Ashes 2017/18: 4th Test Day 3 - And For My Next Trick…

 

Ashes 2017/18: 4^th Test Day 3

And For My Next Trick…

December 28^th 2017

I suppose that if, at Lunch on Day 1, you had suggested that England would be pushing for an innings victory, would put on 100 for the ninth wicket and that Stuart Broad would make a major all-round contribution in this Test, you would have been locked-up as certifiable.

It makes a nice change to want to sit down and write, rather than find it an unpleasant chore in the face of another hopeless position.

The crazy thing is that it should have been so much better. If Vince was daft not to review his LBW – especially as Cook advised him to – what do you make of Malan getting a BIG edge to a ball well outside off stump and not reviewing? Malan’s LBW would not have hit the stumps even if he had not hit the ball… hard. And Stuart Broad must consider that he was somewhat unfortunate to be given out, as a more benevolent Third Umpire might well have considered that the ball had slipped out of Khawaja’s hands and was on the ground when he rolled on it (Australian fans, remembering Nottingham 2013, might not be so charitable – these things usually even-out in the end). You have to suspect that England left a hundred or so runs out there because of poor decisions and not just those of the umpires.

At 306-6 Australia must have been thinking of getting an unexpected first innings lead. Batsmen were getting in and getting out. And the last four wickets have not exactly inconvenienced Australia through the series. If anyone in the tail were to stand with Cook and add vital runs you would probably have said that it would be Woakes, or maybe at a stretch, Jimmy Anderson with some last-ditch defiance with the great position at the start of the day already wasted. No one would have expected Stuart Broad to recall that, not so long ago, people talked of him batting at #7 as a genuine all-rounder.

It is easy to forget that Stuart Broad has a better Test batting *and* bowling averages against Australia than his career figures: not by much, but enough to disprove those who suggest that he does not perform often enough against them. This has been his fourth fifty against Australia and first since Nottingham 2013. He says that he tried to be more aggressive bowling in this Test and it shows and has infused his batting with more confidence too. Many people thought that maybe he should be stood down from this Test and that Curran or Wood should replace him. Like Alistair Cook though, he has put his hand up big time.

What can you say about Cook? He says that he expected to be dropped from the team for the 5^th Test had he not made a score and there is undoubtedly a suspicion that England would have played Jennings and Stoneman – the former Durham opening pair – as openers in the Final Test if Cook’s struggles had continued. So often in this series Cook has looked totally lost. If Australia can put down their superiority to any factor it has been the runs from Steve Smith, far more than their bowlers. Had Smith managed Alistair Cook’s run of scores in the first three matches England would certainly have won at least one of them so, it is a pleasant change to see the balance tilt the other way: not even Smith's efforts have kept Australia level in this match.

Alistair Cook has this knack of suddenly producing a huge innings when he has no right to. Since his monumental 189 at Sydney in January 2011 he has passed fifty eight times against Australia, but just twice got past 72. His first ten Tests against Australia over two series were saved by just two innings of note, with just one other score past 30, before producing a sequence of 67, 235*, 148, 32, 13, 82 & 189 in 2010/11. He will undoubtedly flay attacks raw in the Championship come April, but one wondered if that ultimate edge was still there. Now we know that it is. Remove one Australian bowler. Have another bowl some overs at reduced pace and, suddenly, the eye is in, the confidence is back and, even with a fully healthy attack on Day 3, Cook was playing like it was Chelmsford in May against an under-strength county attack, rather than much the same bowlers who had been giving him the screaming meamies for three Tests.

The discussion about the places of Cook and Broad for the Sydney Tests is over.

Finally, Australia are learning the pain and frustration of having to bowl over after pitiless over against well-set batsmen in uncomfortable bowling conditions of very high humidity, after a hot day yesterday and are not enjoying it one jot. Five sessions in the field with stretched resources is suggesting that England have not been wrong in asserting that had the Australian pace attack not made it through the first three Tests without issues the result might have been far closer. Or, put another way, if Australia had been missing as many bowlers as England are, they would have struggled themselves. One gets the feeling that Australia like being the bullies, but are not so keen when they are on the receiving end of it, or that conditions are not stacked in their favour.

There has been some debate as to whether or not Joe Root should have declared. No, he should not have. The lead is only 164 and Joe Root has bigger fish to fry. Cook and Anderson have so far added 18 – Anderson with 0* from 15 balls – and Root knows that three important landmarks are coming up: the Cook 250, the England 500 and a lead of 180. Tick them off, one by one. Make the Australian attack continue to tire and frustrate itself (the fact that Smith ended the day with the unthreatening Bird and Marsh bowling suggests strongly that he is into “energy conservation mode” for his main bowlers) and look to have enough for Australia to start to worry about the innings defeat. With a lead of 180 that result comes into consideration. England, and particularly Joe Root, who has come in for some pretty nasty criticism from the Australian media, will be keen to add some payback in the form of an innings defeat for Australia to compensate the innings defeat that England suffered in the 3^rd Test.

