tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6701777615183282792024-03-07T17:12:35.451+11:00From the rising of the sun...Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04663760985851423746noreply@blogger.comBlogger214125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-670177761518328279.post-58139682401599588732013-03-28T16:06:00.000+11:002013-03-28T16:06:00.371+11:00Open letter to Kevin Sheedy<a href="http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-03-27/sheedys-open-letter-to-the-sydney-swans">Dear Kevin</a>,
<p>I see that you don't want to waste your one home game in a big stadium and you're keen to get people out there on Easter Saturday. You even wrote an open letter to me and quite a few others.
<p>I assume I'm what you mean by a "Swannie" ‐ growing up in Sydney's Inner West, I supported the Swans right through the lean years of the early 90s, before things started to change and half the Eastern Suburbs saw the light. To be honest, my brother jumped on the Bombers bandwagon in 1993 and since 2000 we haven't managed to shake him off, but the rest of us were fully red and white.
<p>We travelled north to play junior footy (in my case, very badly) almost under the shadow of the ANZAC Bridge. If it had been a few years later we might have gone west to a club called Western Suburbs. (For the Melbourne/Bondi people, that's not really "Western Sydney".) Things were changing, and now there are proper goalposts down the road from where I used to live.
<p>Anyway, since then I've been proud to follow the club through the ups and slightly downs, joining in the elation or heartbreak whether in 05 and 06 in the middle of the night London time, or back home last year when yet again Sydney's team rubbished the usual critics who had written them off. I'm sure there'll be some of that sometime in the Giants' future, although not without a big fight from the Swans.
<p>Yes, as a Swans fan, I don't like the 'Battle of the Bridge' concept. But that's not why I'm bothering to write this.
<p>You see, unlike you, I actually live in Western Sydney these days. I'm keen to see our footy growing in this part of the world and have always thought two teams is better than one. But as a westie looking for a westie team this bridge nonsense just doesn't cut it. All my personal history at the SCG didn't keep me away from joining the Sydney Thunder, and for the last two years that's felt like a local team worth being with, despite no mention of the west in the name, the questionable management and a win-loss record almost as bad as the Giants.
<p>Then there's the Wanderers. I'm not a soccer person, but they've started to appeal to me. I haven't seen them trying to manufacture a rivalry, but promoting themselves as the West's team whoever they're playing. And they've done a great job. Have you seen Church St on a game night? It helps that they don't play on the fringes of Greater Western Sydney. The same fans signing down Showground Rd wouldn't be quite as nice.
<p>Don't get me wrong - the Olympic Stadium is great, especially for the big games. The public transport connections are really convenient (much better than the SCG). But you guys don't really love it - you only play there when the Easter Show is on and you're not in Canberra. You thought it'd be better to make us all pay for doing up the Showground just a hop, skip a jump to the east. I suppose it's hard to consider decent options with the NSW government involved. I just hope that at least the Royal Agricultural Society got a good deal out of it.
<p>Yes, I know the Giants have to fit in with all sorts of arrangments. I know the players and staff have put a lot of work into the west. Plenty of involvement with schools and local clubs. We've seen how much more can be done when there two clubs, not just one. It's great that you're training at Gipps Rd tomorrow. It's just that whenever you talk to the public, it's all about how far from the east everything is, or the west is left right out.
<p>Maybe it's just because the club wants to cover so much area. You didn't want a local home ground like the Wanderers as it might not appeal to other areas Noone's surprised you've got fans in Castle Hill or Katoomba - that's what you were aiming for when you chose that bureaucratic name. (The Hills and the Blue Mountains are well and truly part of GWS. It's Canada Bay that isn't.) Then you realised Canberra weren't going to see any better deal than you could offer, and never mind the games lost to Western Sydney. It shouldn't surprise us that now you're focussing on Rozelle, but trying to paint your rivals into a corner doesn't achieve as much having a strong base to grow out from.
<p>Ah, yes, I said rivals. But most fans won't care about rivalry until it's close on the field. Last week we heard a lot about how close the other Kevin's team were to toppling their rivals, but in the end they didn't show up. Thankfully, with the Giants it's matter a matter of when, not if, they'll show up and be a serious challenger. If you do manage to win this week (hopefully not), or when you meet Sydney at the MCG in spring (hopefully soon), <i>then</i> talk to us about rivalry.
<p>In the meantime, get in touch with the west your team represents. Do they care about some sort of Drummoyne v Paddington "Battle of the Bridge", or is your Eastern Suburbs talk just show your more interested in the numbers you can get from away fans?
<p>In case it wasn't obvious, I have plans to be there anyway. Of course, I'll take one of the trains that start at Blacktown. Sydney Olympic Park is an awful place for a car except when there's nothing going on. Easter Saturday isn't one of those times!
