You only live twice?

Thursday, December 09, 2010

The much-debated Umpire Decision Review System will be implemented at the 2011 Cricket World Cup and our expert is firmly convinced that the sport absolutely needs it.

The name ‘UDRS’ is clumsy, and the UDRS implementation has been just as clumsy.

UDRS is short for ‘Umpire Decision Review System’. This system allows the batting and fielding side the opportunity to challenge the decision of the on-field umpire. But there is a proviso: you cannot challenge after two failures!

Why two? What is so sacred about two? The argument for limiting the failed challenges to two is that every decision would otherwise be challenged, and this would unnecessarily delay the game. It is also intended to appease on-field umpires who might ask: “what the hell am I doing out in the middle?”

Restricting referrals to two is actually making things worse. For example, one of the two Indian referrals would perforce be reserved for Virender Sehwag if he is playing; and the second might be held back for Sachin Tendulkar. This is ridiculous. We have also seen situations where a blatant umpiring error could not be contested because both the referrals had been used up. Indeed, we also know of instances where a batsman has abused a referral: he knows that there is a faint nick, but he also knows that technology is unlikely to spot it! So instead of walking, he asks for a review.

Today’s avatar of the UDRS is essentially a compromise. We want to use technology, such as Hawkeye, Hot Spot, Snickometer and Super Slo-Mo, but we don’t want to offend the umpires. This can’t go on. We have to quickly choose one of the ‘umpires only’ or ‘technology only’ options.
 
The latter is much more likely because cricket is, what mathematicians would call, a ‘discrete’ game: the game moves forward step by step, or ball by ball. Tennis is discrete too, as indeed is American football. Football, on the other hand, is ‘continuous’.

If we reflect for a moment, we will realize that technology is easier to implement in discrete games than in continuous ones. The next ball in cricket can be delayed to confirm an lbw decision, but a football game cannot be halted to verify if a player was really offside or not!

That’s why the future is much more likely to be ‘full-blown’ UDRS. In this set-up, the best umpires are not in the playing field … they are seated next to technology-based outputs. Every appeal will be reviewed; every decision will be technology-driven. The umpires in the middle will essentially be lackeys: they will call ‘play’, count the six balls that make up the over, ensure good on-field behaviour, signals boundaries or dismissals (after hearing from the chief umpire indoors), peer at light meters, hold the bowler’s cap and, if they feel like Billy Bowden, do a little jig to amuse the crowds. But they would still be required to call no balls (because that’s a real time decision).

The ICC tells us that the best umpires get 93% of their decisions right, while UDRS-assisted decisions are 97% right. These statistics try to impress, but ignore that one of the 7% wrong decisions could completely change the course of the match. A better way to estimate performance is to ask how little did the umpire’s performance affect the eventual result of the match … and it is here that UDRS will perform much more impressively.

The trouble with ICC is that it is fearful of technology. A decade and more ago, ICC asked Duckworth-Lewis (D/L) to come up with rain rules that could be computed on the back of an envelope, because they feared that a ground in some corner of Bulawayo might not have access to a computer. This meant poorer targets not because the D/L model was deficient but because ICC’s mindset was flawed. Today, ICC has similar fears about UDRS technology and its costs. But they will eventually discover that full-blown UDRS is indeed the way to go.

The Emergence of Virat Kohli

Tuesday, December 07, 2010

Kohli’s brilliant performance this year is certainly a great sign for Indian cricket, but will the young Indian batsman make it to ODI cricket’s premier event in 2011?

In the early-mid 2000s, it seemed like VVS Laxman was always fighting for his spot in the Test eleven even though he was a regular run-scorer. It’s not until the last few years that his greatness and consistency have been truly recognized and it’s now more a question of when VVS chooses to leave rather than him being forced to leave.

Today’s ODI equivalent of Laxman in the mid-early 2000s is Virat Kohli. Kohli has been India’s most consistent batsman in 2010 and has been the second highest aggregate run-getter in ODIs this year.

Top run scorers in 2010

Player	Mat	Runs	Ave	SR	100s	50s
HM Amla (SA)	15	1058	75.57	104.23	5	4
V Kohli (India)	23	993	52.26	85.67	3	7
AB de Villiers (SA)	16	964	80.33	102.11	5	4
TM Dilshan (SL)	20	921	51.16	98.92	3	4
Imrul Kayes (Ban)	26	865	33.26	67.15	1	6
CL White (Aus)	25	848	44.63	84.46	1	6
MEK Hussey (Aus)	24	825	45.83	91.56	0	6
AJ Strauss (Eng)	14	806	57.57	95.95	2	6
MJ Clarke (Aus)	19	777	55.5	79.36	1	5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kohli has got runs against all oppositions with centuries against Bangladesh, Australia and New Zealand. The graph below indicates his innings-by-innings performance in 2010.

Despite these performances, Kohli’s place in India’s eleven for the 2011 World Cup is in no way assured. Assuming everyone is fully fit, you have to believe Tendulkar, Sehwag, Gambhir and Dhoni pick themselves. Which leaves two-three spots up for grabs, depending on whether India play an all-rounder at seven or not. If Yusuf Pathan or any other all-rounder comes in at seven, that leaves two spots with Suresh Raina, Yuvraj Singh and Virat Kohli the main contenders for those spots. Raina and Yuvraj bring in more experience and might get the nod ahead of Kohli.

The other option is to play all three of them (or any other batsman like a Rohit Sharma, Pujara or Dinesh Karthik) and have Yuvraj, Sehwag and Raina chip in for the fifth bowler’s quota. Either way, Kohli’s spot is not a given, despite a string of consistent performances. However, if he keeps his form going for the next couple of months, team management will find it hard pressed to leave him out of the playing eleven. The good news for India is that the competition for spots has led to youngsters stepping up which only bodes well for the future.