Innovation

[indiaholic]

I don't think it is an easy shot to pull off successfully. Don't have access to the data but there will be a few players who I expect will play a very large number of scoops.

 

[Daemon]

Has there been an increase in the number of bottom handed players over the years?

 

[neville cardus]

I don't think it is an easy shot to pull off successfully. Don't have access to the data but there will be a few players who I expect will play a very large number of scoops.

Well, even Jos Buttler seems to miss the majority of his. (See the posts referenced in the OP.) And he's supposed to be one of the better exponents.

 

[indiaholic]

Well, even Jos Buttler seems to miss the majority of his. (See the posts referenced in the OP.) And he's supposed to be one of the better exponents.

If he has a 50% success rate over a reasonable sample size, it has served its purpose, no?

 

[neville cardus]

I need a bigger sample size to confirm this, but so far the balls he wastes playing that stroke actually tend to bring his strike-rate down.

 

[theegyptian]

Two fold are the reasons for this shot imo.

1) It's extremely profitable for some players. Buttler, Maxwell, De Villiers. Go through some more Buttler innings and you'll see I'd imagine a strike rate of over 200 playing the scoop/ramp shot. You take a tiny sample size for your Buttler comparison and you still have to distort the true facts. The umpire gave the wide so his teams strike rate was 225 (9 off 4 balls) when he played the ramp.
2) As Dan says it's about setting up future scoring opportunies. Manipulation of the field and messing up the bowlers rhythm/length and line.

It's similar to the sweep or reverse sweep against the spinner imo but it's only really coming in now. A lot of current professionals won't have grown up playing the ramp/scoop so they don't feel comfortable playing the shot- but that will change.

10 or 15 years ago anyone playing a reverse sweep in a test or even an ODI and the commentators would have been making a big event of the shot. These days everyone can and does play reverse sweeps. It's second nature. Even big hitters who lack much guile like Stokes are now using the reverse sweep and nailing it as it's a profitable shot and it manipulates the field and puts off the bowler. It was noticeable in four day county cricket that Bresnan and Hodd for Yorkshire basically hit Rayner (an offspinner) out of the attack on a wicket that was turning a bit by playing reverse sweeps with very little risk. We've seen the same with Mishab against Ali in test cricket.

Another 10 or 15 years and nearly every odi player will probably have the ramp/scoop in the locker and be good at playing it. The more options you have, the tougher it is for the opposition to defend against.- generally - some guys have so much power that they don't need to worry too much about scoops.

 

[viriya]

The Marillier scoop was different from the Dilscoop because the ball went to third man - not fine leg.

 

[neville cardus]

You take a tiny sample size for your Buttler comparison

I admitted this freely.

and you still have to distort the true facts.

I'll let that slide, but do watch your manners. You wouldn't speak like that if we were face to face; you have no reason to do so online.

The umpire gave the wide so his teams strike rate was 225 (9 off 4 balls) when he played the ramp.

His team's strike-rate isn't in question. And the wide can't be attributed to the stroke -- even if we assume (which no-one but the umpire did) that the call was reasonable.

2) As Dan says it's about setting up future scoring opportunies. Manipulation of the field and messing up the bowlers rhythm/length and line.

The scoop isn't played nearly often enough to validate your analysis.

It's similar to the sweep or reverse sweep against the spinner imo but it's only really coming in now. A lot of current professionals won't have grown up playing the ramp/scoop so they don't feel comfortable playing the shot- but that will change.
10 or 15 years ago anyone playing a reverse sweep in a test or even an ODI and the commentators would have been making a big event of the shot. These days everyone can and does play reverse sweeps. It's second nature. Even big hitters who lack much guile like Stokes are now using the reverse sweep and nailing it as it's a profitable shot and it manipulates the field and puts off the bowler. It was noticeable in four day county cricket that Bresnan and Hodd for Yorkshire basically hit Rayner (an offspinner) out of the attack on a wicket that was turning a bit by playing reverse sweeps with very little risk. We've seen the same with Mishab against Ali in test cricket.
Another 10 or 15 years and nearly every odi player will probably have the ramp/scoop in the locker and be good at playing it. The more options you have, the tougher it is for the opposition to defend against.- generally - some guys have so much power that they don't need to worry too much about scoops.

And yet Dilshan complains that a number of his team-mates are in total disagreement. Such data as we have, futhermore, would seem to bear them out. You're quite welcome to do your own research if you're unconvinced. My preliminary findings are fully documented here.

 

[neville cardus]

The Marillier scoop was different from the Dilscoop because the ball went to third man - not fine leg.

I was talking in general terms about the scoop, not just Dilshan's version. That's why I specifically included the reverse scoop. You forget that I also mentioned Ryan Campbell.

 

[theegyptian]

I admitted this freely.



