The BCCI has vetoed the use of DRS in the forthcoming Test series and Wickman thinks he knows why. Two words. Graeme Peter Swann.
If you were sending a side over to play in English conditions and were already worried about fronting up to pace, swing and seam of the calibre of Anderson, Tremlett and Broad what would you do tactically to negate the threat of England?
There's little you can do about the quickies. But you might have a look at England's most potent weapon of recent years and decide that if you could knock out one of HIS major weapons you would. The LBW. It's widely accepted that Swanny is getting more wickets than folk such as John Emburey and even The Turbanator because umpires have been convinced to give more LBWs on the front foot to off spinners in particular.
Wickman hasn't got access to exact stats but Swann gets more LBs than anyone did in the past bowling offies. And that's because umpires started giving them following the introduction of Hawkeye - the technology telling them that more balls were hitting the stumps than was accepted before.
So it stands to reason then that if you take out DRS, Swann will get fewer decisions in his favour. Now here's where you would have to get really deep into the numbers. Does Swann get given a significant proportion of his LBs on DRS reviews? Wickman feels as if he does get another 25%. Just a feeling mind. So have India pulled a fast one?
It depends. I wonder how many Swann victims have got away with ones sliding past leg stump or being hit outside the line playing a shot due to DRS? It could be similar. And given that we think that umpires are more likely to give them on the front foot now - with, it stands to reason, more reason to doubt... taking out DRS might actually backfire on the Indians. Imagine MSD - apparently the most vocal opponent backed up by (surprise, surprise) other senior bats including Tendulkar (you wouldn't hear bowlers asking for it to be withdrawn) - being trapped just outside off stump (marginal but DRS wouldn't give it) and someone unimpeachable like Aleem Dar sending him on his way.
Poetic justice. So will Indian chickens come home to roost?
Just asking...
Hampton Wick Royal Cricket Club * 1863 - 2013 * 150 Glorious Seasons
Tuesday, 21 June 2011
India and DRS... Just Asking...
The BCCI has vetoed the use of DRS in the forthcoming Test series and Wickman thinks he knows why. Two words. Graeme Peter Swann.
If you were sending a side over to play in English conditions and were already worried about fronting up to pace, swing and seam of the calibre of Anderson, Tremlett and Broad what would you do tactically to negate the threat of England?
There's little you can do about the quickies. But you might have a look at England's most potent weapon of recent years and decide that if you could knock out one of HIS major weapons you would. The LBW. It's widely accepted that Swanny is getting more wickets than folk such as John Emburey and even The Turbanator because umpires have been convinced to give more LBWs on the front foot to off spinners in particular.
Wickman hasn't got access to exact stats but Swann gets more LBs than anyone did in the past bowling offies. And that's because umpires started giving them following the introduction of Hawkeye - the technology telling them that more balls were hitting the stumps than was accepted before.
So it stands to reason then that if you take out DRS, Swann will get fewer decisions in his favour. Now here's where you would have to get really deep into the numbers. Does Swann get given a significant proportion of his LBs on DRS reviews? Wickman feels as if he does get another 25%. Just a feeling mind. So have India pulled a fast one?
It depends. I wonder how many Swann victims have got away with ones sliding past leg stump or being hit outside the line playing a shot due to DRS? It could be similar. And given that we think that umpires are more likely to give them on the front foot now - with, it stands to reason, more reason to doubt... taking out DRS might actually backfire on the Indians. Imagine MSD - apparently the most vocal opponent backed up by (surprise, surprise) other senior bats including Tendulkar (you wouldn't hear bowlers asking for it to be withdrawn) - being trapped just outside off stump (marginal but DRS wouldn't give it) and someone unimpeachable like Aleem Dar sending him on his way.
Poetic justice. So will Indian chickens come home to roost?
Just asking...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
FACT:Swann gorges himself on the readiness of umpires to give lbws where once they were reluctant. Tracking has changed their perception of what is permissible. Almost 30% of 138 wickets have come from lbw. With left-handers alone it is beyond that. There are more around now but Swann's record against them is remarkable, the only significant Test bowler who has dismissed more of them than right-handers. Of these, 73 of them, 26 have been lbw, which is 36%. A comparison will show that 40 of John Emburey's 147 Test wickets were left-handers and only one was lbw, while of the 29 (of 153) that Fred Titmus took, two were lbw and Raymond Illingworth managed to get just one left-hander lbw out of 19 in his 122 wickets.
Good stats Pull!
Post a Comment