There'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!
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.
Cricinfo 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.
The relevant document form Hawkeye is found online, and was first brought to my attention by Kartikeya Date. 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.
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, 1 March 2011
Tuesday, 1 February 2011
Under the arm of the law
For 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!
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).
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.
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).
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.
Wednesday, 19 January 2011
Haddin('t) kept well
As 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.
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.)
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.
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.
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 thinking?) 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.)
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.
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.
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 thinking?) 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Friday, 10 December 2010
What 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Monday, 15 November 2010
Pick 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.
Maybe we've all got the wrong end of the stick, though. Will Sutherland and Hilditch come out with a joint press conference tomorrow?
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.
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 and Katich, no captain could possibly run out ideas. Isn't that right, Ricky? This team will really test the English depth.
Maybe we've all got the wrong end of the stick, though. Will Sutherland and Hilditch come out with a joint press conference tomorrow?
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.
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 and Katich, no captain could possibly run out ideas. Isn't that right, Ricky? This team will really test the English depth.
Thursday, 28 October 2010
Australian T20
I 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.
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 west1, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 west1, 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.
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, 6 October 2010
Split 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)