If Cook continues to farm the strike there is no reason why this partnership cannot continue for a while longer, with the Australians asking themselves when Root is finally going to call a halt.

With two days to come, even if there is some rain around and conditions for once favouring the England bowlers, this is no time to let up or to be merciful.

England v Bangladesh: 1st Test, Day 5 - DRS the Winner

 

England v Bangladesh: 1^st Test, Day 5

DRS the Winner

October 24^th 2016

There was something appropriate in the way that the match ended this morning. The end was swift – it took just 21 balls – it was brought about by Ben Stokes, who did so much to keep England in the match and it came courtesy of two reviews of decisions by Umpire Dharmasena, one overturned, the second upheld. In all, there were 26 reviews, 16 of them against Dharmesena, 8 of them upheld (including an extraordinary 3 in 6 balls). In contrast, only 3 of the 10 against Umpire Gaffney were upheld.

The lessons were that (1) it is tough being an umpire when the ball is turning a lot, Test umpires do not get a lot of experience of standing to over after over of spin with the ball turning a lot in oppressive weather (2) 25% of the wickets in the Test would have been wrongly given if DRS had not been available – it ensured fairness for both sides – and (3) making good and sensible use of reviews is a vital part of the game now. Each side made 13 reviews, although England were more successful, in part thanks to Moeen, in getting 7 decisions overturned to Bangladesh’s 4. That 7-4 ratio was almost certainly the difference between winning and losing.

DRS had a big impact in the result. Had Moeen Ali been given on the first day, England would probably have lost; Moeen though showed the value of judicious use of DRS by a batsman (Shane Watson please take note). Similarly, had England not had a review available on the last morning, Ben Stokes would not have made the vital early breakthrough. A million Bangladesh fans though will believe that the final dismissal – eerily reminiscent of the final wicket in the famous second tied Test in India – was wrongly given by both the on-field and third umpire and that the #11 was playing a shot and hence should not have been given out LBW. Probably it would have made no difference: with 23 still wanted and the last man in the sights of fresh bowlers, it was all but a lost cause, but Bangladesh fans will always wonder.

For Bangladesh, it was heart-wrenchingly close. Probably there was not a neutral in the world who was not pulling for them. It is not the first time: a defeat by a single wicket in Pakistan in 2003 when Bangladesh deserved to win; at this very ground in 2008 New Zealand were set 317 to win and got home by three wickets. And, what would have been the jewel in the crown: a narrow home defeat to the all-conquering Australians in 2006 in a game that Australia could so easily have lost.

Although the result takes England’s winning streak to nine, the likelihood of another lively pitch on Friday, combined with England’s final Test blues means that only a fool would put much money on England sealing the series 2-0.

For England, it is obvious that not all was well. Gary Ballance’s form is a real worry. The struggles of the top four are a real worry and the lack of control by the spinners, was a worry. There is also the not inconsiderable consideration that batting reserve, Hameed, spinning all-rounder, Ansari and bowling reserve, Steve Finn, have had very little cricket with no warm-ups to come in India.

There are multiple possibilities. The most likely are:

·         Rest two seamers – probably Broad and Woakes – and play Finn and Ball.  This would lengthen the tail by removing the valuable batting of Chris Woakes, but it would reward Jake Ball who proved such a success in the ODIs.

·         Rest a seamer – probably Woakes – and play Ansari instead. Events showed that having a third seamer was essential to engineering the Bangladesh collapses at the end of both innings.

·         Rest Rashid and play Ansari. This is an attractive option. Both spin from leg to off, but Ansari is a left-armer and would give a different line of attack. Adil Rashid had a brilliant ODI series, but has been frustratingly inconsistent in Tests. Here he took only three, relatively expensive wickets, the fewest of any of the front-line spinners in the match. However, you can also argue that Rashid will only learn by playing Tests and gaining experience and will surely be needed in India.

·         Play Ansari instead of Ballance. This would maintain the three seamers and give an extra spin option, without weakening significantly the batting. It would also give Ansari the debut that he would surely have had in the UAE last winter had he not been injured.

·         Play Hameed instead of Ballance. The top-order collapses cannot be ignored. Hameed’s fighting qualities would help provide solidity, as well as blooding him for the possible need to play him in India.

My preference would be to play Ansari instead of Ballance, without discounting the possibility of playing at least one of Ball and Finn. However, recovery and net form over the next couple of days may well be the deciding factors for the selectors.

