Exploring probabilities at #WT20 World Cup

There is one game remaining in this year’s Women’s T20 World Cup. Australia will play England in the final at North Sound on 24 November.

I have been looking at some naive probabilities about the partnerships of winning and losing teams.

Before the tournament I had recorded data from ICC T20 games in 2017-2018 (n=58). These enabled me to estimate some prior probabilities before the World Cup started.  I have used the tournament website to collect data from the World Cup in the West Indies (n=20 completed games) to give me a set of posterior outcomes.

Winning Teams

Losing Teams

At this World Cup, winning teams have established their dominance with first wicket partnerships (9 of the 20 games have partnerships > 50 runs). Losing teams have had just two 50 run + opening partnerships. Losing teams have fourth wicket partnerships as an important contribution to their run totals.

At present, the median profiles for runs scored per wicket in the tournament is:

The median winning run total is 137 (range 81 to 194) and median losing total is 99 (range 71 to 160).

Photo Credit

North Sound (CricketHer, Twitter)

Thinking about options and failure

We spend a lot of time in sport seeking optimal performance. We tend to be very optimistic about the processes that contribute to this optimisation outcome and are delighted when it occurs.

One of the aptitudes we require is the ability to differentiate the choices of interventions and treatments we share with our support team colleagues, coaches and performers.

Clare Thorp has written about one aspect of this differentiation, overcoming the fear of better options. She notes:

We have more choice than ever in our daily lives — but while choice is supposed to feel liberating, it can often feel exhausting instead.

Clare discusses, among other issues, decision-making styles used by ‘satisficers’ and ‘maximizers’ (Parker, de Bruin and Fischhoff, 2007). Satisficers choose options that are good enough, maximizers choose an option with the highest expected utility.

In a 2017 paper, Daniel Brannon and Brandon Solwisch focused “on how and why maximizers evaluate an individual product based on a salient characteristic—the number of features that it has”.

The proliferation of feature-rich resources for and in high performance sport raises some important issues for the decisions we make and the advice we give. Daniel and Brandon note:

  • Maximizers evaluate products more favorably than satisficers when they have many features (“feature-rich”), but not when they have few features (“feature-poor”).
  • Maximizers are more likely than satisficers to perceive feature-rich (compared to feature-poor) products as a means of signaling status to others.
  • When maximizers no longer perceive feature-rich products as status signals, they do not evaluate them more favourably than satisficers.

They conclude with a discussion of status-signalling:

while past studies have found that maximizers experience post-decision regret because they look back at what could have been, it is also possible that they are disappointed when their purchase does not end up providing them with the positive social comparisons that they had originally hoped for …

It is sometimes very hard not to be part of an innovation momentum. Clare’s post and the literature are helpful stimuli to encourage us to think about how we personally come to make recommendations about innovation and adoption.

I think it is helpful to think about failure in this context too. Enter Sarah Milstein.

Earlier this year, Sarah wrote about How to Fail When You’re Used to Winning. She introduced her post with:

Innovation is a buzzword for our era. It evokes the promise of profiting tomorrow from today’s changes in technology. The word innovation implies a clean, crisp path. That’s a lie. In fact, innovation requires enormous amounts of failure — which then presents leadership challenges.

Sarah points out that “any team that must experiment constantly will fail a lot, and repeated failure almost always depresses people” (original emphases).

She adds:

when your team equates project failure with defeat, many will intuitively address the problem by narrowing the scope of new projects, in order to make them more likely to succeed.

She questions whether this approach is appropriate for entrepreneurial environments. I have always seen high performance sport as an entrepreneurial space and I found Sarah’s ideas resonating with the decision-making literature discussed earlier.

Sarah suggests the following framework for a team to reflect on direction:

  • Develop a written vision and mission statement and refer to them often.
  • Make failure an opportunity for learning rather than for blame.
  • Ask colleagues to share the lessons they have learned from failure.
  • Set a regular time when teams can raise a challenge they’re facing, and individuals can step up to offer relevant expertise or knowledge.
  • Use a spreadsheet, database or repository to track notes, code, and other assets from failed projects that can be reused in future projects.
  • Publicly celebrate incremental progress.
  • Model the behaviours you want.

Sarah concludes:

Your path to succeeding at failure and maintaining morale will not be linear. You’ll stumble along the way and find yourself wanting to pretend you didn’t just trip. But stick with it. Teams that can maintain good spirits during hard times tend to win, and nothing feeds morale like success.

Edwin Thoen has something to share about dealing with failed projects too, particularly involving data:

The probability that you have worked on a data science project that failed, approaches one very quickly as the number of projects done grows.

He suggests:

  • Make failing an option from the start.
  • Plan realistically and include slack for messiness.
  • Keep stakeholders in the loop.
  • Write a final report.

As Dewi Koning indicates finding positives in failure amplifies shared learning.

For much of my professional life I have been drawn to ‘good enough’ approaches. The more I have been involved in high performance sport, the more I have wanted to discuss fallibility in our pursuit of a dynamic performance optimisation. And to own failure as well as success.

I do believe that transparency about innovation decisions and their outcomes is immensely helpful as we all negotiate that very fine line between leading and bleeding edges.

Photo Credit

Milky Way Galaxy seen from mountain range (Stephen Coetsee on Unsplash)

Supporting playfulness

Yesterday was a delight day for me. It was bounded by two great examples of playfulness.

The first was at 7.00 am on a cold and windy morning at the Braidwood swimming pool. It was my grandaughter Ivy’s first morning with the swim squad. Ten young swimmers and the coach got the pool ready for the start of the session.

It was the kind of morning no one wants to be first in the water and so all ten jumped in together. They set up the lane ropes as a group with older swimmers helping younger swimmers.

The session got underway with some organisational directions from the coach and then she was able to make observations 1:1 throughout the session. What struck me about the session was the wonderful technical, personal observations the coach was able to make to bring about behavioural modifications but also the joy the eleven participants had on what was a cold, windy morning.

The hour’s session flew by and ended with a mixed-ability relay that the coach managed to equalise perfectly through her choice of swim teams. It was Ivy’s first day, she swam further than she had ever swam in our 18 metre pool. Her only regret was she has to wait five days for the next squad meet up.

The second playful jolt came from a report of a community football team in Sydney in an SBS news report. Dunbar Rovers are a “grassroots club which pioneers fee free football for youngsters” and has a “no-pay-for-play credo despite escalating registration fees”.

One of the club members observed “we have no full time paid staff with people magically doing things. It’s about all working for the common good”. The club has 600 members who have the opportunity to play in one of the 18 senior teams or in one of the 18 junior teams.

Braidwood swimming squad and Dunbar Rovers are 300 kms apart but are very closely connected in playfulness. I think they exemplify the hopes Mark Upton expressed in a recent post. Both clubs do “co-create ways to help people be more human through sport – living and working in fellowship”.

Photo Credit

Dunbar Rovers Juniors full of smiles (Eastern Suburbs Football Association)