ICC Champions Trophy ( part 2 )

The ICC Champions Trophy is finished and after a very competitive tournament India has once again crowned as winners. The success of the tournament has prompted ICC to review it's decision of discontinuing the tournament in the future. This is the second part of a review on the performance of  teams in the ICC champions trophy. ( visit part 1 )

• South Africa 

South Africa reminded the world that they are still the "Chokers" at the big stage. However they performed without four of their main players. Steyn and Morkel are the one of the best opening bowlers pairs in the world. But SA had to play most of the matches without the service of these bowlers. Also they were without Kallis and Smith for the whole tournament. Probably the loss of Kallis who is a very good all-rounder ha affected the SA's team balance. Considering those facts the SA's performance can be categorized as satisfactory. However the way they lost their semi finals match was very humiliating.

• Sri Lanka

This time Sri Lanka were able to lose at the semi final stage without getting qualified for finals and losing the final. Most of the time I think Sri Lankan team lacked the balance in the team. They played with just 3 specialist bowlers and 2 or 3 batting all-rounders. Also Kusal Perera was a great failure. He was unable to get into double figures in any of the matches. It is interesting to see whether he will get more opportunities at the top. The senior trio of Mahela, Sangakkara and Dilshan took the responsibility of building the innings but failed in the semis. Malinga proved that he is still dangerous in the ODI format as well.

• England

With the home advantage England were favorites to win the tournament from the beginning. Yet their plans were hit by ball tampering accusations and the loss to Sri Lanka in the group stage. Yet they recovered well to reach the final. But as South Africa they choked under pressure at the final. Probably they now need to wait for some more time before adding a ICC ODI silverware to their cabinet. The way they lost the game in the last 3 overs was very surprising. Bopara has done a great work both with the bat and the ball.  Not so often we see the most performing player becoming the most criticized player. But with Trott it has been the case. He has performed extremely well in the tournament but been severely criticized for his slow batting.

• India

At the beginning there were many problems associated with India. Many people questioned the ability of the Indian batsmen to survive the bouncy pitches and the ability of Indian fast bowling resources. But this young Indian team has performed extremely well and able to win the final. Dhoni continues to be a successful captain winning all the available formats of ICC trophies. Ravindra Jadeja has become a real superhero in Indian cricket. A young Indian team once again proved the depth of the resources available in India.

• UDRS and Umpires

Apart from the teams another thing which caught the attention was the use of UDRS and umpiring. There
were several instances where the third umpire gave controversial decisions. The no ball call against Broad in the match against New Zealand was one such incident. Also the use of reviews in a match was very crucial. As an example in the SL vs NZ match both teams had use their reviews in the second innings. And if there were more reviews available the result may have been different. So in the latter parts of the tournament teams were very conservative about using their review early in the innings.

However with all these things the tournament was a grand success. ICC should consider themselves lucky to be able to play at-least a 20 over game in the final. With no reserve day for the final if there were some more rain the whole tournament would have been a waste of time. Yet we witnessed and enjoyed a competitive finale for a competitive tournament.

ICC Champions Trophy ( part 1)

The first round of the Champions Trophy is finished and now We are heading to the knock out stage. England have already qualified for the final and one of India or Sri Lanka will qualify from the next semi final. This is a review on the performance of some of the teams so far.

• Pakistan

With zero points from 3 matches Pakistan was the most disappointing team in the tournament. In the beginning very few believed that they were able to qualify for the semi finals and they lived according to majority's expectation. The only match they really gave a fight was the match with the WI and if their batsmen have scored some more runs they may had a chance to win. Altogether they need to find good batsmen who can score fluently in ODIs. Otherwise their future in cricketing world looks bleak despite the continuous supply of quality fast bowlers.

• Australia

Watching this Australian team play would be the most saddest thing in the world for a neutral cricket fan who have followed cricket for the past 15 years. The Australian team have lost their golden form which was with them for the past decade. For the first time they were unable to get in to the semi finals of an ICC event since 1990s. The batiing looks listless and bowling ordinary. They should find proper batsmen instead of filling their side with T20 superstars. One may argue that the T20 format has affected the Australians more than WI and India. With the performance shown by the current Australian team there is a serious doubt whether they can match England in the upcoming ashes tournament.

• West Indies

West Indies is the most unlucky team in the tournament. They would have easily register a win unless rain

interrupted just as Pollard got out. Even if there were no rain Sammy would be able to guide the chase easily. Yet rain god had other plans for WIs. They seems to be carrying their good form from T20s to the ODIs. Sunil Narine kept his reputation as a mystery spinner even in the International level. They need to find a stable batsmen in the middle order. Chanderpaul would have been ideal for such a role and Sarwan's did not get the 

• New Zealand

New Zealand is also one of the unlucky sides. Not only they came close to be selected for knock outs but also they had a chance to win the game against England if Steve Davies gave the benefit of the doubt of the no ball to the Kane Williamson in the latter parts of the chase. As always they performed better than most of the people's prediction. They have a very good bowling unit. But their batting carries few non performers. They should seriously think about the role of James Franklin in the team. He is not bowling much and not performing with the bat. 