England v Pakistan 4th Test, Day 3: Final Test Syndrome Strikes Again

 

England v Pakistan

4^th Test, Day 3

Final Test Syndrome Strikes Again

August 14^th  2016

Some time on Day 4 Pakistan will win this Test and continue England’s bizarre run of failing to win final Tests. This has cost them time and time again: series wins became shared series and narrow series defeats have turned into heavy ones. This time it will cost England the chance to become #1 in the ICC Test table, but the points lost over the last three years through lost Final Tests are so many that England would have been runaway leaders in the table now if each of those defeats had been a draw instead.

It has been a wonderful series of twists and turns. A shared series is probably no less than Pakistan deserve.

Previous series going back as long as I can remember – and that goes back to series in the 1970s – have often been bad-tempered. The rights and wrongs of the different incidents are now lost in the mists of time, but they have summed over the years to produce a bad blood that has almost invariably been carried-over to the next series. Some incidents were seemingly trivial at the time: the bat-pad catch that David Constant turned down, the five penalty runs for ball tampering, but exploded when the players reached the dressing-room and thought about what had happened. Others were seemingly down mainly to cultural and linguistic difficulties, but had no place on a cricket field at all. No England captain should abuse an umpire; however, to have done something that was perfectly legitimate within the laws and to be called a cheat, by the umpire of all people, in a series where the umpiring was a little erratic, to put it kindly, was a fairly substantial and unnecessary provocation – what is worse, neither player nor umpire were sanctioned!

Pakistani players have often felt slighted in the past and, in hindsight, with good reason. When you develop a new method of bowling – reverse swing in this case – that no one understands, or can cope with, the temptation to cry foul is huge, but the consequences dire when you cannot demonstrate foul play and the bowlers know that they have done nothing wrong. You then go for the return series determined to get some of your own back, pushing the limits of fair play in a sense of righteous indignation and the cycle goes on.

Misbah-ul-Haq has managed to break with the cycle. Although there have been some wobbles – the Alex Hales dismissal in the first innings did stress things a little – the spirit has been good. Neutral umpires and DRS ensure that neither side can feel credibly that the umpiring has been biased one way or the other and when an injustice is done, it can usually be rectified. No system is perfect and no system can ever be made perfect [sorry, if you do not want DRS until it is perfect, you will never get it], but DRS massively reduces the uncertainties.

Much is made of the ways that DRS can be spoofed, or is terribly unreliable. You can make a lot of the fact that the DRS system that you are using was not made by you, or in your country and thus must be biased against you. You do not need to be a rocket scientist to think of ways to reduce the heat signal from an edge for HotSpot, or the acoustic signal for Snicko, but that same edge that you are hiding, will save you from being given LBW: by trying to avoid being given out caught when you edged, you are increasing your chances of being given out LBW when that same edge will fail to be detected (think “bat-pad” chances, or LBWs with bat and pad close together) – in other words, your net gain is likely to be small. DRS giveth and DRS taketh away! And if the umpires are allowed to inspect the bat as they inspect the ball, even such options for cheating the system will be largely eliminated. The fact remains though that to it is now almost impossible to accuse the umpiring of being biased without looking a bit of an idiot. When neither side can feel legitimately aggrieved, it does help to diffuse tensions!

Both sides have made a big effort to play in the right spirit and Misbah should take great credit for the way that he has ensured that his side has been a band of happy warriors. The press-up celebrations have been great PR, if a little galling at times to the opposition and such is the atmosphere created, that even Jimmy Anderson who, like many medium-pacers, is inclined to get a little worked up when the adrenaline flows, has felt obliged to apologise spontaneously to the umpires for his behaviour and not before time.

The legacy of the 2006 and 2010 series in England was shameful. The 2016 series will be remembered instead for some amazing twists and turns and some quite wonderful cricket between two well-matched teams that played in the spirit of cricket.

England v Sri Lanka, 2nd Test: Day 2 - Abject Sri Lankan Surrender

 

England v Sri Lanka

2^nd Test: Day 2

Abject Sri Lankan Surrender

 

May 28^th  2016

 

Not everything has gone right for England in this series. Today though they put in as complete a performance as we have seen in recent years. It has to be said that Sri Lanka’s surrender, on a pitch that allowed Steve Finn to bat, once again, in some comfort, was as abject as anything served up by Bangladesh or Zimbabwe at their worst. The tone was set in the first half hour with two bad misses in the field, one of them so awful that it led to the wicket-keeper being substituted. It continued with Moeen Ali passing 50 for just the second time since the end of last summer before setting out to flay the bowling to all corners and ended at 91-8 on a blameless surface in decent batting conditions.

The good news: Sri Lanka have already lasted longer than in either innings in the 1^st Test. Yes, all of 40 overs.

