This has come about before, and it stumped the guys on Sky, who went very quiet about it, I suspect as they aren’t allowed to openly criticise the technology. One suspects the tech is detecting the deflection off the foot, which suggests it is over-sensitive?
Is it just me(?), but I’ve noticed several events of late where the bat and pad have been very close and/or ‘snicko’ has only shown a minor blip, such that catches and LBWs have been given. I always thought that the ‘tech’ had to be conclusive, and any doubt went to the batsman. It’s interesting to me how the ‘tech’ is (supposedly) differentiating between a ball hitting a bat or pad, given the amount of other noise e.g. studs scraping, bat brushing the pad etc,
I’m inclined to think some of the TMOs are getting carried away with the tech.
I still don’t think that England have got batting positions 1-3 sorted out. One of the main purposes of an opener is to stay in and take the shine off the ball ready for the big hitters (and hopefully make a bigish score themselves too). Too many England innings are already into the middle/late order with not many overs completed.
Interesting - TMS explained that if the ball hits the batsman on the full it calculates no change in trajectory; whereas, if the ball bounces then its subsequent direction is used in the Hawkeye calculation.
I do find it strange in this digital age that the Hawkeye calculation takes so long to perform.
My position on the tech is that it’s better than many of the umps, even though it has its foibles. It’s stopped many batsmen from ‘padding up’ and all that ‘bat behind the pad’ nonsense.
Batsmen who shake their heads when given out by the ‘tech’ should thank themselves lucky they weren’t around when there were some ‘trigger finger’ umps out there. There again, with some, you’d need to be stood almost on your stumps to be given out LBW.
I suspect many of us who’ve played club cricket have had ours days spoiled by some ‘home umpiring’.
I think that’s a bit harsh on Crawley and Ducket. Over the past year or two they have consistently had very good opening partnerships and very rarely have both of them failed. Giving the ball a good whack is a great way of taking the shine off the ball!
Politely I beg to disagree on that. The greatest openers are the ones who can stay in for a protracted length of time, grind the opposition down and make very big - and regular - scores (not ‘occasionals’). Not only taking the shine off the ball but tiring out the pace bowlers too. Case in point - Sir Alistair Cook. I don’t regard Crawley and Duckett as being in the same class - their defensive technique I find to be somewhat lacking when challenged.
I tend to agree with what you are saying. In my opinion player’s techniques have changed greatly over the last decade or so. I doubt we could produce two openers, in the mould of say Strauss and Cook, at the same time anymore. So we may as well go with the aggressive style of Crawley and Duckett. Better to be one down with 50/60 from 10 overs compared to "poking " around for 20 or 30.
Vs Australia tomorrow. A bit experimental and a batsman light?
“England XI for first T20: Phil Salt (captain/keeper), Will Jacks, Jordan Cox, Liam Livingstone, Jacob Bethell, Sam Curran, Jamie Overton, Jofra Archer, Adil Rashid, Saqib Mahmood, Reece Topley” BBC.
If Sir Alistair or Strauss were available then they should be picked - but when the selectors tried to do what you suggest we ended up with Burns and Sibley!
This Wisden article shows how well they have done:
