Question about batting technique from a TV programme

[chrisbell]

Question about batting technique from a TV programme

Hi - I normally spend my time here on the bowling board as I'm a disabled leg-spin enthusiast, but I'm posting here because of a clip on Youtube I saw yesterday that raised a question I felt would be best asked here. It was an American programme called "Sports Science" (I don't know which channel or network they show it on) where they were asking whether it's easier to hit a baseball or a cricket ball. In itself it raised a lot of issues in my mind surrounding the fairness of the test, but the point I'm querying is that they explained that, in baseball, the batter loses sight of the ball in the final 6 feet or so because his eyes cannot refocus quickly enough, which, to me, sounds plausible. However, they then stated that a batsman, because he expects the ball to hit the pitch before arriving at the crease, will watch the ball out of the bowlers hand to judge line and length, then will look down at the area on the pitch where he expects the ball to land. Obviously, the ball then re-enters his line of sight just before pitching, enabling him to watch it onto the bat.

Now, my first reaction on seeing this was the call it a load of bull, but I wanted to check with you chaps first. To my mind, this technique wouldn't give the batsman long enough to focus on the ball and complete the stroke. As I see it, unless it's a short-pitched delivery, he must have had to start his stroke before the ball reappears in his line of sight, plus I can't see that he could react quickly enough as the ball reappears in his vision. The way they explained it was that this avoided the problem of losing sight of the ball as it nears the batsman that baseball batters experience by taking advantage of the fact that a cricket delivery usually pitches before arriving at the crease.

Anyway, I'd welcome your comments, thanks.

 

[macca]

Re: Question about batting technique from a TV programme

Always found it harder to hit a baseball than a cricket ball. Not that easy connecting with high full tosses. Once a ball pitches it is easier to hit dont you think?

 

[mas cambios]

Re: Question about batting technique from a TV programme

It's reasonably spot on from what I can recall. Top batsman have an almost supernatural ability to judge line and length before the ball pitches. Think about how many times you've heard the line 's/he looked like s/he had all the time in the world to play that shot' - it's because in effect s/he has. The line and length have been picked up very early in the delivery, enabling them more time to get in line and go through the shot.

Yes, there is an amount of predetermination about shots but a lot of it is down to 'shot memory' - they have played these shots thousands and thousands of times, so have a lot of information to fall back on when making the judgement.

This is also part of the reason why batsman have trigger movements, especially against true pace bowlers - it gives a split second longer to play the shot and helps them to dig out the information needed to play the shot.

 

[chrisbell]

Re: Question about batting technique from a TV programme

Well, due to my disability, I've never batted against overarm bowling (though I intend to do so at some time) so I can't speak from any sort of experience. I wouldn't deny that hitting a ball after it has pitched is probably easier than hitting it as a high full toss, but I'm intrigued about where a batsman looks after the ball leaves the bowlers hand. I thought the idea was to watch the ball all the way onto the bat, not take ones eyes off it and wait for it to reappear in the field of vision.

 

[chrisbell]

Re: Question about batting technique from a TV programme

Here's the link:
YouTube - Fox Sport Science - Cricket v/s Baseball

 

[mas cambios]

Re: Question about batting technique from a TV programme

Watching the ball onto the bat is the classic idea but in reality it doesn't happen, at least not from the bowlers hand to the bat. Essentially, batting (and close catching) is done on blind assumptions.

Clues are taken from the bowler (action and other cues) as well as the ability to predict the path of the ball. It is a mash up of learned ability, inherent talent, ability to detect clues and being able to guess/estimate where the ball is going to pitch by only watching the first few metres once the ball has left the bowlers hand.

 

[Liz Ward]

Re: Question about batting technique from a TV programme

I'm sorry! "...and it's perfectly legal to throw at the batter!" Not in any version of the game I have played .

As a scientist, I could pull so many holes in this 'experiment'... as a biomechanist, I could kill it. Not at all scientific.

However, it does demonstrate the usefulness of Bradman's stump/golf ball programme. Bottom line, as far as the experiment goes, the baseball player is plain and simply the better sportsman.

chrisbell, have a look at http://www.bigcricket.com/forum/t74616/. Specifically:

Hi Mardo,

You are quite right, you cannot track the ball all the way to the bat. Some people think they can but it is impossible from the third dimention; easier from two.