Once again there will be accusations that England have ambushed Sri Lanka with an uncut pitch that was as green, or even greener than the outfield. It was not. Three of England’s players under most pressure for not performing with the bat – Hales, Moeen and Woakes – were able to either score a Test best (Moeen and Woakes) or, in Hales’s case, show that his previous innings was not a fluke although he just missed out on a Test best. During the England innings there was something for the bowler who bent his back and made a real effort, the odd ball did something, but it was by no means a difficult track to score on. Moeen defended to 50 and then cut loose. Woakes, for the first time, looked like a genuine Test batsman – he has nine First Class centuries and a FC batting average of 36.7 – and Sri Lanka seemed to lose all interest.

At the start of play the target was 400 and that looked complicated: an early wicket and 380 would have been difficult. England said that they wanted 450 (not too many fans would have felt that realistic), but the Moeen show pushed things up to almost 500 when Alistair Cook decided to declare. Yes, 500 in well under 5 sessions and England were being accused by some feed-backers of being defensive and boring.

This time with a good batting pitch, good overhead conditions and a stronger batting line-up, you felt that someone would make a decent score and that Sri Lanka could not possibly  fold cheaply twice. There was no sense of an imminent wicket with every ball. Despite the ritual fall of a Sri Lankan opener early, at 44-1, with Anderson and Broad having each bowled six overs and coming to the end of their opening bursts, the scoreboard moving along and two batsman getting set, this had to be the day when Sri Lanka closed at no worse than 120-3, with the prospect of rain on the fourth day to help out. The luckless Nick Compton had just missed a difficult but, by no means impossible, catch. Things were looking good for the batsmen. Last ball of the twelfth over. Knick. Dying on Jonny Bairstow who swoops and scoops. The batsman stands his ground.

Everything then moves into that pause when innumerable replays are shown from multiple angles, none of them suitable for the job. The batsman knows that if he stands his ground the Third Umpire will inevitably find an angle which the foreshortening and the elevation of the camera will make appear that the ball has bounced or, at least, offer sufficient doubt that a clean catch appears uncertain. It is a standard issue with modern technology: it almost always makes low catches look doubtful. It is a simple physics problem: the front view with a somewhat elevated camera to see over the bowler and umpire means that the ball is moving almost directly away from the camera; there is no horizon reference, there is no depth to the image, we cannot see if the ball has changed direction (i.e. has bounced) and although high-resolution TV has improved things, the resolution of the image when zoomed is never quite high enough or, said another way, the image is never quite sharp enough. It is almost impossible to tell where the ball has bounced because the brain has insufficient information to give a complete trajectory solution.

It is also a problem that could be resolved, or almost resolved, at least for catches behind the wicket by having a camera at a low level, positioned square-on about 20 metres behind the stumps, so that it will be in line with the wicket-keeper or slips. If that is too complicated, a back-facing stumpcam at no more than half stump height and preferably a quarter stump height (the lower, the better) will offer the proper perspective and, at least, give the Third Umpire better data to work with.

The batsman knows that the longer that the Third Umpire is looking at the images, the more replays that are called for, the better the chance that he will get away with it.

This was one of the occasions though when a long delay was just a measure of the Third Umpire going through the process with care. He had to see clear evidence that the ball had bounced. Listeners can hear the dialogue between Umpire and Third Umpire: “first check the front foot” – it was fine… not a No Ball. Then the conversation over the actual catch. The Third Umpire asks for the images to be zoomed. Increasing confidence that it looks clean. Finally, the confirmation: “you can give that Out” and the wave of opprobrium in the Internet from hundreds of fans who saw that the ball had “clearly bounced first”. Yes, it was close, but the first impression of the Umpire and most commentators seeing it live was that the catch was clean.

The breech was made. In came the injured Chandimal who had been substituted having not even moved for the ball when Woakes had offered a gentle dolly to the ‘keeper earlier. Chandimal’s day got no better and Jimmy Anderson could take a rest with figures of 9-1-30-2.

Matthews and Mendis together, the one partnership that you could imagine putting on 150 together. On came Woakes, fresh from 9-37 in the County Championship, with a Test bowling average of 63. First over, good, but with no hint of the drama to come. Second over, a wild swing from Matthews before a not very thin edge (with a loud noise) through to Bairstow. One can only imagine that Matthews, a fine, brave player, is starting to crack under the pressure because he must have been the only one on the ground doubting the edge. Cue the jokes that Shane Watson is the Sri Lankan review coach. Suddenly 44-1 is 58-4 and Sri Lanka are wobbling. A couple of overs of peace, a Steve Finn over that neither threatens the batsman nor the Square Leg Umpire and Chris Woakes comes in for his fourth over. Double-wicket maiden. Mendis and the extra batsman, Siriwardena out, 67-6 and the innings all over bar the shouting.

