Test	15	−0.082	0.771
ODI	10	0.119	0.743
T20I	8	−0.812	0.014

Table 5. Impact of ODI on test cricket.

F (5,30) = 0.90, p = 0.494, R^2 = 0.130, Adjusted R^2 = −0.015, Root MSE = 8.056 Number of observations = 36
NHICB	Coef.	Std. Err.	t	P>|t|
Number of teams	1.87	1.61	1.16	0.25
Year (1921–1970 is the reference)
1877–1920	6.45	7.08	0.91	0.37
1971–1988	−6.54	4.32	−1.51	0.14
1989–2004	−6.52	6.37	−1.02	0.32
2005–2020	−5.18	7.19	−0.72	0.48
Constant	103.25	10.02	10.30	0.00

Table 6. Impact of T20I on test cricket.

F (5,30) = 0.90, p = 0.494, R^2 = 0.130, Adjusted R^2 = −0.015, Root MSE = 8.056 Number of observations = 36
NHICB	Coef.	Std. Err.	t	P>|t|
Number of teams	1.87	1.61	1.16	0.25
Year (1989–2004 is the reference)
1877–1920	12.97	11.46	1.13	0.27
1921–1970	6.52	6.37	1.02	0.32
1971–1988	−0.03	6.06	0.00	1.00
2005–2020	1.34	4.15	0.32	0.75
Constant	96.73	14.95	6.47	0.00

Table 7. Impact of introduction of T20I cricket on ODI cricket.

F (3,18) = 2.94, p = 0.061, R^2 = 0.329, Adjusted R^2 = 0.217, Root MSE = 7.056 Number of observations = 22
NHICB	Coef.	Std. Err.	t	P>|t|
Number of teams	2.44	0.88	2.77	0.01
Year (1989–2004 is the reference)
1971–1988	11.23	4.88	2.30	0.03
2005–2020	−13.77	5.73	−2.40	0.03
Constant	92.83	9.68	9.59	0.00

Table 8. Measuring the evolution of competitive balance in international cricket.

F (8,57) = 0.91, p = 0.527, R^2 = 0.112, Adjusted R^2 = −0.0131, Root MSE = 8.296 Number of observations = 66
NHICB	Coef.	Std. Err.	t	P>|t|
Maximum Overs Bowled	0.12	0.29	0.39	0.70
Number of teams	0.37	0.70	0.53	0.60
Year (1877–1920 is the reference)
1921–1970	−1.35	5.20	−0.26	0.80
1971–1988	−3.92	5.53	−0.71	0.48
1989–2004	−3.02	5.88	−0.51	0.61
2005–2020	−3.47	7.35	−0.47	0.64
Format (T20I is the reference)
ODI	−7.44	19.34	−0.38	0.70
Test	−51.83	119.20	−0.43	0.67
Constant	113.54	14.30	7.94	0.00

Table A1. Number of teams to feature in international cricket across different decades.

Time Period	No. of teams in Tests	No. of teams in ODIs	No. of teams in T20Is
1877–1880	2	–	–
1881–1890	3	–	–
1891–1900	3	–	–
1901–1910	3	–	–
1911–1920	3	–	–
1921–1930	4	–	–
1931–1940	6	–	–
1941–1950	6	–	–
1951–1960	7	–	–
1961–1970	7	–	–
1971–1980	7	8	–
1981–1990	7	9	–
1991–2000	9	11	–
2001–2010	10	11	16
2011–2020	12	19	74

Table A2. Overall results table of test cricket between 1877 and 2020 (for teams with more than 75 tests).

Team	Matches	Won	Lost	Tied	Draw	Win Ratio
Australia	832	394	225	2	211	0.60
England	1028	374	305	0	349	0.53
West Indies	550	175	199	1	175	0.48
South Africa	440	166	150	0	124	0.52
India	544	158	168	1	217	0.49
Pakistan	432	138	132	0	162	0.51
New Zealand	445	104	175	0	166	0.42
Sri Lanka	290	92	110	0	88	0.47
Bangladesh	119	14	89	0	16	0.18
Zimbabwe	110	12	70	0	28	0.24

Table A3. Overall results table of ODI cricket between 1971 and 2020 (for teams with more than 50 ODIs).