Snickometer

Invented in the mid-1990s by English computer scientist Alan Paskett, the Snickometer is used in a slow motion display to determine whether the ball did touch the bat , even slightly to determine if it was out. Although this was used earlier in UDRS, but unlike Hawk Eye and Hot Spot currently not used in UDRS. This is also known as the Snicko.

A Snickometer works on a simple principle. Filter the ambient noise, and amplify the relevant signal. The ball hitting the bat produces a sound of a particular frequency. The stump microphone will pick up the sound of the ball hitting the bat. It first filters this sound which is of a particular frequency from all the ambient noise. This can be achieved with the help of a resonance filter. At the receiver this sound is amplified and plotted to note the variation in the sound. A sharp variation denotes the bat hitting the ball and a flat peak means the bat has hit the pad or part of the body. This plot is viewed along with the replay of the shot to synchronize the movement of the ball and the spike in plot.  So in the situation where the batsman was ruled out, a review on TV with the Snicko will accurately determine the outcome.

Advantages and Disadvantages

The technology used for Snickometer is relatively simple. It only requires a slow motion camera and good microphone which are available in any international cricket match. Thus the cost of the Snickometer is very low making it affordable to any country. Sometimes Snickometer takes a considerable amount of time to give the output. This is due to the synchronization issues of the video and the audio. But with the development of the technology the synchronization will be done automatically and the results will be available as soon as the incident occurs. 

Also the Snickometer only indicates that a contact happened. This contact may be between bat and ball, pad and ball or the bat and pad. It is up to the umpire to take the final decision. Thus this leads to inconclusive replays in some cases. But in Hot Spot it clearly shows the area the contact occurred.

Being a very simple and cheap technology it is surprising that, it is no longer used in UDRS. It can be combined with Hot Spot technology to make better judgments about LBW and Catch decisions. Out of the three technologies used in UDRS, Snickometer is the least controversial technology yet it is not even used in UDRS. And the most controversial technology is Hawk Eye which is made mandatory. The Hot Spot technology lies in between and it is made optional in UDRS. Just like humans no technology is hundred percent accurate. So always we have to use the technology wisely and improve the accuracy of decision making process to make the game of cricket more fair to both teams. 

SLPL at the Halfway Stage

Inaugural SLPL is now in it's halfway stage. 15 matches out of total 24 matches have been completed and two teams have almost been knocked out (there is a slight chance for Basnahira and Uthura to qualify, given that a combination of results go in their favour, which is highly unlikely ) and one team have already qualified to the semi finals.Other four teams are playing for the three slots available in the knockouts. Here are some of my opinions on the SLPL so far.

• The attendance for the matches were very low. The matches played at the RPS Colombo were the least attended matches. This has been one of the major criticism of the SLPL. As I get to know the price of the tickets are not high and a lot of tickets are distributed freely. But it should be noted that unlike in India the available market is very low. After all we don't have a population of 1.2 billion as in India. Even Mumbai have a population of 12 million which is more than a half of Sri Lanka's entire population. So it is somewhat unfair to expect a good attendance for SLPL as in IPL.

• However I think if matches are played on different venues the attendance can be increased. Galle and Dambulla would have been good revenue generators. Probably for the next edition of SLPL they should have some matches at those venues. 

• The teams are named according to provinces in Sri Lanka. But being a small country divisions based on provinces is not that evident as in India. As the matches are just played in Colombo and Kandy there is no fan base for these teams from their respective provinces. I think this is also a reason for the low attendance in matches. Also the players in those teams do not belong to the respective provinces. It's funny that Sanath Jayasuriya being an icon from Matara playing for Kandurata. Also the names given to teams are very annoying. After all I am still wondering about the meaning of word "Dundee" ???

• Currently Sri Lanka is facing a power crisis due to droughts and the breakdown of the Norochcholai power plant. Most of us experience a power cut of three and a half hours each day. But most of the matches are played under floodlights. With the low number of attendance and the current situation in the country , flood lit domestic matches are the last thing we want.  

• The major motivation for organizing this tournament was the profit. SLC was desperate for money especially after going bankrupt. After the successful audition of the team-franchises it was evident that this has the potential to become financially successful. But we must not forget that Sri Lanka manged to incur a huge loss from the ICC Cricket World Cup 2011, while all other hosting countries made huge profits. Thus I am not surprised if I get to know that SLC incur a huge loss from this SLPL. 