Even then Sri Lanka appeared to be putting things in their proper context as the adhesive Thirimanne and Herath appeared to be moving calmly to the Close, with England relaxing somewhat. Woakes came off guarding figures of 7-4-9-3 and on came Moeen, adding to his solitary over in the series so far. Four straight maidens and his series figures are now 5-4-2-1. Moeen seems to enjoy playing Sri Lanka in May. Back came Anderson to join Broad with nothing much happening. Penultimate over of the day. Longest Sri Lankan stand of the series. Both sides playing for the Close. And, from nowhere, Broad takes two wickets, the first a standard edge to Anderson, the second a remarkable double-play, with Vince palming a screaming edge into the air for Joe Root to dive and take the re-bound one-handed inches from the turf.

91-8 at the Close and enforcing the follow-on in the first half hour of the morning looks to be a no-brainer. So far, in three innings, Sri Lanka have not lasted a total of 4 sessions. The likelihood is that the match will end tonight unless Sri Lanka find some spirit of resistance from somewhere.

One Of The Greatest Ever Test Finishes

 

 

Cricket 2014

 

Ninety Overs Not Quite Enough

 

June 17^th 2014

 

The cooler heads were saying last night that 350 would be more than enough and that England needed a few overs before the Close on the fourth day, were proved right. Although the Sri Lankan fans were bullish and some confidently predicted that their side would have a comfortable chase after Tea, the reality was that sustaining a run rate far above what they had achieved in the 1^st innings with batting conditions the at their best, was never a plausible proposition. The way that Sri Lanka had collapsed in their 1^st innings from 385-4 to 453ao was warning enough.

In the 2^nd innings the collapse was even more dramatic. At 123-1 Sri Lankan fans were licking their lips at the prospect of a record chase. At 201-9, surviving the last over was the limit of their ambitions and even then only achieved, first with DRS and then with luck. Eight wickets for 78 was a pretty devastating collapse on a pitch that still offered the bowlers very little, even more so when Tea was reached on 164-3 with Sangakkara well set and the RRR still under 5.

The end of the match must go down as one of the most dramatic ever. Edgbaston 2005 was extraordinary and controversial, this was  unbelievably more dramatic still. After a clatter of wickets either side of Tea, a twenty over partnership between captain Matthews and the injured wicket-keeper Jayawardene had taken Sri Lanka to the brink of safety. Twenty-four were added in twenty overs and one ball until, with the last ball of the 79^th over, Chris Jordan lived up to his reputation for making things happen. Before that delivery, which thudded into Jayawardene’s pads, just 67 balls remained to take five wickets: it all looked over. However, England’s confidence that the flimsy Sri Lankan tail could be blown away, even on an easy pitch, was more than justified.

67 balls to go – Jordan traps HAPW Jayawardene LBW. Last review used in vain. 194-6.

58 balls to go – Jordan takes the new ball. 198-6

42 balls to go – Broad gets Kulasekara LBW. 199-7.

19 balls to go – Matthews edges Anderson to Cook. 201-8.

6 balls to go – Herath edges a Broad bouncer and walks. Replays show that the hand was off the bat and so it was not out. 201-9.

2 balls to go – Umpire Reiffel gives Pradeep LBW to Broad. Review. Inside edge. NOT OUT!

1 ball to go – Pradeep edges to Jordan at 2^nd slip. Ball bounced just short. 201-9.

Quite apart from being a vindication of DRS – no one would have wanted England to win thanks to a bad umpiring decision – it was also the first time that the rule change topping-up reviews at 80 overs has changed a match result. Had Sri Lanka not topped-up their reviews, the decision would have to have stood.

For England, who have taken a fair bit of criticism in this Test, it was vindication.

For Sri Lanka, the alarm bells are ringing. The 2^nd Test is being played at Headingley, starting Friday. If Sri Lanka could only hang on in extremis on the deadest and most lifeless of Lords pitches, what chances do they have on a Headingley pitch known over the years for its friendliness to seam bowlers? To boot, they have lost their wicket keeper – although Jayawardene batted heroically yesterday and almost saved his side, he is being sent home as he is unable to keep wicket.

Although there was a point after lunch when Sri Lanka were in touch with the asking rate and had wickets in hand, it was always going to be too much. The RRR was rising steadily from its initial 4.33. With 55 overs to go it had passed 5 and was increasing faster as England kept a vice-like pressure on the scoring rate: if wickets started to fall, any remote thoughts of a run chase would disappear, as people were predicting confidently they would. By Tea the RRR was around 7 and half an hour after Tea was approaching 9 – it was never on.

Only twice in Test history had a side chased successfully a 4^th innings target of over 300 at a faster run rate than the asking rate for Sri Lanka: the 1984 West Indies had done it at Lords and Pakistan had scored 302-5 at Sharjah in January 2014 in 57.3 overs to beat Sri Lanka. Only four times has a side chased 300+ successfully at more than 4-an-over: these things rarely happen in other than Fantasy cricket, so it was always going to be a simple case of whether or not Sri Lanka could survive 90 overs.