How the ball is tracked is what distinguishes the quality of the player. I wrote a piece on an Oxford University study about four years ago but cannot for the life of me remember where . Similar studies have been replicated many times since from all over the cricketing world and all came to the same conclusion:

HITTING THE BALL: WHEN BATSMEN DON'T NEED TO KEEP THEIR EYE ON THE BALL

In most sports, which involve hitting a ball, the coach's advice is to 'keep your eye on the ball'. However, when a ball moves very fast, this strategy may not always be possible or even appropriate. And now a fascinating study carried out at Oxford University has revealed that, in fact, cricket batsmen do not watch the ball continuously but operate a distinct eye movement strategy of viewing it at crucial moments during its flight.

Researchers Michael Land and Peter McLeod measured the eye movements and field of gaze during batting of three batsmen with head-mounted eye cameras as they faced balls delivered at 25m per second from a bowling machine. The batsmen, selected for their widely varying abilities were: Mark, a professional cricketer who has opened the batting for Warwickshire; Charlie, a successful amateur who plays Minor Counties cricket for Oxfordshire, and Richard, described as an 'enthusiastic but incompetent amateur', who plays low-level club cricket.

Despite their widely varying skills, Mark, Charlie and Richard's overall visual strategy was observed to be similar: they fixed on the ball as it was delivered, switched their gaze to the anticipated bounce point before the ball got there, then tracked its trajectory for 100-200 milliseconds (MS) after the bounce.

However, within this common strategy, there were differences that seemed to reflect their abilities. Mark, the best batsmen, used more pre-bounce pursuit tracking than Charlie or Richard. Richard, the least-skilled batsman, was slower to respond to the appearance of the ball and to anticipate the bounce point, and the researchers concluded that he would have been unable to manage faster deliveries. By comparison, even with very short balls, Mark and Charlie reached the bounce point with their eyes 100m before the ball.

'In comparing the good (Mark and Charlie) and the poor (Richard) batsmen,' comment the researchers, 'we suggest that the main aspect of oculo-motor behaviour that is related to batting performance is the speed and variability of the initial saccade [a brief rapid eye movement between fixation points].

'The skill difference between the expert batsman (Mark) and the good batsman (Charlie) is possibly due to Mark's subtle combination of pursuit tracking and saccadic movement as he locates the bounce point. There seemed to be no systematic differences in the way the three batsmen tracked the ball after the bounce.'

 

[mas cambios]

Re: Question about batting technique from a TV programme

Further to what Liz has posted there was an experiment involving Gary Kirsten a few years back. They had him facing a bowing machine set to 150kph plus and surprisingly he struggled, despite being comfortable (well as much as you can be) against that sort of pace when it came from a human bowler. The reason they came up with was that he used clues from the bowler in order to anticipate line and length, clues which are absent with a machine.

Interestingly though, when they rigged the machine up to the lighting, so that the lights went out at a certain point (sometime after the ball was released) they found that he could be expected to know where the line/length was 70% of the time.

 

[chrisbell]

Re: Question about batting technique from a TV programme

Thanks everyone, especially Liz for your detailed information and interesting link. It seems I must eat a slice of humble pie. I had presumed that waiting for the ball to reappear in the field of view would not allow for enough time to refocus, but with the rapid saccadic movement, it would.

 

[Jim2109]

Re: Question about batting technique from a TV programme

to throw another interesting observation into the melting pot...

ive been short sighted most of my life (possibly all of it), but have never worn glasses because i was never particularly bothered by it. however ive started wearing contact lenses in the last couple of months. one major drawback to contacts is that i struggle to refocus quickly, which is probably just because my eyes are still adjusting, im hoping it will go away over time. it doesnt help that i only wear them a few hours a week.

anyway, when im batting now i am completely blind to the latter stages of the delivery against certain bowlers. every batsman has a "blind spot", it is something that leg spinners know only too well, and look to exploit it, given that it is generally just outside leg stump on a full length. however i have a blind spot to anything that pitches full, wherever it lands.

i find it easy to read faster deliveries because they pitch shorter, and carry straight (generally), so i play my shot based on the ball pitching, and thus provided it doesnt move off the pitch it doesnt matter that i cant see it when its closer to the bat because my bat should already be somewhere close.

however, spin is a huge issue, because it pitches full and then turns off the pitch (sometimes). i read leg spin fairly easily because i bowl it and i have a tendancy to sweep everything so im forward and low and can see the ball more easily. but i was batting to a left hand offie at nets on Monday and he clean bowled me with about 50% of his deliveries!! i just couldnt pick the ball up post-bounce. and i am atributing it to the delay in focussing.

for batsmen with perfect eyesight they probably see the ball most of the way onto the bat, but the eyes can only refocus so quickly, so against faster bowling you definitely wouldnt see the ball all the way, so focussing on the anticipated pitch of the ball would make sense (il have to try this myself and see if it helps).

but in my case ive got a catch 22 - dont wear contacts and struggle to see the ball out of the hand. or wear contacts and struggle to see the ball onto the bat. the first option means i can play spin well but not pace, the second option vice versa. and i face more spin than pace where i bat in the order, so im inclined to stay blind for now!!!

