Net run rate

Net Run Rate (NRR) is a statistical method used in an- the full quota of overs to which it would have been
alyzing team work and/or performance in the sport of entitled is used (e.g. 50 overs for an uninterrupted
cricket. It is the most commonly used method of ranking One Day International, and 20 overs for a Twenty20
teams with equal points in limited overs league competi- match).[1]
tions, analogous to goal difference in association football.
• If a match is abandoned as a No Result, none of
The net run rate in a single game is the average runs the runs scored or overs bowled count towards this
per over that a team scores, minus the average runs per calculation.[1]
over that is scored against them. The net run rate in
a tournament is the average runs per over that a team • If a match is interrupted, Duckworth-Lewis revised
scores across the whole tournament, minus the average targets are set, and a result is subsequently achieved,
runs per over that is scored against them across the whole the revised targets and revised overs are used for
tournament.[1][2] Note that this is not usually the same as Team 1’s innings (i.e. 1 run less than the final Tar-
the total or average of the net run rates from the individ- get Score for Team 2, off the total number of overs
ual matches in the tournament. allocated to Team 2), and the actual runs scored by
Team 2 and overs allocated to Team 2 are used for
A positive NRR means a team is scoring faster than its
Team 2’s innings. If a match is abandoned, but a re-
opposition overall, while a negative NRR means a team
sult decided by retrospectively applying Duckworth-
is scoring slower than the teams it has come up against.[3]
Lewis, the number of overs assigned to each team
It is therefore desirable for the NRR to be as high as pos-
for this calculation is the number of overs actually
sible.
faced by Team 2. Team 1 is credited with Team 2’s
Par Score (the number of runs they would need to
have reached from this number of overs and wickets
1 Step by step explanation lost if they were going to match Team 1’s score), and
the actual runs scored are used by Team 2 for Team
A team’s run rate (RR), or runs per over (RPO), is the 2’s innings.[1]
average number of runs scored per over by the whole team
in the whole innings (or the whole innings so far), i.e.
rate run = scored runs total
faced overs total . 2 Scenarios
So if a team scores 250 runs off 50 overs then their RR
is 250
50 = 5 . Note that as an over is made up of six All scenarios assume One Day International rules with 50
balls, each ball is 1/6 of an over, despite being normally overs per side.
written in cricket’s notation as .1 of an over. So if they
got that same score off 47.5 overs, their RR would be
250
47 5
≈ 5.226 . 2.1 1. Side that bats first wins
6

The concept of net run rate involves taking the oppo-

• Team A bat first and score 287-6 off their full quota
nents’ final run rate away from the team’s run rate, i.e.
of 50 overs. Team B fail in their run chase, early
rate run net = scored runs total conceded runs total
faced overs total − bowled overs total . losses causing them to struggle to 243-8 in their 50
Usually, runs and overs are summed together throughout overs.
a season to compare teams in a league table. A team’s
overall NRR for a tournament is not defined as the sum • Team A’s Run Per Over is 287
50 = 5.74
or average of the NRR’s from the individual matches, but
• Team B’s Run Per Over is 243
50 = 4.86
as:
rate run net tournament = matches all in scored runs total
− • Team A’s NRR for this game is 5.74 − 4.86 = 0.88.
matches all in faced overs total
matches all in conceded runs total If this was the first game of the season, their NRR
matches all in bowled overs total
for the league table would be +0.88.
The exceptions to this are:
• Team B’s NRR for this game is 4.86 − 5.74 = −0.88.
• If a team is bowled out, it is not the overs actu- If this was the first game of the season, their NRR
ally faced which their score is divided by; instead for the league table would be −0.88.