England fans will always ask what might have been had the bowlers had an extra 5 overs. Possibly no wickets would have fallen on the fourth evening but, even if they had not, the Sri Lankan tail would have had to survive fifteen overs with the new ball rather than ten. We will never know how it might have changed the match.

Oh Dear! Faint Hopes Sprout Unwisely Again!

 

 

Ashes 2013

 

Going! Going! But not quite gone

 

December 16^th 2013

 

 

Barring a small number of romantics who think that some miracle will save England, the Ashes will be formally lost, probably before lunch tomorrow. Three years ago, England managed just 310 in two innings as they were blown away. If you want a positive, you will see a total of 502 between England’s two innings, with five wickets left and feel that this is an advance over 2010 and might be right, but then, in 2010, England were not chasing 504 to win (at Perth, in 2010, Ricky Ponting set England a mere 390 and still won by 267 runs).

However, with Matt Prior in such dire form that, despite his current red-inker, if you take out his 69 at Adelaide, his other five innings in the series have garnered just 19 and Stuart Broad only planning to bat in an emergency *AND* the new ball due in thirteen overs, it will take divine intervention to push the match past lunch on Day 5.

So far in this series, Alistair Cook, Ian Bell, Joe Root and now Ben Stokes have reached 72. Only Joe Root though has pushed past 72 and then, only to 87. For their own self-esteem, England desperately need Ben Stokes to continue his gusty batting and push well past a century tomorrow morning. Even if the match is lost and the Ashes with them, England really need someone to score a big hundred to show the rest that it can be done.

The mood was so downbeat in the TMS commentary box that, even late in the evening session, most of the team really expected the extra half hour to be taken and for the match to end today. After Australia scored 134 runs in 102 balls in the morning, including 28 off the final over of the innings from Jimmy Anderson and 22 off Swann’s last over before the new ball was taken and Alistair Cook went first ball, the end could have been mercifully swift. Many England fans will regret that it was not because it means that, once again, they will go to bed tonight with that tiny fragment of hope that will swiftly and painfully be atomised when they check the score in the morning.

One small piece of good news for England is the way that Tim Bresnan has knuckled down, despite being far from match fit. He is the only bowler, apart from Joe Root, who the Australians did not get after and even though his match figures of 3-134 are not stunning, he did the job that he was picked for by bowling plenty of overs and keeping the scoring rate down, as well as managing a run out into the bargin (he conceded just a fraction more than 3.5 an over, far superior to Jimmy Anderson, Ben Stokes, or Stuart Broad).

Once again, batsmen got starts. Michael Carberry added another start to his growing list (his scores in his four Tests are annoyingly consistent: 30, 34, 40, 0, 60, 14, 43, 31 – eight innings, seven starts), without going on to make a major score. He has shown enough that you believe that a century has to come soon, but he just cannot make that breakthrough, can he?

KP had the TMS team after his blood by playing sensibly, getting to 45, starting to break loose and then falling to an obvious trap. The situation was made for him. Lost cause. Chance to make some runs without pressure. A KP special century and suddenly, with Ian Bell digging in, England could be pressing for an unlikely draw. Now, even staid comentators such as Jonathon Agnew and Geoff Boycott are suggesting that his place in the side should be questioned on the grounds that he did not play for the team.

Afterwards we were treated to perhaps the best period of play of the series for England. Ben Stokes and Ian Bell launched a glorious counter-attack and 99 runs came in 20 overs. At 220-4, with only seven overs to go in the day you could start to dream: if they see it through to the Close and if they get back in tomorrow morning… Ian Bell was a tad unlucky, because he almost got away with the ball that dismissed him. There was no question that he knew that he had feathered it, but the umpire said no, HotSpot showed nothing and the TV images seemed not to indicate an edge. Joe Root knows that lack of evidence of an edge is not enough to save you from being fired-out caught but, last summer, Bell would undoubtedly have been reprieved. Sadly, for him, RealTime Snicko showed a small signal, which the TV umpire was prepared to accept as good enough grounds to overturn the on-field decision, just when it seemed that the decision would stand. Unlike for Joe Root, justice was seen to be done and any faint hopes of a miracle were snuffed out. This time DRS got it right, but the application of DRS by the TV umpire remains sadly inconsistent and that is its biggest flaw.

Although 31 came off the final six overs of the day, it is only the most temporary of reprieves. Stokes and Prior would have to bat past Tea tomorrow for England to have a real chance of the draw and that is not going to happen. Stuart Broad’s toe is not broken, but he is sore and on crutches and will not have the benefit of a runner due to the rather idiotic rule change that forbids them. Even if the tail were to hang around for a long time, England are, effectively, a batsman short anyway.

What Is The Real Problem with DRS?

