Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 264, Issue 1–2, pp 325–337 | Cite as

Assignment of swimmers to events in a multi-team meeting for team global performance optimization

  • Simona Mancini
Original Research


Assigning swimmers to events in order to maximize global performance of the team in a multi-team meeting is not a trivial issue for coaches. In fact, often months of hard work and training is wasted if a mistake is made in the line-up decision process. Expert coaches use their long time experience in order to make correct decisions, but often without reaching an optimal assignment. Athletes preferences also affect the decision process making coaches job even harder and, furthermore, the actual goal to be achieved may vary among situations. In this paper two different integer programming models, based on an estimation of opponents performances capability, constructed following two different philosophies and addressing two different situations are proposed. The first model just maximizes the total score obtained by the team, while the second model aim to optimize the placement achieved by the team in the meeting final ranking and the advantage on the first follower in the ranking. A detailed analysis of good and bad points of the two approaches and of situations in which one approach may be preferred respect to the other is reported. A real case example, taken from an Italian Regional Master Meeting, is deeply analyzed and a discussion on the comparison among results obtained with the assignment provided by the two models and the actual lineup proposed by the coach, is provided.


Swimming Assignment Integer programming Sport Combinatorial optimization 


  1. Armstrong, J., & Willis, J. R. (1993). Scheduling the cricket world cupa case study. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 44(11), 1067–1072.Google Scholar
  2. Clarke, S. R. (1998). Dynamic programming in one-day cricketoptimal scoring rates. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 39(4), 331–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Della Croce, F., & Oliveri, D. (2006). Scheduling the italian football league: An ilp-based approach. Computers & Operations Research, 33(7), 1963–1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Freeze, R. A. (1974). An analysis of baseball batting order by monte carlo simulation. Operations Research, 22(4), 728–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hersh, M., & Ladany, S. P. (1989). Optimal pole-vaulting strategy. Operations Research, 37(1), 172–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kendall, G., Knust, S., Ribeiro, C. C., & Urrutia, S. (2010). Scheduling in sports: An annotated bibliography. Computers & Operations Research, 37(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Normann, J. M. (1985). Dynamic programming in tennis: When to use a fast serve. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 36(1), 75–77.Google Scholar
  8. Normann, J. M., & Clarke, S. R. (2007). Dynamic programming in cricket: Optimizing batting order for a sticky wicket. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58(12), 1678–1682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Nowak, M., Epelman, M., & Pollock, S. M. (2006). Assignment of swimmers to dual meet events. Computers & Operations Research, 33, 1951–1962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Russell, R. A., & Leung, J. M. Y. (1994). Devising a cost effective schedule for a baseball league. Operations Research, 42(4), 614–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Saltzman, R. M., & Bradford, R. M. (1996). Optimal realignments of the teams in the national football league. European Journal of Operational Research, 93(3), 469–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Schonberger, J., Mattfeld, D. C., & Kopfer, H. (2004). Memetic algorithm timetabling for non-commercial sport leagues. European Journal of Operational Research, 153(1), 102–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sphicas, G.P., Ladany, S.P. (1977). Optimal strategies in sport. In S. P. Landany & R.E. Machol (Eds.), Dynamic policies in the long jump (pp. 101–112). North-Holland, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Urban, T. L., & Russell, R. A. (2003). Scheduling sports competitions on multiple venues. European Journal of Operational Research, 148(2), 302–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Van Voorhis, T. (2002). Highly constrained college basketball scheduling. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 53(6), 603–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Washburn, A. (1991). Still more on pulling the goalie. Interfaces, 21, 59–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wright, M. B. (2009). 50 years of or in sport. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 60, 161–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Control and Computer EngineeringPolitecnico di TorinoTorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations