AkshayS
Chairman of Selectors
So you saying that technlogy doesn't play any role.:sarcasm
The Greatest ODI Batsman: Tendulkar vs Richards
- Thread starter Bublu Bhuyan
- Start date
TumTum
International Cricketer
Yes.
shravi
National Board President
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2005
- Profile Flag
- India
Then you're just stupid. Bowlers have so much more help around these days as they can analyze and find the weaknesses of players who they have never played against yet. How they execute those plans depends on their form and ability. However, in theory, it does make it harder for batsman, although this may be evened out by other already mentioned factors.
Well it works both ways. Super slo mo cameras showed all of Shane Warne's variations for example. And pitch mapping and data mining can show you bowling trends. Does X bowler always bowl a slower ball after being hit for 6, for example. In the past you might have noticed a trend that he would bowl a slower one, but now you can plug in the laptop and print out real data, bowler X bowls a slower ball 87% of the time after a 6. You can analyse what lines and lengths bowlers bowl with certain fields, you can predict what ball of the over he likes to try a short one etc etc...so batsmen are better prepared too these days.
TumTum
International Cricketer
Humans are not robots, it didn't take a genius to work out that the body line series was hard to bat on 
AkshayS
Chairman of Selectors
^:laugh how can any body say that technology is not important in cricket. How?
shravi
National Board President
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2005
- Profile Flag
- India
Very true. Both of our points just disprove TumTum's unsubstantiated, unfounded drivel.
TumTum
International Cricketer
The "Technology" argument is just a lame excuse, always used when comparing players from different era's.
If you guys actually believe Hawk-eye/Pitch map effects what happens on the field, you are all delusional.
If you guys actually believe Hawk-eye/Pitch map effects what happens on the field, you are all delusional.
Last edited:
shravi
National Board President
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2005
- Profile Flag
- India
Dude, it obviously has an effect. Whether it is evened out by other factors such as the quality of bowling attacks going down, flatter pitches, more rules in favor of batsmen and/or more padding, there is no definite way of telling. You're the one that's delusional. Maybe you didn't understand sifter's or my post because it didn't have the word average in it :sarcasm?
I'm pretty sure Dale Steyn said after the first test vs India that they had some definite plans in place for some of the deliveries he bowled. His word over your's, thank you very much.
Here it is. South Africa had never played against Vijay before but it can be seen from this statement that they had a good look at his weaknesses in the IPL, vs Australia and vs Sri Lanka.
Last edited:
Cricketman
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Location
- USA
Of course technology has an effect. These days, it seems like 20% of the entire game is done behind closed doors - with cameras, computers, and thousands of statistics to find a players strengths and weaknesses.
Don't you always hear the commentators saying 'they've done their homework here!' - that's referring the the research on the player to have his strengths plugged and target his weaknesses before he even faces a ball.
Cricketman added 2 Minutes and 1 Seconds later...
Technology helps especially in training - we even used dartfish in our stupid high-school tennis setup, imagine all the things that happen in the training sessions of international cricketers!
Don't you always hear the commentators saying 'they've done their homework here!' - that's referring the the research on the player to have his strengths plugged and target his weaknesses before he even faces a ball.
Cricketman added 2 Minutes and 1 Seconds later...
Technology helps especially in training - we even used dartfish in our stupid high-school tennis setup, imagine all the things that happen in the training sessions of international cricketers!
TumTum
International Cricketer
What do you actually mean by "technology"?
Because if you have forgot, TV's have existed in the 80s...
Because if you have forgot, TV's have existed in the 80s...
ballers101
Club Cricketer
What do you actually mean by "technology"?
Because if you have forgot, TV's have existed in the 80s...
What about stuff like hawk eye and snicko so that Umpires can get the decision right....before these were implemeted into the game, the umpire gave most decisions to the batsmen because if there is any doubt the decision always goes to the batsmen. Forget about that, what cricketman is talking about mainly is scouting. In cricket, you couldn't scout like you can today, look at the batsmen weaknesses and strengths and you can teach your bowler to bowl well according to that batsmen.
Even if TV's have existed in the 80s that means nothing because they weren't used as much as they are used today. Not even close.
TumTum
International Cricketer
Even if you do make a plan against batsmen (which has been widely used since cricket was first played), there is no guarantee that you will bowl to that plan.
As I said before, humans are not robots, you cannot execute a plan to perfection. And a bowler will always "try" new things anyway, which the batsmen pick off.
"Technology" is just a lame excuse.
shravi
National Board President
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2005
- Profile Flag
- India
Can you not read? I said that technology makes it easier in theory, not necessarily in practice. You need a bowler of quality (e.g. Dale Steyn) or someone who can produce those few brilliant overs where everything goes to plan to pull it off. You also need a captain and a good analyst behind the scenes who can actually pick up on these weaknesses. You then need a captain who can set fields for those weaknesses.
1) Pick up on weakness.
2) Make a plan for it (field settings, line/length)
3) Choose bowlers who are best suited to execute the plan
4) Bowl to the plan
There is a grey area as to whether you execute or not, or how well you do.
Last edited:
