| 
Posts and words
Loading ...
fielding
Why can’t we rate fielding?
By Jonathan Liew 2 years ago, at the start of March, 6 Comments »
Musing over how Wally Hammond might have handled running around the boundary to cut off a Misbah-ul-Haq shovel sweep got me thinking about fielding.
We’re often told that unlike batting and bowling, fielding and wicket-keeping can’t be expressed in simple numbers. Great wicket-keepers, we’re told, drop catches others wouldn’t even reach. Pietersen (6 foot 4) can stop balls Bell (5 foot 10) can’t. How can you measure boundary saves? Or run-outs? Or fumbles?
Well, why can’t we?
In football, Prozone tracks every movement of a player throughout the game, with and without the ball. Similarly, The Times’s ‘Fink Tank’ logs every touch a player makes and from that deduces the value of that player to the team’s performance. In cricket, we have all the ingredients we need to perform the same calculations.
Take catches, for example. Hawkeye can measure how far a fielder was from the bat at the time the ball was hit, the speed the ball was travelling and how far the fielder had to move to catch the ball. Factor in the player’s height, and that’s pretty much all you need. Sit a couple of mathematicians in a room with a couple of biomechanics experts and you can come up with a formula. Not a perfect formula, obviously, but a start.
Apply a similar system to ground fielding and you should be able to work out when fielders should, on average, be cutting off twos. You could then factor in distance from the stumps and angle with the stumps to compare direct-hit run-outs.
It’s not going to be easy, but imagine the benefits of having a reliable measure by which to compare fielders with each other. It will revolutionise the game. Such a measure will never, of course, be truly objective, but it’s a darn sight better (no pun intended) than the naked eye, which is what we’ve been relying on so far.
So if there are any mathematicians reading this who fancy a project, do get cracking. It took 34 years for cricket to come up with a reliable formula to calculate a rain-adjusted target. With the technology in place, surely we can do better this time.
6 Comments »Jones: ‘You’ll see a vast improvement’
By Will 4 years ago, at the end of May, 1 Comment »
Dear oh dear, what have you done, Geraint? In an interview with the BBC, he promises a better England fielding performance. Now then, arguably an improvement on Lord’s wouldn’t be too difficult – but it’s rather stupid to make such bold claims, isn’t it?
1 Comment »“This Test will be a lot different. We’ll still practice the same amount and we’ll be looking to take everything and you’ll see a vast improvement.”
Baseball’s benefits: what can Cricket learn?
By Will 5 years ago, at the end of August, 5 Comments »
I was pointed to this excellent article, written by Martin Stabe, which has really got me thinking. He raises some interesting points about baseball and cricket; their similarities are obvious, but his emphasis on the importance fielding is worth discussion.
Martin mentions this article at The Independent (London), which says England have spilled 13 catches this summer to Australia’s six. Now, I find that surprising – not that I’m doubting the author’s integrity – because just as much time has been made in the media of Australia’s fumbles as England’s. Perhaps the British media, nay public, are fundamentally in shock at the Australian’s slipping standards, and equally blasé at England’s buttery fingers. Anyway, moving on…
Martin thinks cricket’s fielders look lazy and incompetent, compared to their baseball counterparts, and not solely due to the lack of gloves. I’m sure England have used baseball-style coaching methods in the past, but in these days of frenetic, manic cricket, surely a professional fielding coach should be called for?
My only complaint with Martin’s otherwise excellent piece, is this:
An error in the field might cost the fielding team just one run in both games, but while this is usually no more than a minor irritant in a cricket, it’s a catastrophe that could cost a team the game in baseball.
That, essentially, is the beauty of cricket, summed up in one fell swoop. While it might seem as though runs are meant to be made, and “mere singles” are perfectly permissable, saving runs has always been vital in cricket and is becoming more so in the modern era. We saw at Edgbaston, and indeed Old Trafford, in this summer’s Ashes that runs are painfully precious. The odd single here and there can just as easily, and tragically, cost a cricket side a game. Which only goes to emphasis the importance fielding now has upon cricket, and perhaps why more attention and time should be spent on practising its art.
So what is the general opinion? Should teams bring specialist fielding coaches on tours, along with batting and bowling specialists? I think this summer has shown just how vital they could be, although I’m reminded of some words I heard (Geoff Boycott’s I think – oh, no, it was one of the Chappells) the other day: “You learn to catch between 7 and 15.” I know I’ve been talking about fielding rather than catching, but the two are obviously closely linked. It makes sense, too – you do learn how to catch in that age-range. Right, enough waffle…
5 Comments »