Team	Matches	Won	Lost	Tied	NR	Win Ratio
Australia	955	579	333	9	34	0.63
India	990	514	426	9	41	0.54
Pakistan	930	488	413	9	20	0.54
West Indies	822	401	381	10	30	0.51
Sri Lanka	852	389	421	5	37	0.48
South Africa	625	385	216	6	18	0.64
England	752	378	337	9	28	0.53
New Zealand	772	351	374	7	40	0.49
Zimbabwe	532	138	375	8	11	0.28
Bangladesh	376	128	241	0	7	0.35
Ireland	159	68	80	3	8	0.46
Afghanistan	126	59	63	1	3	0.48
Kenya	154	42	107	0	5	0.29
Scotland	115	42	66	1	6	0.40
Netherlands	80	31	45	1	3	0.41
Canada	77	17	58	0	2	0.23
U.A.E.	59	17	42	0	0	0.29

Table A4. Overall results table of T20I cricket between 2005 and 2020 (for teams with more than 30 T20Is).

Team	Matches	Won	Lost	Tied	NR	Win Ratio
Pakistan	160	97	58	3	2	0.62
India	137	85	45	3	4	0.65
New Zealand	137	65	60	8	4	0.52
Australia	131	69	57	2	3	0.55
Sri Lanka	128	59	65	2	2	0.48
West Indies	127	54	64	3	6	0.46
England	126	64	55	2	5	0.54
South Africa	124	70	52	1	1	0.57
Ireland	98	41	48	2	7	0.46
Bangladesh	96	32	62	0	2	0.34
Afghanistan	81	55	25	1	0	0.69
Zimbabwe	79	18	59	2	0	0.24
Netherlands	75	39	32	1	3	0.55
Scotland	65	29	32	1	3	0.48
U.A.E.	49	24	24	0	1	0.50
Hong Kong	44	16	28	0	0	0.36
Kenya	38	15	23	0	0	0.39
Oman	36	16	19	0	1	0.46
Nepal	34	16	17	0	1	0.49
Canada	31	12	17	1	1	0.42

Feddersen, A., & Maennig, W. (2005). Trends in competitive balance: Is there evidence for growing imbalance in professional sport leagues? University of Hamburg, Faculty Economics and Social Science.

 Google Scholar

Goossens, K. (2006). Competitive balance in European football: Comparison by adapting measures: National measure of seasonal imbalance and top 3. Rivista di Diritto ed Economia Dello Sport, 2(2), 77–122.

 Google Scholar

Groot, L. (2008). Economics, uncertainty and European football: Trends in competitive balance. Edward Elgar.

 Google Scholar

Kringstad, M. (2018). Is gender a competitive balance driver? Evidence from scandinavian football. Cogent Social Sciences, 4(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2018.1439264

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Michie, J., & Oughton, C. (2004). Competitive balance in football: Trends and effects. University of London.

 Google Scholar

Mondal, S. (2021). She kicks: The state of competitive balance in top 5 women’s football leagues in Europe. Journal of Global Sport Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/24704067.2021.1875629

 Google Scholar

Plumley, D., Ramchandani, G., & Wilson, R. (2018). Mind the Gap: An analysis of competitive balance in the English Football League system. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 18(5), 357–375.

 Google Scholar

Plumley, D., Mondal, S., Wilson, R., & Ramchandani, G. (2020). Rising stars: Competitive balance in five Asian football leagues. Journal of Global Sport Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/24704067.2020.1765700

 Google Scholar

Ramchandani, G., Plumley, D., Boyes, S., & Wilson, R. (2018). A longitudinal and comparative analysis of competitive balance in five European football leagues. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 24(6), 265–282. https://doi.org/10.1108/TPM-09-2017-0055

 Google Scholar

Szymanski, S. (2001). Income inequality, competitive balance and the attractiveness of team sports: Some evidence and a natural experiment from English soccer. The Economic Journal, 111(469), F69–F84. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00599

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Vales-Vazquez, A., Casal-Lopez, C., Gomez-Rodriguez, P., & Blanco-Pita, H. (2017). A comparison of competitive profiles across the Spanish football leagues. International Journal of Computer Science in Sport, 16(3), 207–220. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijcss-2017-0016

 Google Scholar