 

[Liz Ward]

Re: Question about batting technique from a TV programme

Out of curiosity, are you wearing disposable lenses? Have the viscosity of your tears been mentioned?

 

[Boris]

Re: Question about batting technique from a TV programme

I play baseball and cricket thoroughly and I must say in my particular case I am a much better batter than batsman. I find it a lot easier to pick a ball up when you know that it isn't going to hit a pitch and possibly deviate. Also in baseball you only have to move your head from side to side as a whole, not the serious up and down of cricket. Baseball you don't have a helmet grill in the road because baseball is much more predictable, in cricket it is completely legal to hit a batsman in the head, in baseball you have just walked someone. That means the 'strike zone' for cricket is much, much larger.

Also in cricket you have to contend with the flight of the ball and then the deviation off the pitch. In baseball the flight is much more, but it is one less thing you have to worry about.

Also there are 11 ways you can get out per ball in cricket. The most balls I have faced personally in one innings is 162 (for 48 runs ), that means there was 972 ways of getting out, and I managed to escape all of them while I was out there for many hours. Baseball you get three chances, plus another innings or two.

Saying this though I play baseball at a lower level than I do cricket, plus crickers are more skilled in Australia than baseball due to popularity comparisons.

I'm not putting either sport down, I love them both almost equally, but I have always found it so much easier to bat in baseball than cricket.

 

[Boris]

Re: Question about batting technique from a TV programme

Just watched that video and it is absolutely terrible. What was he bowling, off spinners? So many things to pull apart through what is easily a ploy by the network targetting easier viewers in America.

 

[Jim2109]

Re: Question about batting technique from a TV programme

Out of curiosity, are you wearing disposable lenses? Have the viscosity of your tears been mentioned?

daily disposables, yes. not heard tear viscosity mentioned, ive had some yellow ink dropped in my eye that made my tears yellow for a few hours afterwards, i think that was just checking for surface damage though from the lenses.

im due a check-up soon so when i go back il mention the issue and see if there is any solutions for it.

it doesnt help that i put the lenses in about 20 mins before leaving for net practice though. if i was to wear them for most of the day id probably have adjusted to them better, but they are worse for close-range vision and i often spend lots of the day in front of a computer. also nets at the moment are indoors under flourescent lighting which is never the same as playing outdoors. we move outside next month which should be much better.

 

[Liz Ward]

Re: Question about batting technique from a TV programme

I wonder if you can get variable lenses .

I think you have the key in that your eyes are not used to focusing with the lenses but it is worth speaking to the optician in case there is an alternative. Let us know what they say as I am sure this must affect many people.

 

[Spiderlounge]

Re: Question about batting technique from a TV programme

Being fond of both cricket and baseball, I have to say I don't see it as a proper comparison. It may be harder to hit a baseball, but that doesn't make cricket an easier sport. Connect in cricket and you get 4 or 6 runs, which is nice but in itself is not match-winning. A home run in baseball can be worth up to four runs if the bases are loaded, which can quite easily be a match-winning contribution.

The levels of concentration required are totally different - an at-bat in baseball lasts a maximum of 7 balls, while a cricket innings can last hundreds of balls, so I just think they're out-and-out different.

In baseball you can afford to play a bad shot up to 26 times in a match and still win the match for your team if you connect well on 1. In cricket you can't afford to play a single bad shot as your ability to influence the game may well be over...

 

[SteveyD]

Re: Question about batting technique from a TV programme

to throw another interesting observation into the melting pot...

ive been short sighted most of my life (possibly all of it), but have never worn glasses because i was never particularly bothered by it. however ive started wearing contact lenses in the last couple of months. one major drawback to contacts is that i struggle to refocus quickly, which is probably just because my eyes are still adjusting, im hoping it will go away over time. it doesnt help that i only wear them a few hours a week.

anyway, when im batting now i am completely blind to the latter stages of the delivery against certain bowlers. every batsman has a "blind spot", it is something that leg spinners know only too well, and look to exploit it, given that it is generally just outside leg stump on a full length. however i have a blind spot to anything that pitches full, wherever it lands.

i find it easy to read faster deliveries because they pitch shorter, and carry straight (generally), so i play my shot based on the ball pitching, and thus provided it doesnt move off the pitch it doesnt matter that i cant see it when its closer to the bat because my bat should already be somewhere close.

however, spin is a huge issue, because it pitches full and then turns off the pitch (sometimes). i read leg spin fairly easily because i bowl it and i have a tendancy to sweep everything so im forward and low and can see the ball more easily. but i was batting to a left hand offie at nets on Monday and he clean bowled me with about 50% of his deliveries!! i just couldnt pick the ball up post-bounce. and i am atributing it to the delay in focussing.

for batsmen with perfect eyesight they probably see the ball most of the way onto the bat, but the eyes can only refocus so quickly, so against faster bowling you definitely wouldnt see the ball all the way, so focussing on the anticipated pitch of the ball would make sense (il have to try this myself and see if it helps).

but in my case ive got a catch 22 - dont wear contacts and struggle to see the ball out of the hand. or wear contacts and struggle to see the ball onto the bat. the first option means i can play spin well but not pace, the second option vice versa. and i face more spin than pace where i bat in the order, so im inclined to stay blind for now!!!

Heya
I've been wearing glasses for the last 10 odd years, and i understand your problem quite well.
What i would say is, try and wear your contacts as often as you can, just get used to them (within the limits your optician set)
What I would say is this, make sure your awake and alert. If your eyes are at all lazy, it is bloody impossible to see with lenses. If your rested, it is a hell of a lot easier with lenses.
You could possibly try setting up slightly differently too? I set up on leg stump, which means I get a better view of everything vaguely outside off, and if its straight, its a lot easier to predict for when it hits the blind spot.. Not great but i'm a bowler not a batsman

 

[Jim2109]

Re: Question about batting technique from a TV programme

Heya
I've been wearing glasses for the last 10 odd years, and i understand your problem quite well.
What i would say is, try and wear your contacts as often as you can, just get used to them (within the limits your optician set)
What I would say is this, make sure your awake and alert. If your eyes are at all lazy, it is bloody impossible to see with lenses. If your rested, it is a hell of a lot easier with lenses.
You could possibly try setting up slightly differently too? I set up on leg stump, which means I get a better view of everything vaguely outside off, and if its straight, its a lot easier to predict for when it hits the blind spot.. Not great but i'm a bowler not a batsman

i still dont wear my lenses for anything other than cricket really, but having played a few matches now with lenses in id say that they have improved a bit. my eyes are getting better adjusted to them. however it seems very important that i put the lenses in early in the day. if i only put them in at say 4pm, then go to play an evening cricket match or nets, my eyes struggle to accept them and they irritate me. but only ever in my left eye, never my right. which is odd.

anyway, when the lenses arent irritating my eye and going randomly blurry every few minutes, i still have a major problem with anything full, mostly from pace bowlers now. i just cant see the ball onto the bat, as soon as its within about 6 yards of me i just have to play it based on where i last saw it. im not sure if this is related to my sight, or just because im a crappy batsman lol, but if the ball seams off the pitch or swings, im usually bowled.

luckily in matches ive only really had to face spin and slow medium pace. then my issue is not of sight, but of patience and lack of talent lol. but at some point in time im going to have to face fast yorkers, and im going to struggle bigtime. the lense situation doesnt seem to be improving much. but i am overdue a checkup so i should probably get along to that and see what they say.

 

[Boris]

Re: Question about batting technique from a TV programme

Have you thought of laser corrective surgery? I played cricket with someone with the same sorts of problems and they said that getting the surgery was the best thing they have done.

Not sure on the technical and cost related aspects of it though, just a suggestion.

 

[Jim2109]

Re: Question about batting technique from a TV programme

Have you thought of laser corrective surgery? I played cricket with someone with the same sorts of problems and they said that getting the surgery was the best thing they have done.

Not sure on the technical and cost related aspects of it though, just a suggestion.

on paper its the best option, i just have concerns about long term side effects. the procedure just hasnt existed long enough for there to be any certainty about what happens say 30 years down the road. when im about 35-40 there will be more data on it and then il know how safe it is. i just dont want to be 45 and blind lol. the short term gains arent worth the risk IMO, you only get one pair of eyes, and mine work plenty well enough at present, its not like i can hardly see, my slight lack of long range vision is just a minor inconvenience really.