<p>See you then,
<br />JonnoJonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04663760985851423746noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-670177761518328279.post-33148730244594974372011-06-28T10:19:00.003+10:002011-06-28T11:20:27.825+10:00DRS: what's the point?Sidharth Monga <a href="http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/520858.html">writes </a> about the DRS discussion, particularly the fact that the discussion should be going on. The focus on the stubborn BCCI as the sole hold-out in the face of the unquestioning rollout, while to some extent necessary, is way too prominent in the media coverage. Much of the thought we could see when the proposals weren't aligned to "sides" has been obscured. Many of the objections currently are serious whatever your view of technology, especially when it comes to cost and governance.<br /><br />Having said that, Monga's pices goes off the rails when it comes to the paragraph on the original purpose of the review system. Yes it is true that the ICC's cricketing committee originally wanted to<br /><blockquote>spot edges (or their absence), balls pitched outside leg and balls hitting the batsman outside off when offering a shot for lbws.</blockquote><br />and didn't want to use technology <br /><blockquote>to predict whether the ball would have clipped the leg bail.</blockquote><br />I could raise the minor quibble that this intention was overruled very quickly, with the restriction on the use of projections dumped even before the start of the trial, but let's move on to the more serious misconceptions.<br /><br />The first error is the obvious one. Monga claims the system was introduced for the odd big mistake (true enough) and for “umpires who have trouble grasping basic umpiring rules”. I don't know where this idea came from, but it doesn't make any sense at all. International umpires shouldn't be there without being able to grasp basic rules. Even facing evidence of trouble with slightly less basic rules (2007 WC final and so on), surely the answer to that problem lies in training, selection and people management. Most of all, how does a review system help? Whoever reviews the decision (third umpire or original umpire with third umpire input) is just as likely to be wrong in that regard. For wrong understanding of the rules, the very best we can get is a forced consultation with another umpire, which might help in a small minority of cases.<br /><br />The second, less obvious error, comes after another reflection on pitting computer and human predictions. He seems to be urging the ICC to make decisions based on the premise that the system is meant to eliminate howlers, with the implication that it should not adjudicate on non-howlers, or in other words, marginal decisions. That this principle sets the boundaries of the DRS has been repeated for quite a while, at least as early as <a href="http://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket/australia/west-indies-captain-chris-gayles-example-shows-teammates-whats-possible/story-fn2mcu3x-1225916691051">December 2009</a>, but it doesn't quite do the original explanations justice.<br /><br />When the "eliminate howlers" line was <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sport/radical-plan-for-video-umpires/story-e6frg7rx-1111116275525">first used</a>, it was addressing high expectations, pointing out that doubt wouldn't be eliminated, stating a minimal aim rather than trying to put a limit on what umpires should overturn. Put simply, we could only expect howlers to be corrected, and others might or might not be. It was aimed at observers, but also at players, who were given the choice to review and the risk of using them up where the mistake wasn't so obvious - the '<a href="http://cricketingview.blogspot.com/2010/11/udrs-in-wake-of-brisbane-i-would-really.html">economy of error</a>' was put in their hands, and they needed to be aware “<a href="http://www.cricket365.com/dave_tickner_blogs/story/5777215/Reviewing-the-reviews">it was not designed to remove all errors</a>”. As Simon Barnes <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/simon_barnes/article5828397.ece">put it in March 09</a>, “It is not designed as a charter for chancers”, even if the potential for pure tactical use was obvious from the start.<br /><br />It's not hard to see how the stricter interpretation gained such currency. To start with, there's a quite reasonable way of looking at referrals where the only question is whether the umpire was justified or clearly mistaken, leaving each umpire their own approach to the marginal decisions, however you define such things. Once the trials got under way, we also saw the system applied by umpires inconsistently, even overturning decisions without compelling evidence. It's only natural that thoughts turned to limits on what's overturned, and the howler statement had a whole new context.<br /><br />Now, the ICC members seems to be working on what are acceptable compromises (from their point of view), with room for further developments. There's a lot more to be said, a lot of it referred to in that article by Monga (along with a couple more red herrings), but for that conversation, it's better to speak of how we think the technology should be used, not bring up twisted explanations of what it was meant to do.Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04663760985851423746noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-670177761518328279.post-76075815559933088902011-03-07T15:36:00.001+11:002011-03-07T15:38:44.625+11:00More DRS rubbishThe latest twist in the DRS use of Hawkeye when the batsman comes down the pitch is hard to get a grip on, mainly because the reporting seems amazingly confused. There might be something we can get form the latest <a href="http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc_cricket_worldcup2011/content/story/504570.html">Cricinfo article</a>, but it's hard to know exactly what, since it's riddled with nonsense.<br /><br />Why do I say that? Let's start with last paragraph boilerplate that CI has been adding to all their article on this topic. <blockquote>“The 2.5m clause was included in the DRS rules following the expert view that the ball-tracker technology, in this case Hawk Eye, lost its accuracy when the distance between the point of impact and the stumps was greater than 2.5m.”</blockquote><br />The only expert view that seems to be published online is that of the proprietors themselves, and they firstly consider the 2.0m mark more relevant than 2.5m and more importantly don't think the loss of accuracy is great enough to make that much difference, saying the 2.5m rule is their for historical consistency, not technological reasons. Yes, the CI line follows the recent comments from the ICC, but they are speaking just as much nonsense (if accuracy were the issue, it should be relevant to “out” decisions as well), and journalists really should be holding them to account. If there was an altogether different expert view given at some point, is there any reason they can't publich it and point us to it?</li><br />The article also says that there has been a change to “rule 3.3” in the <a href="http://static.icc-cricket.yahoo.net/ugc/documents/DOC_2F720C5CFBDA32A9CDD7799A750491CF_1267593225017_980.pdf">DRS code</a>, and that the previous rule said a leg before could be reversed “only if the replay showed that the ball was hitting the middle stump dead centre.” Even if we assume that the writer meant “a not out leg before decision” rather than simply “a leg before”, there are a lot of problems with how the article describes this:<br /><ol><li>The 2.5m rule (part of clause 3.3i)iii) can't by any stretch be related to a necessary condition for a not out decision to be reversed. The clause deals with when the umpire should be told definitively that the ball was hitting (or missing) the stumps. This is not the only factor.