1
2 2
2.2 2. Side that bats second wins
• Team A bat first and score 265-8 off their full quota
of 50 overs. Team B successfully chase, getting their
winning runs with a four with sixteen balls (2.4 of
the 50 overs) remaining, leaving them on 267-5.
• Team A’s rpo is 265
= 5.300
50
• Team B faced 47.2 overs, so their rpo is 267
≈ 5.64
47 26
• Assuming that Team A and Team B had previously
played as in the game in scenario one, the new NRR
50+50 − 50+47.33 = 100 −
for Team A would be 287+265 243+267 552 2.6 6. The game ends in a tie
97.33 ≈ 0.28
510
• Runs and overs are added as in the examples above,
with teams bowled out being credited with their full
2.3 3. Side that bats first is bowled out, quota of overs. Thus, the match NRR will always be
side batting second wins zero for both teams.
• Team A bat first and are skittled out for 127 off 25.4
overs. Team B reach the target off 30.5 overs, end- 2.7
ing with 128/4.
• Despite Team A’s runrate for the balls they faced be-
ing 127 / 25.667 = 4.95, because they were bowled
out the entire 50 overs are added to their total overs
faced tally for the tournament, and Team B are cred-
ited with having bowled 50 overs.
• Team B actually scored at a slower pace (128/30.833
= 4.15), however they managed to protect their
wickets and win. Thus, only the 30.833 overs are
added to the seasonal tally.
• Team A’s NRR for this game is (127/50) −
(128/30.833) = −1.61.
• Team B’s NRR for this game is (128/30.833) −
(127/50) = +1.61.
• If 25.667 had been used for Team A’s overs to-
tal rather than 50, Team A would have finished the
match with a positive match NRR, and improved
tournament NRR, despite losing. (Similarly Team
B with a worsened NRR, despite winning.)
2.4 4. Side that bats second is bowled out,
side batting first therefore wins
• Team A bat first and set a formidable 295/5 off their
complement of 50 overs. Team B never get close,
being bowled out for 116 off 35.4 overs. 2.8
• 295 runs and 50 overs are added to Team A’s tally.
• However, Team B, despite facing only 35.4 overs,
have faced 50 overs according to the NRR calcula-
tions, and Team A have bowled 50 overs.
SCENARIOS
2.5 5. Both sides are bowled out, side bat-
ting first therefore wins
• Team A bat first, and manage 117 off 24 overs on
a difficult playing surface. Team B fall agonizingly
short, reaching 112 off 23.3 overs.
• In this case, both teams get 50 overs both faced and
bowled in the overs column for the season, just as in
example 1.
7. Interrupted games with revised tar-
gets
• In matches where Duckworth-Lewis revised targets
are set due to interruptions which reduce the number
of overs bowled, those revised targets and revised
overs are used to calculate the net run rate for both
teams.
• For example, in a 50-over World Cup first-round
group match, Team A are dismissed for 165 in 33.5
overs.
• Team B progresses to 120-0, but play is halted after
18 overs due to rain.
• Six overs are lost, and the target is reset to 150,
which Team B reach comfortably after 26.2 overs
with only 2 wickets lost.
• Because the target was revised, 6 overs were lost and
Team A were bowled out, Team A’s total is reset to
149 from 44 overs, thus their RR = 149 44 ≈ 3.39
. Team B’s RR, however, is computed as normal:
26.33 ≈ 5.70 .
150
• Computing the match NRR for Team A gives us
3.39 - 5.70 = −2.31. Team B’s NRR is: 5.70 - 3.39
= 2.31.
8. Abandoned games recorded as No-
Result
• Abandoned games are not considered, whatever the
stage of the game at stoppage may be, and the scores
in such games are immaterial to NRR calculations.
3.2 Change in NRR through a tournament
3 Net Run Rate within a tourna- 3.2 Change in NRR through a tournament
ment In the above example of South Africa at the 1999 World
3.1 Basic example
Most of the time, in limited overs cricket tournaments,
there are round-robin groups among several teams, where
each team plays all of the others. Just as explained in
the scenarios above, the NRR is not the average of the
NRRs of all the matches played, it is calculated consid-
ering the overall rate at which runs are scored for and
against, within the whole group.
Let’s take as an example South Africa’s net run rate in the
1999 World Cup.
FOR
South Africa scored:
• Against India, 254 runs (for 6 wkts) from 47.2 overs.
• Against Sri Lanka, 199 runs (for 9 wkts) from 50
overs.
• Against England, 225 runs (for 7 wkts) from 50
overs.
• Against Kenya, 153 runs (for 3 wkts) from 41 overs.
• Against Zimbabwe, 185 runs (all out) from 47.2
overs.
In the case of Zimbabwe, because South Africa were all
out before their allotted 50 overs expired, the run rate is
calculated as if they had scored their runs over the full
50 overs. Therefore, across the five games, South Africa
scored 1016 runs in a total of 238 overs and 2 balls (i.e.
238.333 overs), an average run rate of 1016/238.333 =
4.263.
AGAINST
Teams opposing South Africa scored:
• India, 253 (for 5 wkts) from 50 overs.
• Sri Lanka, 110 (all out) from 35.2 overs.
• England, 103 (all out) from 41 overs.
• Kenya, 152 (all out) from 44.3 overs.
• Zimbabwe, 233 (for 6 wkts) from 50 overs.
Again, with Sri Lanka, England and Kenya counting as run scored contributes slightly more to tournament NRR
the full 50 overs as they were all out, the run rate scored than each run conceded.
against South Africa across the five games is calculated on
the basis of 851 runs in a total of 250 overs, an average The reducing contribution of each innings to tournament
run rate of 851/250 = 3.404.
NET RUN RATE
South Africa’s tournament net run rate is therefore 4.263 the weights of the previous innings reduce, and so the in-
− 3.404 = +0.859.
3
Cup, after their first match their tournament NRR was
254 253
47.333 − 50 .
After their second match their tournament NRR was
254 + 199 253 + 110
47.333 + 50 − 50 + 50 , which is the same as
254 199 253 110
97.333 + 97.333 − 100 − 100 .
254 + 199 + 225 −
After their third match it was 47.333
+ 50 + 50
253 + 110 + 103 , which is the same as 254
50 + 50 + 50 147.333 +
199 225 253 110 103
147.333 + 147.333 − 150 − 150 − 150 .
This shows that NRR can be calculated in two different
ways:
• Sum all runs scored in the tournament, and divide
this by the total number of overs faced in the tour-
nament. Add together all runs conceded in the tour-
nament, and divide by total number of overs bowled.
Subtract bowled rate from batted rate. (The left
hand side above.)
• Divide the runs scored in each innings by the total
number of overs faced in the tournament, and the
runs conceded in each innings by the total number of
innings bowled in the tournament. Then add all bat-
ting rates and subtract all bowling rates. (The right
hand side above.)
While less intuitive, the second way of thinking about this
shows how the different innings’ contributions to NRR
compare with each other and change as the tournament
progresses.
After each match, the different batting scores are all di-
vided by the same figure, the total number of overs batted
so far in the tournament. However, as this increases with
every match, so the contribution of each batting score to
tournament NRR reduces with every match. For exam-
ple, the contribution to tournament NRR of the innings
batted in the first match was 254/47.333 = 5.37 after the
first match, 254/97.333 = 2.61 after the second match,
and 254/147.333 = 1.72 after the third match.
This is similarly true for runs conceded from bowled
overs, though the total numbers of overs bowled and bat-
ted are different after each match, so the denominator
for the bowled overs is different from the denominator
for the batted overs. As the total number of overs batted
is slightly less than the total number of overs bowled, each
NRR is a reflection of the fact that tournament NRR can
also be thought of as the weighted average of the different
innings’ run rates, and each time another match is played,
fluences of the previous innings on overall NRR reduce:
4 4 CRITICISMS

3.3 Tournament NRR as weighted average • New Zealand just beat Sri Lanka by bowling them
of the run rates out for 138 (from 37.5 overs) then reaching 139-
9 from 36.3 overs, giving them match NRR =
As Run Rate = Runs scored/Overs faced, the runs scored (139/36.5) − (138/50) = 1.05.
by and against South Africa in each innings can be re-
placed in the formulas for NRR by Run Rate x Overs • Sri Lanka comfortably beat England by restrict-
faced. For example, in the first match South Africa ing them to 293-7 from 50 overs, then reaching
scored 254 runs from 47 overs and 2 balls, a rate of 5.37 297-3 from 47.1 overs, giving them match NRR =
runs per over. Therefore the total of 254 runs can be re- (297/47.167) − (293/50) = 0.44.
placed by 5.37 runs per over x 47.333 overs. This gives
• England comfortably beat Australia by 48 runs by
a third way of finding tournament NRR:
scoring 269-6 in 50 overs, then restricting Australia
After (their second match
) ( tournament )NRR
their to 221-9 in 50 overs, giving them match NRR =
was 5.37 × 47.333 + 50
3.98 × 97.333 − (269/50) − (221/50) = 0.96.
( ) 97.333
( )
50 50
5.06 × 100 − 2.20 × 100
This fact can encourage a team to play in an overly ag-
= (5.37 × 48.6%)+(3.98 × 51.4%)−(5.06 × 50%)− gressive manner, to maximise NRR by batting with next
(2.20 × 50%) . to no regard for preserving wickets, when the required
( ) run rate alone seems low, which can then put the team in
47.333 +
After their third match it was 5.37 × 147.333
( ) ( ) danger of losing.[5]
50
3.98 × 147.333 + 50
4.50 × 147.333 −
( ) ( ) ( )
50 − 2.20 × 50 − 2.06 × 50
5.06 × 150 150 150 4.2 Tournament NRR calculation
= (5.37 × 32.1%) + (3.98 × 33.9%) +
A team’s batted and bowled overs in a match count
(4.50 × 33.9%) − (5.06 × 33.3%) − (2.20 × 33.3%) −
differently to tournament NRR
(2.06 × 33.3%) .
All overs batted in a tournament are given equal weighting
Therefore tournament NRR can alternatively be thought
when finding tournament NRR, and all overs bowled in
of as the weighted average of the run rates scored in each
a tournament are also given equal weighting. However,
match (weighted by the lengths of the innings batted com-
when the total number of overs batted is different from
pared to the other innings batted), minus the weighted av-
the total number of overs bowled, the weight for each over
erage of the run rates conceded in each match (weighted
batted is different from the weight for each over bowled.
by the lengths of the innings bowled compared to the
This means that batted overs and bowled overs in the same
other innings bowled).
match count differently towards tournament NRR.
Each time another match is played, the weights of the
For example, in the 2009 World Twenty20 Group D,
previous innings reduce, and so the contributions of the
as New Zealand had batted 6 overs and bowled 7 overs
previous innings to overall NRR reduce.
against Scotland, the runs they scored in each of the 20
overs batted against South Africa contributed 1/26th to
their tournament NRR, while the runs conceded in each
4 Criticisms of the 20 overs bowled against South Africa contributed
only 1/27th. In fact, the effect of the higher weight for the
4.1 NRR doesn't accurately reflect mar- batting overs was so strong that despite scoring fewer runs
gins of victory, as it takes no account than South Africa from the same number of overs, and
hence having a negative match NRR and losing the match,
of wickets lost
the net contribution of this match to New Zealand’s tour-
In the language of Duckworth-Lewis, teams have two re- nament NRR was actually positive (127/26 − 128/27 is
sources with which to score runs − overs and wickets. positive).
However, NRR takes into account only one of these − Each over in a match counts differently for the two
overs faced; it takes no account of wickets lost. There- teams
fore, a team regarded as having a narrow victory can have Moreover, if two teams in a tournament have different
a higher NRR than a team regarded as having a comfort- total numbers of overs batted or bowled, then each in-
able victory. For example, a team which just manages to nings in the match(es) between them will contribute dif-
win a close game with many overs to spare but with only ferently towards their tournament NRRs. For example, in
one wicket in hand is likely to have a higher NRR than the 2009 World Twenty20 Group D, South Africa batted
a team which paces itself to win comfortably with only a for 40 overs in total in their two matches, so their score
few overs in hand but many wickets.[4] of 128 from 20 overs against New Zealand contributed
For example, in the 2013 Champions Trophy Group A: 128/40 = 3.20 to their tournament NRR, whereas New
4.3 NRR may be manipulated 5

Zealand bowled for 27 overs in total in their two matches, 4.3 NRR may be manipulated
so South Africa’s score of 128 from 20 overs against them
contributed −128/27 = −4.74 to New Zealand’s tourna- A team may choose to artificially reduce their margin of
ment NRR. victory, as measured by NRR, to gain an additional ad-
vantage by not disadvantaging their opponent too much.
As a team’s NRR measures how many more runs it scores
For example, in the final round of matches in the 1999
per over than it concedes, the NRRs of all the teams in a
World Cup Group B, Australia needed to beat West In-
league table should sum to zero. However, because of this
dies to progress to the Super Six stage, but wanted to carry
fact of each innings usually counting differently to the two
West Indies through with them to the Super Six, rather
teams’ tournament NRRs, this rarely happens. If the sum
than New Zealand. This is because Australia would then
is positive, this implies that overall more runs were scored
have the additional points in the Super Six stage from
per over than were conceded, which is obviously impossi-
beating West Indies in the group stage, whereas they had
ble. (And if the sum is negative that less were scored than
lost to New Zealand in the group stage. It was therefore
conceded). The teams’ tournament NRRs will all sum to
to Australia’s advantage to reduce their scoring rate and
zero if all the teams have played one or zero matches, or if
reduce their margin of victory, as measured by NRR, to
every innings had exactly the same number of overs. This
minimise the negative impact of the match on West In-
happens sometimes with small league tables. For exam-
dies’ NRR, and therefore maximise West Indies’ chance
ple, Group B in the 2009 World Twenty20 featured three
of going through with them.[6]
matches. Five of the six innings had the full complement
of 20 overs, and in the sixth innings the team was bowled However, this is also likely to be a possibility with alter-
out, which counts as the full complement of 20 overs. natives to NRR.
The same score by two teams counts differently to This is similar to the way a narrow victory for one side in
tournament NRR a game of football may enable both sides to progress to
the next stage, e.g. West Germany v Austria in the 1982
If two teams make the same score from the same number
World Cup.
of overs (either in the same match or different matches),
this will count differently to their respective tournament
NRR’s if they have different total numbers of overs bat-
4.4 NRR can be hard to understand
ted across the whole tournament. For example, in the
2007 World Twenty20 Group B, Australia and Zimbabwe
NRR can be hard to understand, and is 'often
each scored 138 from 20 overs in one of their matches.
misunderstood'.[2] For example, Tournament NRR has
However, as Australia batted for 14.5 overs in their other
been incorrectly explained as the sum of the NRRs from
match, this contributed 138/34.833 = 3.96 to their tour-
each match.[7]
nament NRR, whereas as Zimbabwe batted for 19.5 overs
in their other match, this contributed 138/39.833 = 3.46
to their tournament NRR.
5 Alternatives to NRR
This is also the case if two teams concede the same score
in the same match or different matches, but have different
total numbers of overs bowled in the tournament. A number of alternatives or modifications to NRR have
been suggested.
Tournament NRR can penalize teams which win bat-
ting second rather than first
If one team, batting first, scores 250 from their 50 overs, 5.1 Duckworth−Lewis
and another team, batting second, is set a target of 100
which it easily reaches in 20 overs, then both sides have Use Tournament NRR as present , but when a side bat-
a batting run rate of 5. Therefore both sides will have ting second successfully completes the run chase, use the
the same match NRR, all else being equal, and should Duckworth−Lewis method to predict how many runs they
have the same contribution to tournament NRR. How- would have scored with a full innings. This means the cal-
ever, when it comes to calculating tournament NRR, the culation would be done on the basis of all innings being
first team’s innings will count more heavily than the sec- complete, and so would remove the criticisms of NRR
ond team’s as it was longer, even though the second team penalizing teams which bat second, and NRR not taking
achieved the same run rate and could potentially have into account wickets lost. However, this does nothing to
reached the same total if it could have completed its 50 alter the fact that when matches are rain-affected, differ-
overs. ent matches and even two complete innings in one match,
can be different lengths long (in terms of overs), and so
does nothing about some of the other criticisms above.
Therefore, alternatively, use Duckworth−Lewis to predict
the 50-over total for every innings less than this,[8] even,
for example, if a match is reduced to 40 overs each, and a
6 6 REFERENCES