• Anyway I think this is a great opportunity for Sri Lankan players. Senior players can make this a chance to prepare for the T20 world cup next month. Also this will be a great opportunity for young players  to show their talents and make a name for themselves. I sincerely hope that at least few players will make their way in to the national side through this series. 

Hotspot Technology

One of the main technology used in Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS) in cricket is the Hawk-Eye technology which tracks and predicts the path of the ball. Other main technology which is not mandatory under current cricketing laws is the Hot Spot technology. Hot Spot is the best available technology to establish the contact between the ball and the bat or pad.

History

Australia's Nine Networks owns this technology

Interestingly hot-spot technology was not intended to be used in cricket initially. It was expected to be used in military applications. These includes tracking jet-fighters,warships, tanks and satellites.This technology was founded by french scientist Nicholas Bion and later developed by other companies in paris. The Australian Nine Networks bought and adopted this technology. This technology is now offered by BBG Sports,an Australian company responsible for Snickometer in conjunction with Sky Sports.This technology was first used in the first ashes test match at the Gabba on 23 November 2006. The first usage of Hot Spot in the decision making process in cricket was in 2009 in South Africa.

Technology

Hot Spot uses infra-red cameras to capture images. There will be either two or four cameras at each ends of the ground. These cameras sense and measure the heat.When a collision happens either between bat and ball,bat and pad,pad and ball or ground and ball the temperature of those areas will be increased.Thus collided areas will be shown with a different color.

Advantages

Hot Spot has considerable advantages than other technologies used in Decision Review System.Hawk Eye is only used to predict the path of the ball.The only other technology available to detect collisions with the bat or pad is Snickometer or a very slow motion camera replay. But it only gives an idea about the time the collision happened and its amplitude. Thus no information about the point of contact can be obtained from Snickometer. But Hot Spot cameras gives the exact point of contact of the ball with the bat or pad. Thus Hot Spot is the best available technology to detect whether the ball hit the bat or the pad.

Disadvantages

The main disadvantage of this technology is its high cost. The cost of two camera set up is around 5000$ per day for two cameras. So if four cameras are used for a test match total price add up to 50000$. This is a huge amount of money and if we consider the limitation of number of reviews per innings for a team (which is currently two incorrect reviews) this cost can not be justified. Even when hawk-eye and other technologies were available at a much lower price some cricket boards still can not afford them due to financial reasons.

Also the number of Hot Spot cameras available are limited. These cameras are classified as a military device and needs a temporary export license from Australian Defense Department when used in another country. Also there are other government regulations that need to be satisfied.
Due to above reasons the usage of Hot Spot in Umpire Decision Review System is not mandatory.This technology was not used even in the ICC Cricket World Cup 2011.

Controversies

Although the inventors of Hot Spot claims very high accuracy, some of the decisions involving this technology have been controversial. There have been instances where Snickometer and other technologies confirms that there is a nick but ultimately Hot Spot did not show any evidence. Also during a test match between India and England there was a confident appeal for a caught behind. Although replays suggests that there may be some bat involved Hot Spot technology failed show any edges. Later Michael Vaughan tweeted that Laxman may have used Vaseline in his bat thus making it impossible to detect edges using Hot Spot technology.

Due to this criticism the inventors of hot spot technology carried out more tests on the reliability of the technology and now they have improved there technology and thus the accuracy of the system. Also they have proved that applying Vaseline or any other substance on the bat can not manipulate this technology. 

With new improvements this technology will be very useful for a fair game of cricket.But the problems with the cost and the unavailability of the devices have limited the usage of this in most cricket matches. Unless the price of this technology is reduced and the number of cameras available are increased this will not be part of the mandatory technologies needed in Umpire Decision Review System (UDRS).

VJD System - Alternative to the Duckworth-Lewis Method

Although the Duckworth-Lewis method is widely used in international and first class level there are many criticisms about this method.One of the main criticism about the DL method is that it gives a higher weight to number of wickets remaining rather than number of overs left. As an example DL par score jumped from 117 to 140 at the end of 20 overs when West Indies lose there 4th wicket in the 20th over at the recently concluded first ODI match between England and West Indies.WI were 1 run ahead before the wicket and suddenly 23 runs behind the target after the wicket.Thus it is very important to a chasing side, not to lose wickets rather than maintaining the required run rate.


Another problem with the DL method is it's inability to handle the power play overs.There is no way to account for the number of power play overs left and number of power play overs played. Also since it uses a G50 score concept where the average score was considered as 250 for an ODI match ,the target scores obtained by DL method was not very justifiable for very low scores and and for very high scores. Thus the effectiveness of the Duckworth-Lewis method is limited to a range of scores distributed around 250. Although this error was corrected for a certain extent in the professional edition still the Duckworth-Lewis method is not that accurate in lower scores and higher scores.