 

 

Ashes 2013

 

HotSpot, Snicko and Ball Tracking

 

October 9^th

 

 

In the interregnum between the two Ashes series that have not been too many hot topics worthy of blogging. However, today an issue has come up that really is interesting as it is one in which the average fan has generally little knowledge of the underlying science and technology.

Today, Channel 9, the broadcaster in Australia, announced that it was removing HotSpot from the technology available to umpires for use in the Decision Review System. The stated reason is cost, but it is not an unexpected decision because HotSpot became controversial after a series of decisions in the summer series. Some of the disputed decisions were due to deficient use of the system, in some HotSpot may have proved unable to detect fine edges, in others there is a suggestion that batsmen may have deliberately set out to neutralise HotSpot. Yesterday Kevin Pietersen was awarded substantial damages for libel after an advertisement suggested that he had used silicone tape on the edge of his bat to supress the HotSpot signal (these damages were donated to charity).

Some fans are expressing indignation that HotSpot, originally sold as “based on science” should be shown to be so unreliable. What is the problem with what appeared to be proven technology and can we actually make it “more accurate” (whatever that means)?

HotSpot works on a sound physical principal that is very simple to understand and, there lies the rub. It is just a thermal imaging camera that detects small temperature variations on the surface of the bat. When the ball touches the edge of the bat friction heats both bat and ball slightly. HotSpot detects this warmth as a bright spot on the image. It is totally infallible, in theory.

Snicko uses the same principal. An impact between bat and ball sets both vibrating, producing sound waves. When the ball takes the edge of the bat, friction produces a vibration that causes a sound that a sensitive stump microphone can detect. An impact between two hard surfaces gives a characteristic, sharp signal, quite unlike the muffled sound when ball hits pad, or the whooshing of a ball whistling past the edge without contact. Again, totally infallible, in theory.

Snicko’s main problem and one that was seen more than once in the Ashes series is that it is extremely difficult to synchronise sound and vision, leading to clear edges being detected when the ball was half a metre past the bat and the bat was nowhere near pad or pitch. In the movie business this synchronisation is done with the famous clapper board that gives a visual image and a clear sound that allow the two to be synchronised with no fuss and bother: Snicko relies on a technician laboriously synchronising two, totally independent feeds, without the clear clapperboard signal to aid him.

Anyone with minimal notions of science – and cricketers, in the main, tend to be a bright bunch, with a high proportion of university-educated players, at least in the United Kingdom – can see how both Snicko and HotSpot can be largely neutralised with a bit of thought. In fact, for at least two seasons it has been well known on the County circuit how to do it. Both systems rely on friction so, if you reduce friction, you reduce the tell-tale signal of a ball taking the edge of the bat.

Rumours were certainly circulating a while back that a good dose of Vaseline on the outside edge of the bat would protect the batsman from very fine edges showing up. Not only would it stop the friction of ball on bat warming the edge of the bat and giving a HotSpot signal, it would also reduce the Snicko signal. However, it does not need to be Vaseline: a well-oiled bat would also be effective (who would think twice about a batsman applying a generous dose of linseed oil on the bat before going out to the middle?) Or, this summer, silicone tape has been the method that it is suggested is being used. It should also said that there is nothing in the laws that stop a batsman applying tape – only the maximum thickness of the covering of the bat and the fact that it should not damage the ball are covered – and batsmen have taped bats innocently as long as cricket has been played; where do you draw the line?

However, HotSpot has two other vulnerabilities that Snicko does not have. As it relies on a warming of the bat, its sensitivity it impacted when conditions are hotter. That is not something that a batsman can influence. The other, most certainly is. HotSpot depends on a localised heat signature and that can be neutralised easily and quite legally. Here is a hint: Dennis Lillee’s famous aluminium bat would have almost immune to HotSpot. If something in the edge of the bat conducts heat away quickly, you can either neutralise the heat signature or, at very least, make it disappear so fast that it would be hard to detect. I am amazed that no batsman, or bat manufacturer, has thought of adding fine copper wires to the covering on the outside edge of the bat. Copper is so highly heat conducting that I would take a reasonable bet that you could make a bat virtually proof against HotSpot detection of edges with it with minimal difficulty and at almost no cost.

The normal reaction to suspicions that a batsman has spoofed a bat against HotSpot is a call for the makers to design a HotSpot that is better and less fallible. This is completely the wrong way to approach it. You can make some improvements by using a larger detectors, with better resolution and higher frame rates and lower noise, you can adjust the bias on a hot day so that a faint signal is better detected, but I seriously doubt that you can improve the sensitivity much: detector technology has improved a long way from the CCDs that I used to use that detected less than a third of incident light and the infrared detectors that had painfully low sensitivity. The detectors that HotSpot uses are direct descendants of the military detectors used to warn of ICBM launches and are pretty much state-of-the-art.

