arbiter
JournalsPricingAccount

Different Strokes: Winning Strategies in Women's (and Men's) Big Bash Cricket

Patrick Massey & Vincent Hogan

Journal of Sports Economics2025https://doi.org/10.1177/15270025251348177article
AJG 2ABDC B
Weight
0.37

What the paper says

Women's professional sport has generally been underrated due to stereotypical perceptions that women are less skilled than men. If, as some experimental studies suggest, women perform less well under pressure than men, this may result in women adopting more cautious or defensive styles of play which fans find less attractive. We analyse winning strategies in the Australian Men's and Women's Big Bash Cricket Leagues (MBBL and WBBL) in order to assess whether the WBBL is characterised by more cautious/defensive playing strategies than the MBBL. The two leagues are (almost) identical in all aspects other than gender and thus provide an ideal environment to test for differences in playing strategies. Our results do not suggest that teams’ playing strategies are more defensive in the WBBL than the MBBL. If anything, they indicate that attacking play is more likely to win in the WBBL.

1 citation

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/15270025251348177

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{patrick2025,
  title        = {{Different Strokes: Winning Strategies in Women's (and Men's) Big Bash Cricket}},
  author       = {Patrick Massey & Vincent Hogan},
  journal      = {Journal of Sports Economics},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/15270025251348177},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Different Strokes: Winning Strategies in Women's (and Men's) Big Bash Cricket

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.37

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.16 × 0.4 = 0.06
M · momentum0.53 × 0.15 = 0.08
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.