Duckworth-Lewis Curves

Also when multiple interruptions happens the targets given by the Duckworth-Lewis have many anomalies.  The target given by the Duckworth-Lewis method when the interruption happens during an innings break clearly favors the chasing side if the first innings score is high.This is because they have all the ten wickets in hand at the start and the number of overs are reduced. Due to this fact these days captains choose to field when they win the toss if rain is expected during the match.


Also Duckworth-Lewis method was originally designed for ODI matches. Thus when this was used in T20 matches it gives inefficient and unfair results. This may be because the lack of data to construct the resource curves for T20matches. In-fact the unsuitability of the Duckworth-Lewis method in T20 is the main criticism against it.

V. Jayadevan

Thus the need of a new system to be used in rain affected matches have been raised. The main competitor that has challenged the Duckworth-Lewis method is V. Jayadevan method which is used in Indian domestic matches. This is widely known as VJD method.


The designer of this method V. Jayadevan is currently working as an Engineer, Irrigation Department, Kerala. He has spent fifteen years to develop VJD system which is used for calculating revised target due to interruptions in ODI & T20 cricket matches, as an alternative to the existing D/L system.




Previous posts on Duckworth-Lewis method.

1. Duckworth-Lewis Method (part 1)
2. Duckworth-Lewis Method (part 2)
3. Duckworth-Lewis Method (part 3)

The Hawk Eye Technology

Technology has become an integral part of our lives. The use of technology in sports have also been increased. At first it was about broadcasting events worlwide.  But in the modern times technology is used to increase the fare-play in sports. Cricket has been one of the sports that uses technology extensively.  The first instance of using technology in cricket may be the third umpire concept which was first used in a test match in 1992. Although it was just a simple TV replay it helps a lot to take correct decisions on run outs and stumping and sometimes the legality of catches and to decide about boundaries.

But within the last few years more sophisticated technologies have been emerged and they are now been used in the game of cricket. One such technology is the hawk eye technology which is used in UDRS (Umpire Decision Review System).

History

Dr.Paul Hawkins

Hawk-Eye is a ball tracking system which is also used in other sports such as tennis. This technology is controlled by the Hawk-Eye Innovations Ltd which is a part of Sony Europe. Initially this was used as a broadcasting tool in cricket LBW decisions and now has become an important part in the decision making process in cricket matches.

The initial research for the Hawk-Eye technology began in 1999 by Dr.Paul Hawkins at Roke Manor Research Ltd. In the year 2001 channel 4 used this technology in broadcasting the Ashes series. In February 2002 this technology was first used in tennis broadcasting. In 2005 Hawk-Eye was permitted to be used as an officiating aid in tennis. This is mainly used to detect the line-calling decisions. In 2007 MCC world cricket committee announces that the Hawk-Eye will be used in the Decision Review System used in cricket.   In 2011 Hawk-Eye was used in a Cricket World Cup for the first time in history. Also there are plans to use Hawk-Eye in Soccer. This is still at the testing stages of FIFA and if the results are successful, this will be used in 2014 world cup.

Technology

Camera Placement in Tennis

The Hawk-Eye uses six high speed vision processing cameras positioned at different places in the ground along with two broadcast cameras to calculate the trajectory of the ball. Although there are 8 cameras available only 5 cameras are used depending on the side of the wicket that’s been used. In tennis there are around 10 cameras to track the ball. These cameras obtain a 3D visualization of the path of the ball after it’s been bowled. There will be two trajectories for each ball one for releasing the ball by the bowler up to pitching and another one for pitching the ball up to hitting the batsmen. Using this technology the speed of the ball, the swing of the ball from the bowler’s hand to the pitching point, the pitching point, the bounce of the ball, the spin or deviation of the ball can be obtained. Based on the second trajectory the expected path of the ball will be calculated and used to determine whether it will hit the stumps. This is widely used to decide LBW decisions.

Controversies

Camera Placement in Cricket

When technology is used in a sport there will be three very important things to consider. First it should be accurate. Then it should be fast enough so that the momentum of the game is not lost due to technology and finally it should be economically and technically affordable to use in normal games.

Hawk-eye is financially feasible. It is a low cost solution which only needs several cameras and some computers to do the calculation. Since cameras will be always available in an international sporting event the installing cost is very low. Also the time taken to calculate the path of the ball is short but sometimes this may damage the momentum of the game. This is one reason that the number of challenges by the players against the normal decisions taken by umpires or referees is limited. In cricket this is two reviews per team in each inning. Also in tennis the player will get two incorrect challenges per and three challenges in a tie break.

But the problem with the Hawk-eye is its accuracy. Although in tennis they have proved that it has an accuracy of 3.6mm in line calling decisions Hawk-Eye has failed to obtain the trust among players, referees and the general public. Also there are few instances in cricket that the decision given by the hawk-eye system is different than what most of the people expected.