side completes their 40 overs. This would make every in- results. In the example above from the 2013 Champi-
nings in the tournament the same length, so would remove ons Trophy Group A, New Zealand’s narrow victory over
all the criticisms above. However, a side will bat differ- Sri Lanka would have a BD of +81, whereas Sri Lanka’s
ently (less conservatively) in a 40-over innings compared comfortable victory over England would have a BD of
to a 50-over innings, and so it is quite unfair to use their only +17.
40-over total to predict how many runs they could have Also, if a match is affected by the weather, a side bat-
scored in 50 overs. ting first can win having scored fewer runs, if Duckworth-
Either way, using Duckworth−Lewis would mean relying Lewis increases the target for the team batting second,
on subjective modelling predictions, which are opinions, and they overtake the first team’s score, but fail to reach
rather than actual performances, which are facts. the target. It’s not clear what BD would be in this sce-
nario.

5.2 Average of the match NRRs

5.4 Head-to-head record or stage a play-off
Calculate tournament NRR as the total or average of the
individual match NRRs. This would mean all matches
have equal weighting, no matter how long they were,
(rather than all batted overs across the tournament hav-
ing equal weighting, and all bowled overs across the tour-
nament having equal weighting). This would remove the
criticisms under the 'Tournament NRR calculation' sub-
heading above. For example, the different teams’ tourna-
ment NRRs would always sum to zero if the total of the
individual match NRRs were used, or if the average of
the individual match NRRs were used and all teams had
played the same number of games.
An example of when using this would have made a dif-
ference was the 1999 Cricket World Cup Group B. New
Zealand and West Indies finished level on points. Having
scored a total of 723 runs from 201 overs, and conceded
746 runs from 240.4 overs, West Indies’ tournament NRR
was (723/201) − (746/240.6667) = 0.50. However, New
Zealand had scored 817 runs from 196.1 overs, and con-
ceded 877 runs from 244.2 overs, so their tournament
NRR was (817/196.167) − (877/244.333) = 0.58. There-
fore New Zealand progressed to the Super Six stage and
West Indies were eliminated. However, with individual
match NRRs of −0.540, 0.295, 0.444, 5.525 and −0.530,
the West Indies’ average match NRR was 1.04, and with
individual match NRRs of 1.225, 0.461, −0.444, −1.240
and 4.477, New Zealand’s average match NRR was 0.90.
Therefore West Indies’ average NRR was better than New
Zealand’s.
match
Split teams level on points using the results from the
matches between them. However, this unfairly increases
the importance of that one match and reduces the impor-
tance of other matches in the league, when all matches in
a league should be of equal value − the team with the bet-
ter head-to-head record will have a worse record against
other teams. Also, the head-to-head record will not de-
cide it if the game between them was a No result, or if
they played each other twice, and won one game each.
Alternatively, stage a play-off match between the teams
level on points. However, organising this at very short no-
tice may be difficult, or the teams may be in the middle of
a league table with no promotion or relegation or progres-
sion at stake, so there may be no appetite for a play-off
match.
These two methods both also run into difficulties when
three or more teams are level on points.
6 References
[1] ICC Playing Handbook 2013/14 Paragraph 21.9.2
[2] Net Run Rate explained espncricinfo
[3] Net run rate (NRR) about.com

[4] Why net run rate doesn't work espncricinfo

5.3 Ball difference
[5] NZ stutter to win after dominant bowling espncricinfo

Ball difference (BD) is the number of balls remaining at [6] Australia pull fast one with go-slow
the point of victory.[9] For a team winning batting second,
BD would be the number of balls remaining. For a team [7] Rules bigbash.com.au
winning having batted first, BD would be the number of
balls between the precise delivery when the beaten team [8] Net Run Rate alternative SportTaco.com
was outscored and the end of their innings (either the end
of the overs or until the team were all out).[10][11] For the [9] Ball difference
losing team, BD is the negative of the winning team’s BD.
[10] Ball difference
However, like the current NRR calculation, BD takes no
account of wickets lost, so can produce similarly unjust [11] Test Match Sofa A simple alternative to Net Run Rate
 7

7 External links
• http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/page/
429305.html
• http://cricket.butjazz.com/
net-run-rate-calculation-how-to-calculate-nrr/
8 8 TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

8 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

8.1 Text
• Net run rate Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net%20run%20rate?oldid=656852207 Contributors: Moondyne, Neilc, Zondor, Alan-
sohn, Arthena, Sam Vimes, Bruce1ee, Salix alba, XLerate, Loom91, BlackJack, That Guy, From That Show!, SmackBot, Jacek Kendysz,
Bluebot, Earl CG, Luke C, Dacium, Nilfanion, MattBan, Aheyfromhome, Dricherby, SatyrBot, Ktalon, Philip Trueman, Atghate, Doeydoey,
Jpeeling, CraxyClive, Mr splosh, Electronz, ClueBot, Rockfang, MystBot, Addbot, Luckas-bot, Sportsenthu, Armbrust, Rsmn, Nbagigaf-
reak, Erik9bot, FrescoBot, Richjhart, Craig Pemberton, ICC CRICKET, Onel5969, Dewritech, Rashid.ansari82, Angrymaddi, Socialser-
vice, ClueBot NG, MoondyneAWB, MelbourneStar, Kirananils, Jfd34, Jethro B, Mmitchell10, Jodosma, SonikkuAmerica, Ray Lightyear,
Aswanthj and Anonymous: 77

8.2 Images

8.3 Content license

• Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0