</li><br /><li>There is clearly no mention of a middle stump criterion of any sort in the DRS code - the decision is to simply said to be made using “normal cricketing principles” informed by the ball tracking data. Something like “only if the ball is hitting middle stump” has been popping up a lot in discussion of the Ian Bell decision, but it's not at all clear whether it comes from a less formal umpire's directive (for this tournament or more generally), an off-the-cuff press conference example of what might qualify as normal cricketing principles, or a player or commentatorsa (possibly hyperbolic) interpretation of normal cricketing principles applied down the pitch LBWs. </li><br /><li>We are told that umpire Erasmus asked whether the ball was hitting “any part of middle stump”. The box claiming to detail the new “law” tells us that it has to be the centre of the ball hitting any part of middle stump. If that's the new guideline, then how restricted was the meaning of “dead centre” in the reported old one? In any case, by my eyes the situation shown in the graphic accompanying the article doesn't meet that criterion anyway - if this is the Cusack referral, perhaps they really mean that any part of the ball is hitting any part of middle stump?</li><br /><li>The box with the claimed new law has also clearly misread the code. The wording which is said to have been replaced comes before the 2.5m exception, and is about the more general condition for reporting (and effectively determining) that the ball was hitting the stumps. (It also isn't anything like “hitting the middle stump dead centre” - a much bigger area than middle stump is described!)</li><br /></ol><br />So what can we read between all the errors? There is talk of an umpire's directive, described as changing the protocol. I'd guess that the umpires manager has given direction to the umpires that a trajectory hitting middle stump (in some sense) can be considered out (in the absence of other reasons for a not out). It's not a change to clause 3.3 – it is easily seen as a clarification of a "normal cricketing principle", set in stone as a kneejerk reaction to the predictable inconsistency in interpreting that phrase. It's possibly a change to a similar earlier directive, although that doesn't seem likely to me. It's not all that strange - I've certainly heard similar sentiments (“That far down, I'd only give it out if it were hitting middle.”) from umpires relying on their own sight, and especially if technological accuracy really is the issue, the logic transfers well.<br /><br />So it looks to me that as well as spouting clueless press releases, the ICC has had made a small concession in the name of consistency in response to the media drama round this issue, and this itself hsa been beaten up. Then again, there's so much we can't know, and so much rubbish in the reporting, that I may well be wrong.Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04663760985851423746noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-670177761518328279.post-24095900637169176742011-03-01T18:28:00.000+11:002011-03-01T18:28:00.569+11:00Stepping down the pitch to DRSThere's (unsurprisingly) a lot of talk about how the DRS dealt with the LBW referral for Ian Bell, where umpire Billy Bowden chose to stick with his not out decision after the tracking system "predicted" the ball was going to hit the stumps. I'm going to take my own stride down the pitch on this topic - you judge whether I'm out, stumped or LBW!<br /><br />The way the DRS works, the decision is ultimately up to the umpire, no matter where the point of impact is, but according to the regulations, if the point of impact has been less than 2.5m, the third umpire would simply have told him it was in line, hitting the stumps and so on, and I can't imagine that being ignored. However, in the over 2.5 m situation, the umpire not only given more details concerning distances and wherhe the ball is projected to go, but is told to use "normal crticketing principles" in deciding whether to overrule his original decision.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc_cricket_worldcup2011/content/story/503427.html">Cricinfo</a> says that the reason for the 2.5m distinction is because that's where the predictions become less reliable. Of course the reliability of the trajectory prediction does depend on factors including distance from the stumps, and it's easy to believe that this was a factor in the minds of some of the people involved in accepting the guidelines. However, while the Hawkeye reports of MCC testing don't in my opinion rigorously address this issue, they also give reasonably different criteria for their "extreme LBW" classification, hinting (along with the dependence on the original decision being "not out") that this isn't what the 2.5m is really about. In fact, Paul Hawkins says the main reason for it is to ensure that the traditional dispensation for batsmen coming down the pitch "continues to be the case", even when the benefit is no longer founded in quite as much doubt.<br /><br />The relevant document form Hawkeye is found <a href="http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/UserFiles/File/Hawk-Eye%20accuracy%20and%20believability2.pdf">online</a>, and was first brought to my attention by <a href="http://cricketingview.blogspot.com/search/label/Technology">Kartikeya Date</a>. He has used the traditional approach to LBWs as a reason to oppose the use of technology for LBWs, and while he argues against the DRS even in this form on several grounds, I gather that he thinks it is better to include this clause than not.<br /><br />In some ways, the 2.5m rule seems odd, but it is one of the more logical of the current systems oddities. The basic intention is that if either "traditional cricketing principles" applied to the trajectory or the projection itself say not out, it's not out. Of course, it's less transparent than simply using the calculated uncertainties of the systems, or even deciding on mathematical factors to simulate the traditional approach. Bell, Watson (v Zimbabwe) and Paine (v England in Perth) have all been given not out in a >2.5m situation where the computer said the ball was hitting the stumps. One decision was upheld by the umpire, two were overturned. We can't know whether this is because different factors were involved in the original decisions, the umpires have different ideas of what "traditional cricketing principles" are, or simply are differently inclined to overturn there own decisions. The first possible reason is in line with the aims of the clause, the second arguably so and the third clearly an unwelcome human factor. Describing the process more explicitly might help (if such a thing can be agreed on), but applying it to "out" decisions as well misses the point.<br /><br />Personally, assuming the demonstration of the tracking and projection accuracy was more satisfying than indicated by the Hawkeye document, I would like to put more emphasis on the predictions of the tracking systems, but not on the grounds of transparency or lack of human involvement. Actually, even without using the tracking systems in real time, I'm happy to see umpires let them inform future decisions to some extent, as has already reportedly happened. I would rather make LBW decisions as literally as possible than maintain traditional levels of doubt in the process, but that's not because of a technological argument, but because I think I'd like the change it brings.<br /><br />I'm certainly not pretending it wouldn't be a change. Which leaves us with the current clause in the DRS, intended to avoid a drastic change to interpretation of the LBW law. It might not be perfect in that regard, given that it depends on how the umpires use it, but criticism needs to either have the same intention, or tell us why it doesn't matter.Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04663760985851423746noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-670177761518328279.post-18267527656465429292011-02-01T22:19:00.002+11:002011-02-01T23:15:20.958+11:00Under the arm of the lawFor some reason the media feels the need to keep reminding me that toady is the 30th anniversary of the Chappell's underarm incident. It was a while later before I was in a position to have a reaction to it, and that initial reaction would tell you a lot about my character at the time! <br /><br />Now, with a more rounded view of things, I still find it interesting that the sport saw almost Hair/Murali-type incidents in response to overarm, and before that even roundarm, bowling should end up removing the underarm or overarm clause from the rules (first routinely through playing conditions, then from the Laws themselves).