What would make HotSpot more sensitive is to increase the friction from the edge of the bat. Make a stronger signal to detect.

A more sensible approach to HotSpot is thus for the laws to regulate the covering of the bat to make an edge more easy to detect. As most batsmen are happy to use a bat with a protective cover, the simplest way to make HotSpot more reliable is ensure that the covering is standard, at least on the edge of the bat and that it is designed to maximise the HotSpot signature, by increasing friction and ensuring that that the covering is not a good conductor or radiator of heat, so that the signature stays present for long enough to detect clearly. This is not to say that we should start making bats with sandpaper on the edges that will damage the ball. The idea should be simply to ensure that HotSpot gets a fair chance. Any additional covering, lubricants, etc. should be specifically prohibited by the laws. A side effect of giving a better HotSpot signal is to give a better signal for Snicko and a louder audible sound for the umpire. By having the same high-signal covering on both edges of the bat, the chances that an LBW-saving inside edge into the pads will be detected are also maximised.

Strangely, the one element of DRS that a street-wise batsman cannot influence is the one that is normally the most controversial of all. Hawk eye and its ball-tracking competitors are proof against spoofing. The one problem that ball tracking technology has is its application. The point of impact, be it with the pitch or with the pad, is not an issue: when the ball hits the pitch its velocity ceases to be downwards and changes to upwards; when it hits the pad flush on, it ceases to be towards the stumps and changes to away from the stumps; if it hits the pad a glancing blow the ball’s trajectory shows a clear inflection – all these are meat and drink to ball-tracking technology which should be 100% reliable at detecting these velocity changes if the product has been properly designed. The problem is the predictive element and here, at least in part, the sceptics are right.

Let’s take a practical example. The batsman is on the front foot and is hit low on the shin by an over-pitched ball. The point of impact may be two metres in front of the stumps, but the ball may only have travelled 20cm after bouncing. Hawk Eye has to predict where the ball would have gone from just 20cm of flight.

Let us suppose that we are working at 100 frames per second and the bowler is bowling fast medium. After being slowed by air resistance and impact with the pitch the ball is probably travelling at 80-90km/h maximum, say 25m/s, when it hits the pad: we will have just two frames to give us the trajectory of the ball and to extrapolate its flight ten times as far. You can calculate the trajectory with Deep Blue and it will still not give you a reliable answer because you simply do not have enough flight after pitching to know with any confidence where the ball will go.

Now suppose the opposite case: the batsman is on the back foot, 50cm from the stumps and is hit by a ball that has pitched 5m down the wicket – the ball tracking has only to make a tiny extrapolation and if it says that the ball will hit the stumps, you can be as certain as anything on this Earth that it would have hit the stumps.

The problem with Hawk Eye is not that the technology is inherently unreliable, it is that it is, on occasion, being asked to do things that it not capable of doing because it does not have enough information to answer with any accuracy (think of the computer on the Star Ship Enterprise, when it is being asked a question for which there is no answer on available information – it will just reply robotically “insufficient data” and not even Mr. Spock will argue with it).

If you feed Hawk Eye a sensible set of rules, it will give sensible answers: if the batsman is well down the pitch and the ball hits the pad just after bouncing, it cannot give a sensible extrapolation and should tell the Third Umpire that essential fact… NOT OUT! It is just a matter of programming sensible parameters so that if an extrapolation is unreliable, the Third Umpire and the TV viewer are given this information and do not ask the impossible of the system.

One thing that could be programmed into Hawk Eye and that would make it so much easier for officials and fans to understand is to do something that all scientists get drummed into them at school: present the uncertainty in your result! Any trajectory calculated by Hawk Eye will have an error that can also be calculated which, in turn, allows you to calculate a probability that the ball would have hit the stumps. If Hawk Eye tells you that it is 99% certain that the ball would have hit, that should be enough for anyone. If, in contrast, Hawk Eye says that it was just a 50-50 proposition, the batsman should, most certainly, receive the benefit of the very considerable doubt.

As it is, many Umpire’s Call decisions allow the batsman to stay at the wicket when the probability that the ball would have hit was almost certainly well over 90%, which hardly seems fair to the bowler. I particularly recall one case in the recent Ashes where the centre of the ball would have hit under half a centimetre outside the centre of the stump, but the call was “not out” on Umpire’s Call. As the radius of a stump is a minimum of 1.75cm and the radius of the ball is 3.5cm, the ball has to be missing the centre of the stump by a full 5.25cm to avoid hitting, which seemed a bit unlikely in that particular case. If the umpire is uncertain, why not allow him to ask for assistance from Hawk Eye and then just pass a message: “Aleem, 95% chance that that ball was hitting” and let the umpire come to his own conclusion? Let the technology help the umpire, not undermine him, but do it in a way that even the least technologically-minded can see is above board.