<br /><br />The changes have gone further than they need to. The rolling or excessively bouncing ball has been made a no-ball, and this deals with the real problem with the 1981 scenario. There's no reason to take away the underarm option as well, even if it is just a relic. It's not likely to be relevant to serious cricket, but can't hurt it anyway, and to my mind provides a nice link to history that should be allowed if it ever is wanted. Sure, it doesn't really matter whether the underarm balls delivered to kids in the backyard are sanctioned by the MCC, but you might have gathered that I think about hte rules a bit more than necessary.Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04663760985851423746noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-670177761518328279.post-54677387565273640242011-01-19T12:30:00.001+11:002011-01-19T12:49:26.981+11:00Haddin('t) kept wellAs World Cup squads are announced, there's chatter about their composition. MS Dhoni has no backup keeper. Australia have named both Brad Haddin and Tim Paine. Injured players can be replaced at any point (as a host, this should be particularly easy for India), so presumably Paine isn't there simply as a replacement.<br /><br />Perhaps the tournament is considered long enough for Haddin to need resting even without injury. Perhaps the selectors want to be able to drop him if his keeping isn't up to scratch, although Hauritz is included as the only spinner (to India's three) despite the selectors recently considering other options in that department much more actively. (Not to mention the idea that a second spinner might be more useful than a second keeper.)<br /><br />Perhaps the double choice is simply a symptom of the insistence that everyone have two strings to their bow, and the expectation is more along the lines that they could play together - neither would be completely out of place as a specialist batsman. Such a situation is hardly new, and I think will be more and more common. In this year's Big Bash, several teams have shown up with two or even three recognised keepers.<br /><br />This has something to do with the trend towards keepers sealing their spot as batsman, especially explosive ones. There's plenty to think about in that story, but I'm particularly interested in the story of Haddin himself. I can't consider myself an expert, especially since I hardly saw anything of him during four and half years in England, but I've jumped to my own conclusions on him at various times based on more than his international performances, and I'd like to hear from anyone who can say the same.<br /><br />I first saw Haddin in the the Canberra Comets' short-lived foray into List A cricket (he was a genuine local, while was also clearly a part of the NSW set-up - see what I'm <a href="http://rising-of-the-sun.blogspot.com/2009/04/heading-beyond-odi-world.html">thinking</a>?) He left the Comets when Phil Emery retired, providing him a spot in the NSW lineup, then fairly quickly securing an apparent anointing as the successor to Gilchrist as Australian keeper.<br /><br />Emery was a good keeper. Gilchrist had had to move west to get a keeper's spot. Haddin's keeping seemed to me be to better than Gilchrist's, and while he may never have been a Healy, he certainly had plenty of experience with Stuart MacGill and other spinners without looking a fool.I have heard it said the pressure to improve his batting to match the new standard set in part by Gilchrist led his keeping to suffer. I'm not sure about that, but his batting was good enough to get him not only the fill-in keeper role, but a match opening the batting with Gilchrist without taking gloves behind the stumps in 2004.<br /><br />When he did permanently replace Gilchrist, we all saw some pretty poor keeping form. I had the impression this was out of character, and could come up with a few explanations. His performance in the recent Ashes series was much closer to my expectations. For some reason, a selector felt the need to come out in his support, proclaiming him the country's top keeper in all forms of the game. He was then promptly dropped from the T20 team. This isn't necessarily contradictory – this particular choice smells of picking Paine as vice-captain, rather than choosing the team first. His inclusion in the WC squad may also be as much to do with his development as the needs for the tournament, especially if the plan is to rest Haddin.<br /><br />At my next opportunity to see Haddin, I was considering his keeping as the innings began. The Blues boasted two glovemen in their bash with the sandgropers. I would have had Smith behind the stumps, not as a reflection on Haddin's keeping, but on Smith's fielding away from the stumps. As it turned out, the innings featured the worst display of glovework I've ever seen from Haddin (or perhaps any professional cricketer) in the flesh, and his subsequent perfomances for Australia have not been much better.<br /><br />Michael Slater suggests that the selectors should be held responsible for Haddin's latest deterioration. That didn't occur to me, but we've seen similar falling away corresponding to the selectors lack of consistency in the spinning department. The selectors make it very easy to blame them.<br /><br />Now neither Haddin nor Paine are playing in the Big Bash clash tonight, and both are going to the World Cup. But what do you think? When has Hadding kept well, and when haddin't he?Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04663760985851423746noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-670177761518328279.post-57447718418304270792010-12-10T21:16:00.004+11:002010-12-10T21:30:55.846+11:00What has Hilditch been drinking?I thought I was beyond caring about Australian selection issues, but it just keeps getting stranger. The gum-suckers think it's all a conspiracy, with the feted Victorians finding it virtually impossible to get a game, but as soon as the big boy from St Kilda backs someone, he gets the nod. You might think the horses for courses idea might come into it somewhere, but that would imply Beer had bowled more than 108 first-class overs at the WACA.<br /><br />Phil Hughes added some humour to the other inclusions by promptly getting a duck, while Steve Smith at least backed up his useful bowling by knocking off the crow-eater's meagre target.<br /><br />I still don't want to bother thinking about whether Hughes/Smith/etc. are actually the right choices, but hte one thing I am sure of is that if the selectors do think the younger guys are better options than the likes of Hodge, White and so on for whatever reason, they need to pick some guys and stick with them (apart from dealing with injuries, of course). It'll be better for the team and those left behind in both the short term and the long term.Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04663760985851423746noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-670177761518328279.post-39827539931892391362010-11-15T23:20:00.003+11:002010-11-15T23:38:04.041+11:00Pick me?Apparently the Cricket Australia board has been asking questions of the selectors. Has this been leaked to the media to distract from the fact it was the administrators who forced the selectors to announce a squad a week earlier than they wanted to today.<br /><br />Maybe we've all got the wrong end of the stick, though. Will Sutherland and Hilditch come out with a joint press conference tomorrow?<br /><br />Sutherland: I know you all thought the new look Ryobi OD Cup was an overly ambitious attempt to change the face of day-long cricket and get a head start for 2015, but in bringing back the 12 player idea, we were actually working towards an agreement for the Ashes. We're still hoping to get a good reply from the ECB, but we're sure the public will love seeing more of the favourite players in the Baggy Green.<br /><br />Hilditch: We believe we've chosen a great team for a 17-a-side match. Great batting lineup with Haddin coming in at 9. With Johnson, four full-time pacers, Smith and two more spinners with no batting to think of, as well as Watson, North, Clarke <i>and</i> Katich, no captain could possibly run out ideas. Isn't that right, Ricky? This team will really test the English depth.Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04663760985851423746noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-670177761518328279.post-37670446383192279462010-10-28T21:28:00.000+11:002010-10-28T21:29:29.031+11:00Australian T20I had plans to go to the first List A level T20 of the Australian summer, but they were discarded in light of the weather forecast and the fact that I haven't quite shaken the flu that kept me in bed for nearly 5 days, not to mention my intended companions' plans, reactions to the weather, and our general views on getting home from Rooty Hill after 10 on a Wednesday night.<br /><br />As it turned out, the cracking thunderstorm was gone hours before, and it was traffic that held up the start of Blacktown Olympic Park's introduction to big time cricket. Once Sri Lanka had made it west<sup>1</sup>, we hear that Jayawardene took the attack apart, rain interrupted the Blues innings, and they fell well short. While it was hardly the full strength team that provides half the players for Sunday's international, I think it's fair to say NSW would have expected a better result, last night, and as they started the second portion of their innings against Tasmania last week.<br /><br />On the topic of full strength teams, it's worth noting that Test and ODI players are not available for the Big Bash at all, so for all the chatter, Michael Clarke really should be looking for an IPL opportunity if being the T20 captain and having the appropriate experience is at all important to him. Either CA leave him free to focus on other things, or he should be ready to go to whoever will have him.<br /><br />But as we see in the news today, the Big Bash with its state teams and clashes with the international schedule is set to be short-lived. At first I had really trouble trying to see why this had popped up in the news today, asking myself what part of it we hadn't already heard.<br /><br />An 8-team league is the plan, and while one report mentions second teams in Melbourne and Sydney, most stick with the old line that the last two locations are yet to be determined, allowing continued speculation about Geelong, Newcastle, Canberra, the Gold Coast, etc. The only development seems to be in the financing and ownership - my understanding of earlier reports was that CA would hold off on private ownership for a limited time, getting things going with (at least) 6 of the franchises in the hands of the state associations. The only change now seems to be that some associations would welcome investment and offers of some sort have been made. It might be sooner than expected, but I think that's where it was headed the whole time.Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04663760985851423746noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-670177761518328279.post-91674321842057815162010-10-06T15:30:00.000+11:002010-10-06T15:30:00.888+11:00Split interest?The banana-benders are taking on the islanders today in the first match of the Ryobi One-Day Cup, playing a new format of day-long cricket. The idea seems to have been to give a boost to the flagging interested in the version of the game now apparently caught neither here nor there between Tests and Twenty20. A lot has been made of not knowing what to expect, but in my opinion, there's not a huge amount truly new, even apart from the fact that there had already been some split innings experiments in England.<br /><br />When it was first announced with words like "two innings", a lot of people quickly thought of a game which was basically back-to-back T20s, a concept supported by several big names as capitalising on factors associated with the emergence of the short format. Of course, the convenience of a 3 hour game is lost (would double T20 be better or worse over two nights?), and the international nature of the IPL and the glitz/glamour/gimmicks associated with T20 worldwide do not rely on the format at all, but the high scoring rates are also said to be an attraction. High scoring comes from the higher pace of the game in general when squashing a whole innings into twenty overs changes the balance of risks facing the batsman, and also from decisions to encourage big hitting with smaller boundaries and other incentives. I appreciate the excitement of the former despite my preference for the traditional less hurried game, but am not really keen on the latter at all. There's nothing inappropriate about a fast-paced T20 match on the full MCG oval, or an unpredictable Kotla pitch which favours the bowlers.<br /><br />Cricket Australia's new format doesn't reduce the value of a wicket quite so much – a team's innings still needs to be built over an (interrupted) 45 overs. Some of the rules, such as an extra bouncer per over, give more tools back to the bowlers, although favouring pace over spin. The separate balls from each end will probably be welcomed by batsmen as well, and while what the periods which are effectively powerplays (fixed at 5 overs at the start of each segment) come to five overs less than in current ODI rules, the restriction to four (rather than five) players in the outfield for the rest of the match could lead more attacking bowling and batting.<br /><br />In any case, the most obvious change isn't to the relationship between bat and ball, but to the order of the game, trying to spread the interest out by letting both teams get 20 overs in before either has the chance to finish their innings. This means more insight into where things stand for both players and spectators, more interest for those who turn up only for the second half and more even conditions for the two teams, but there's more to it than that - the team in front at the main break gets something like “first innings points”. While you need to build for a full innings, your first segment counts for something in itself. If you're going to give points other than for simply win/loss/draw, I'd have to say this makes more sense than the stupid bonus points currently favoured by the ICC. It's new, but not quite unfamiliar to anyone used to two-innings competitions.<br /><br />So there is a small way in which the innings is more than just split/interrupted, and there should be a bit more batting to cope with it too. I wonder whether the most significant change might be to the makeup of the teams. 12-player teams are old news in this competition, but bowlers are also allowed to bowl 12 overs each, more than a quarter of the number required all up. This might mean higher quality bowling, but the restriction was never there to restrict the bowlers so much as to ensure reasonably traditional team make-up. Now, a team can choose to play 8 batsmen (assuming the keeper is included as a batsman), all of whom won't need to bowl except as a back-up in unusual circumstances. If part-timers come into plan A at all, the tail is even further reduced. This isn't the place for a slow-scorer at the top of the order. (It also makes D/L more likely to be a bit weird.)<br /><br />It will be interesting to see how it goes. That, I think, is the point. I'm not sure how much F50 cricket in general is dying, or how much CA want to use this format to revive it, but it is always struggling to keep interest in the domestic cup, and they might be quite happy to rely on novelty for a year or even two, whatever the long term plans are.Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04663760985851423746noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-670177761518328279.post-90960244128111225852010-09-29T22:19:00.004+10:002010-09-29T22:43:18.533+10:00It's cricket seasonThe Australian team have arrived in India, played a practise match in Chandigarh which seems to have served the purpose of a practise match, and, having travelled such a long way to Mohali, are preparing for the First Test.<br /><br />Of course, playing a practise match means press conferences, and the players have duly provided some material for our consumption. This has drawn a few comments, and I'm sure there could is room for a PhD on what is generally said by different countries' cricketers and journalists (and even the response of their audiences) at home and away.<br /><br />I'm not so interested in the "same old Aussie talk" angle, though. Perhaps with knowledge of the situation, I'm reading too much into it, but it the bowlers lining up to tell their plans seem, perhaps not more circumspect than what we're used to, but certainly less confident and more desperate in the less complimentary sense.<br /><br />Whatever the sports psychologists say, there's good reason for that. It's a tough ask, although the current team seems ready to go out and be tested. I expect it to be interesting rather than thrilling, a more consistent contest than matches in Australia's last few series, which threatened to blow out or swing violently back at any second for more than one reason.Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04663760985851423746noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-670177761518328279.post-82787190051853646812010-09-26T20:46:00.002+10:002010-09-26T21:03:56.001+10:00No fixing hereI would like to state that, despite my vaguely prescient-seeming comments in the week leading up to the (first) 2010 Grand Final, I wouldn't actually try to creat such a clash with my brother's wedding, and I definitely did not influence the outcome of the match.<br /><br />I doubt that St Kilda were trying to recreate the events of 1966, although perhaps they are glad to have been undefeated in a GF for only the 2nd time. I can't say anything about 'spot' fixing, although if it turns out that anyone actually offer bets on the number of kick-outs that result in a free kick by going out, then I would start to wonder.<br /><br />Which team will be able to get up again the most? I might be too busy to find out...Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04663760985851423746noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-670177761518328279.post-29675401386836150832010-09-23T11:49:00.000+10:002010-09-23T12:35:17.812+10:00View from afarSurprisingly, I came across an <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/home-truths-about-the-lesser-games-20100921-15kym.html">article</a> on the Commonwealth Games that isn't all about the site or security fears. Being in London, James Schloeffel is in good position to tell us how much inattention the Games are receiving from the Brits. The cliched description of Australia's disproportionate love of sporting victory is also not altogether empty, but let's hang on a bit here.<br /><br />What is the disinterest in London being compared with? I don't know when Schloeffel left his hometown, but surely he wouldn't consider his current experience analogous to being in Melbourne four years ago. He's also a long way from the Australia supposedly preparing for lock-down in 2010.<br /><br />The Games haven't been seen much outside ads from the broadcasters who need to make money out of them. I expect most of us have just laughed at TEN's hyperbolic announcements, and to be fair to them, even they wouldn't be disrupting normal broadcasting so much if the planned revision to the anti-siphoning laws was already in place.<br /><br />Quite simply, I think it's been quite a while since anyone outside the host country paid too much attention to any Commonwealth Games.Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04663760985851423746noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-670177761518328279.post-43910804164858260822010-09-18T21:49:00.002+10:002010-09-18T21:57:43.486+10:00Settling for piesI have been driven to supporting Collingwood in a Grand Final. Can we please get it over and done with, so that I can leave this distressing fact behind and direct my attention to the following Saturday?Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04663760985851423746noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-670177761518328279.post-86564064472055894302010-08-24T18:37:00.000+10:002010-08-24T18:37:00.160+10:00Swinging and HangingContinuing to find things to question in news reports, I found a version of my recent favourite misunderstanding/oversight again yesterday, when I looked at the election coverage in the Daily Tele I found on the train seat. Speaking of the hits Labor took in inner Sydney without looking like losing a seat, they said Grayndler had gone from a massive 25% margin to 5% or less. Apples and oranges, anyone?<br /><br />The (almost) 25% figure is based on the two-party preferred results between Labor and Liberal at the last election. Had preferences between Labor and the Greens been compared, it would have been significantly less, despite the Greens not doing well enough on primary votes to make that count happen. (Actually, there wasn't a <i>need</i> to look at any preferences.) While we can't say for sure, I'd be surprised if the change in Labor v Green 2PP result was much more than the primary swing against Labor, that is, about the same as the 8% swing being reported for the Labor-Liberal 2PP in nearly safe Labor seats. Moving on to even more guesswork, the change in the Labor v Liberal was probably even less than that.<br /><br />In any case the parliament is almost certainly going to be hung. For many years I've had a dream, probably inpsired by NSW in the early 90s, of hung parliaments where independents actively pressure the major players to work together across party lines, as well as providing a separate voice of their own. Now, I'm amazed that Independent Rob Oakeshott is actually make this sort of “cheeky” proposal. I'm not still naive enough to think that this would be all good, but I like the way Oakeshott and Windsor are talking.Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04663760985851423746noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-670177761518328279.post-39872780809299811452010-08-24T18:33:00.002+10:002010-08-24T18:33:00.194+10:00Macquazza DictionaryA recent <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/rickrolling-the-english-language-20100820-12u1x.html">SMH article</a> explores the internet phenomena creating a generational communication gap. It starts with laguage being influenced by txt speak, and even contrasts it to traditional Aussie abbreviation. In that context, it seems particular strange that the example the Macquarie Dictionary editor gives as having reached spoken language is "TMOZ". Does she think that word's origins are purely in the typed or even written world. Really?Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04663760985851423746noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-670177761518328279.post-72022818838523950612010-08-20T11:00:00.002+10:002010-08-20T11:07:01.086+10:00Stopping the boastsWith a resurgence in the number of asylum seeker-carrying vessels moving shorewards, Tony Abbott has taken us back to 2001<sup>1</sup> and told us he will<br /><div align="center"><b>Stop the boats.</b></div><br />In response, Gillard and the ALP are slightly more confused about persuing an almost identical outcome. While there are issues of fairness and honesty involved, and the policy in this area doesn't deserve to be ignored, the acceptance of the idea that unauthorised boat arrivals are significant to the overall questions related to immigration and population<sup>2</sup> is ridiculous.<br /><br />The rest of the Liberal mantra can almost be summarised as 'stop the bloat'. While I've seen some details of Labor's “real solutions”, mostly they've been simply telling us to<br /><div align="center"><b>Stop a boat</b>,</div><br />sorry, stop Abbott, and that only they can achieve this for us. I am told that, if elected, Abbot will “take Australia backwards”. Economics and industrial relations get a run, but no doubt we're also meant to conclude that the coalition broadband-lite will 'stop the posts', at least the ones requiring a lot of bandwidth.<br /><br />Not wanting to be outdone on personality-driven anti-campaigning, in the last week the opposition moved their ads forward from the bloat and boats message to also question the PM's trustworthiness. Both sides have put a lot of effort into telling us not to choose the others, and they both get agreement from Mark Latham, who thinks the answer is to<br /><div align="center"><b>Stop your votes.</b></div><br /><br />Whatever your choice, I expect that most of the boasts and promises will be stopped and forgotten pretty soon - probably by Monday.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:78%;"><sup>1</sup>Which was, incidentally, the last time I was in Australia for a federal election campaign.<br /><sup>2</sup>The discussion of which has been, for the most part, bringing together every issue that has population as a factor and putting them together as a scare campaign targetted at self-interest, with very little consideration of how the details interact with each other.</span>Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04663760985851423746noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-670177761518328279.post-70125205833955292042010-08-13T12:52:00.003+10:002010-08-16T11:22:34.853+10:00First preference: getting it straightIn several places, I've emphasised the fact that Labor seats reported as "safest" due to the high two party preferred result against the Liberals are actually closer to being taken by the Greens. I've done this mainly it is often overlooked in an unhelpful tendency to make everything one-dimensional and it find it interesting just in being unusual.<br /><br />As it turns out, Sam Byrne's campaign material has this plastered all over it - "It's between the Greens and Labor". I must admit that while it may add legitimacy to their perceptions, I doubt that it's an effective way to campaign, particular combined with the rest of their comments.<br /><br />Still, at least it makes more sense that <a href="http://inner-west-courier.whereilive.com.au/news/story/lib-labor-spat-over-preferences/">Anthony Albanese's complaints</a> about them. Whatever they suggest regarding preferences, they're making it very clear that they're not looking for a "protest vote". There might be more to say when you put it in the national context, but I don't see anything misleading said about this particular contest.<br /><br />Then there's the (inconspicuous) Liberal candidate, who also seems to protest a bit much. Even though he may well have other outcomes foremost in his mind, suggesting preferences for the Greens ahead of Labor is exactly the same as saying (truthfully or otherwise - not that I think there's a deal here) that you'd rather the result go that way. Not that that in itself should matter to a potential voter. In fact, let's completely avoid the Alan Jones response to how-to-vote cards and point out that whatever you think of the parties, candidates, and electoral and parliamentary machinations, there's no reason not to choose your own ordering.Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04663760985851423746noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-670177761518328279.post-77773368775090533962010-07-30T16:06:00.002+10:002010-07-30T16:09:17.561+10:00Buy the bye<a href="http://www.cricinfo.com/sl-tri2010/content/current/story/469887.html">Sidharth Monga thinks</a> batsmen hit while trying to avoid the ball should not be entitled to leg-byes. Thoughts?Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04663760985851423746noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-670177761518328279.post-56441687278292308832010-07-29T22:34:00.004+10:002010-07-29T22:43:27.161+10:00Second opinion?Paul Roos says "There is no better team in the competition to test yourself against than Geelong, who have been the benchmark in the AFL over the past four years."<br /><br />I do hope the Swans "take it up to the Cats" more than recent form would suggest, but is any more testing really necessary after last week's meeting (if you could call it that) with Melbourne?Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04663760985851423746noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-670177761518328279.post-56570070947413176082010-07-13T21:49:00.003+10:002010-07-13T22:14:11.423+10:00Not very EnglishAfter a bit of a delay (in several senses), the First Test has started. Pakistan becomes the third opponent to Test Australia at the MCC's famous home. (If only this had happened when I was in London!) Mind you, when it comes to cricket in general, Lord's is no stranger to Pakistan v Australia, this being the third such match since their first anti-climactic meeting in 1999. <br /><br />The Pakistani batting has been weakened by well-publicised events. Australia have taken the opportunity to announce in advance Clarke's place in the batting order until next year. (That seems both unusual and unnecessary, to me.) Moving up a spot shouldn't hurt him or the team, but will hardly shake the world. Unsurprisingly, though, in my opinion, the big question is still how the Aussie bowlers will step up. <br /><br />The return of Hilfenhaus may be useful in these conditions, but all three pacemen can be more erratic than some. The big change is the debut of Steve Smith as a spinner. I felt that throwing him in as the main spinner is rushing him, and am still concerned. Having said that, if there is a need, there is a need, and perhaps it is not such a big step from the role as all-rounder to replace a batsman that I would have been comfortable with. Even in this situation, I would put him in ahead of the other debutant. On that note, while I did get strangely confused just over a year, the Tasmanian wicketkeeper's inclusion for Haddin means that we now do indeed have three apple island born-and-bred members of the Test team!Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04663760985851423746noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-670177761518328279.post-77909768548939306412010-07-08T15:15:00.002+10:002010-07-08T15:32:45.262+10:00Thwarted captain?The headline of the article from PA Sport at the <a href="http://cricket.com.au/news-display/Clarke-thwarts-opening-role/21405">Cricket Australia site</a> is still thwarting all of my attempts to make any sense of it.<br /><br />More interesting than that is claim that he “was sent in at the top of the order”. If he's not the one making those decisions, does that mean he's in the team for his batting after all?Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04663760985851423746noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-670177761518328279.post-50256935784941069142010-07-05T16:28:00.001+10:002010-07-05T16:52:18.567+10:00Candidates in the newsI've <a href="http://rising-of-the-sun.blogspot.com/2008/11/turning-green.html">commented</a> <a href="http://rising-of-the-sun.blogspot.com/2009/02/plus-ca-change.html">before</a> on the transition of inner-city seats like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_district_of_Marrickville">Marrickville</a> from safe Labor to a new sort of marginal seat, where the alternative is the Greens. It is a sign of just how complete this transition is that the Greens preselection was a story in the ABC radio news bulletins this morning.<br /><br />Deputy Mayor Fiona Byrne will now challenge Deputy Premier (and former Deputy Mayor) Carmel Tebbutt for the second time in the state election next March. Together with the preselection of the 2003 state candidate (and former Deputy Mayor) as the Greens candidate for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_Grayndler">Grayndler</a>, this means that while the sitting members in the state and federal seats are married to each other, the Greens candidates share a surname.<br /><br />However, the media interest probably has more to do with the other preselection candidate, Sylvia Hale, a member of the Legislative Council since 2003, and known to the voters of Marrickville long before that (although I don't remember that she was ever Deputy Mayor). The <a href="">SMH</a> reports the vote as <i>Greens reject Hale for Marrickville</i>. Her past may have come into it, but I don't know whether she has received an official reason for her “rejection”.Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04663760985851423746noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-670177761518328279.post-49883257377994718312010-07-01T14:41:00.000+10:002010-07-01T14:47:26.373+10:00Eye on HawkeyeSome sort of event going on in South Africa has set of the talk about the role of technology in sports officiating again. I think Kartikeya at <a href="http://cricketingview.blogspot.com/2010/06/technophilia-and-sport.html">A Cricketing View</a> brings to this issue many of the approaches that are needed.<br /><br />In particular, he highlights the fact that the aim of a drive to use technology is not about getting decisions right, but getting them “verifiably right”. It's not even about being correct. Questions are only raised because there appears to be, and often is, available evidence beyond what the umpires have traditionally relied on. Being absolutely correct is still impossible, it is only a question of whether there is a decent basis for the claim that a mistake was made.<br /><br />As he says, the uncertainty is shifted to “hitherto unforeseen areas”, and this can be a problem if the technology is seen as decisive. This is related to the other important point Kartikeya makes - that technology is more than just the technical. It's use affected by the interests of those involved, and how it is understood and portrayed by them. There are a lot of sides to this - the example of the Lampard goal in the soccer raises questions, yes, but technology doesn't really come into it until we start thinking about the efficiencies and other outcomes of using broadcasters compared with those of using two more officials.<br /><br />While I think these points form a strong basis for discussing technology in sports officiating, I don't agree with all the conclusions reached or implications made. The professional nature of modern umpiring, or at least the particular system run by the ICC, quite conceivably hinders umpires, rather than allowing best performances over an extended period of time. Neither is the need for umpires simply caused by players trying deceive. Asking players to give themselves out LBW might work (sometimes) in the backyard or park, but it is clearly not just a matter of honesty. This is an extreme case where the Law itself was developed assuming indepedent involvement, but it is not the only example.<br /><br />This example is very relevant,as Kartikeya does focus on LBW, in particular <a href="http://cricketingview.blogspot.com/2010/06/problems-with-hawkeye.html">Hawk-eye</a>. He begins by agreeing with what I think is the vital point - we have to move past the broad rhetoric of technology vs human, and look at each method of officiating as a separate case. The fact that technology shifts uncertainty rather than eliminating it is an argument against technophilia, not against individual solutions. Being verifiably right or close to it can be a valid aim, and uncertainty is sometimes (often, for example, in run outs) not “merely” shifted, but reduced. Even a change that is not quantifiable may be arguably more acceptable for some reason. This needs to be hammered out, not pre-judged one way or the other.<br /><br />So what about LBWs and Hawk-eye? It is quite different to most other examples, in that the answer does not rely simply on observing, but on some level of speculation. The basis of that speculation was changing even before the advent of Hawk-eye, so I don't think it can be blamed for changing the Law. Using a technological system to observe and speculate is not in itself any worse than putting it simply in the hands of an umpire, especially under recent versions. However, traditionally there are a large number of umpires who are unreasonably biased against giving LBWs to one extent or another, and it should also be acknowledged both that Hawk-eye is potentially much harsher on batsmen than an umpire could reasonably be. I don't think “correcting” either of these aspects of human umpiring is a bad change, but it is a change.<br /><br />The reason for this is that uncertainty, and the benefit thereof, is already acknowledged in our understanding of the rule. Shifting the uncertainty isn't simply shifting the errors. Thankfully, it should be possible to talk sensibly about what the uncertainty is for Hawk-eye, and <a href="http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/UserFiles/File/Hawk-Eye%20accuracy%20and%20believability2.pdf">tests have been done by the MCC</a>. Questions remain, as the reports are light-on. Kartikeya rightly objects to two-part classification of “normal” and “extreme” LBWs, and to the 'average error', suggesting the median rather than the mean. We don't know how broad this test was. I understand that pitch variation and calibration based on play are fairly unimportant, but <a href="http://tcwj.blogspot.com/2010/06/technology-once-more.html">Soulberry's</a> reference to all the bowling variations is important here. I'd prefer an indication of the distribution of errors for a whole range of deliveries, varying over the distance and other factors and summarised with a confidence interval, rather than any sort of average or claimed absolute maximum.<br /><br />That is the technical side. There is a protocol for its use in the context of the UDRS. The uncertainty is not ignored at all - while the beneficiary of the doubt in this system is controversial, a half-ball's width (let alone 45mm) is generous enough to make worrying about errors as large as half the stump's width quite ridiculous. On top of that, the Hawk-eye document implies that the protocol also prevents LBW decisions when the batsman comes too far down the pitch, following traditional umpiring rather than the letter of the law. It might fall to further criticism, but I wouldn't say Hawk-eye has been “uncritically adopted”. It certainly hasn't been adopted as though it gives certainty about the trajectory.<br /><br />Yes, it is convenient for the marketing of Hawk-eye to ignore the uncertainty. It probably does give the wrong impression sometimes, but I don't agree that it would be less persuasive if a range of likely locations were shown. Most of the commentators who leap to absolute statements are of the sort that did that anyway when given much less. Most of us are ok with the idea of an approximation at one level or another. I am probably not the best sample, but I would find an indication of the confidence interval more persuasive on first look. I don't have any problem with a commentator saying “Hawk-eye gives greater than 95% probability of hitting the stumps, so that's a good decision.” In general, I'd love to see an understanding of the uncertainty involved encouraged with that sort of display, although in practise it's not obvious how to show it simply without giving all sorts of other impressions. (Mind you, it's a bit funny to worry about showing about the Hawk-eye uncertainty in an application that doesn't even claim to perfectly display the Hawk-eye results!)<br /><br />All in all, I think Hawk-eye can be used sensibly. Any suggestion that Hawk-eye gives certainty where an umpire speculates should be corrected, but that correction shouldn't simply rubbish the claim, but replace it with an good idea of how accurately a the Hawk-eye system performs that same speculation. Further testing showing greater errors, or concerns about the reliability or even integrity of those operating the system, may give reason to prefer a human umpire, but not simply the fact that the technology is limited and has been over-rated.Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04663760985851423746noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-670177761518328279.post-54957837072521544892010-06-16T17:14:00.004+10:002010-06-16T17:47:12.407+10:00First stop DublinSo Australia's northern tour begins. In the past, the short trip to Ireland was a bit of fun, known for things such as six-hitting exploits and so on. This time it is a full-status ODI, the first between the two teams outside a World Cup. (I think it even counts for the ICC tables.)<br /><br />Ireland are in some ways like the Socceroos - not necessarily living up to their past unexpected exploits. Of course, it doesn't help to be losing players to a more prestigious neighbour. Some more creative thinking is needed here - perhaps if more players were retained, Ireland wouldn't still be using Australian and other second -string players. In any case, it is a long way from the days when SR Waugh lined up for the Irish.<br /><br />This is a strange tour - an unusually seroius warm-up match, yet another long ODI series, some modern stuff, and as a climax, an 'away' Test series against a team with all sorts of internal problems. The islands off north-western Europe are a long way from the North West Frontier - let's see what happens!Jonathanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04663760985851423746noreply@blogger.com0