I'll let that slide, but do watch your manners. You wouldn't speak like that if we were face to face; you have no reason to doing so online.



His team's strike-rate isn't in question. And the wide can't be attributed to the stroke -- even if we assume (which no-one but the umpire did) that the call was reasonable.



The scoop isn't played nearly often enough to validate your analysis.



And yet Dilshan complains that a number of his team-mates are in total disagreement. Such data as we have, futhermore, would seem to bear them out. You're quite welcome to do your own research if you're unconvinced. My preliminary findings are fully documented here.

Buttler since the last 50 over WC ( I can't be bothered to go back further at this point). 937 runs off 693 balls.

Against Pace (can only play scoop/ramp against pace) - 608 runs scored off 448 balls @ 135.7sr for 11 times dismissed. Revised figures taking out scoop attempts - 565 runs off 430 balls @ 131.4 sr for 11 times dismissed.

18 attempts at scoops, 43 runs scored @ 238.88 strike rate, Never out.

Clearly he has a signicantly higher sr playing the scoop than he does the rest of the time against seam, and given he hasn't been dismissed once playing the scoop it would suggest that the scoop/ramp is actually a very profitable shot on it's own for Buttler, without even taking into account it's impact has on disrupting opposition bowlers and the field.


Buttler sometimes goes series without playing the scoop/ramp, presumably because of conditions. This last series against Bangladesh for instance. He scored 102 off 76 against pace and never once played a scoop/ramp. Presumably because the wickets were low and slow and Taskin aside the Bangladesh seamers were generally slowish with low arms. That would suggest that Buttler is definitely selective in his choice of shots and when to use the scoop/ramp.

Whilst 18 attempts at scoops/ramps in 448 balls is a small percentage (4%) he has innings where he plays the shot 3 or 4 times in less than 50 balls against seam. It normally only takes one or two ramps over a guy on the 45 for the field to be moved around - or for a change in bowling plan - generally meaning that Buttler will then put the shot away and concentrate on somewhere else where there isn't a fielder. He also never attempts scoops vs medium pacers(who i count as fast bowlers in my calculations) like Matthews and Berhardien almost certainly because of lack of pace and the risk that brings.

Without doing the calculations I'd guess that Buttler is one of the best. He doesn't overplay the shot but he is generally clinical when he does.

 

[theegyptian]

His team's strike-rate isn't in question. And the wide can't be attributed to the stroke -- even if we assume (which no-one but the umpire did) that the call was reasonable.

The teams strike rate is relevant. In fact that would be the most relevant thing in the wider context of things. The bowlers delivery will often be impacted by Buttler going for the scoop. Often times the bowler will see Buttler moving (or anticipate) and try and throw the ball far outside the offstump or bowl him around his legs on the leg stump which can cause wides. Granted it's difficult to discern quite what impact Buttler going for the scoop has on the opposition bowler and how to quantify that.




And yet Dilshan complains that a number of his team-mates are in total disagreement. Such data as we have, futhermore, would seem to bear them out. You're quite welcome to do your own research if you're unconvinced. My preliminary findings are fully documented here.

They presumably think it's not profitable for themselves, or maybe even Dilshan. It may be true, it may be not. How long did you get former players bleat on the commentary about how uneccesary reverse and even conventional sweeps were? Some still do. I think most people these day agrees that they are good shots to have. The game moves on.

Still my work is still a small sample size but I am not going to do anymore looking into it because I don't care enough - but I would say that if a player keeps playing the shot they will have a reason for it and all the team have statisticians who can probably tell them whether it's a shot worth playing. For most it probably isn't at this point (at least in pure runs scored - discounting disruption to the oppostiion) but for some like Buttler I would guess it is.

 

[vcs]

Two fold are the reasons for this shot imo.

1) It's extremely profitable for some players. Buttler, Maxwell, De Villiers. Go through some more Buttler innings and you'll see I'd imagine a strike rate of over 200 playing the scoop/ramp shot. You take a tiny sample size for your Buttler comparison and you still have to distort the true facts. The umpire gave the wide so his teams strike rate was 225 (9 off 4 balls) when he played the ramp.
2) As Dan says it's about setting up future scoring opportunies. Manipulation of the field and messing up the bowlers rhythm/length and line.

It's similar to the sweep or reverse sweep against the spinner imo but it's only really coming in now. A lot of current professionals won't have grown up playing the ramp/scoop so they don't feel comfortable playing the shot- but that will change.

10 or 15 years ago anyone playing a reverse sweep in a test or even an ODI and the commentators would have been making a big event of the shot. These days everyone can and does play reverse sweeps. It's second nature. Even big hitters who lack much guile like Stokes are now using the reverse sweep and nailing it as it's a profitable shot and it manipulates the field and puts off the bowler. It was noticeable in four day county cricket that Bresnan and Hodd for Yorkshire basically hit Rayner (an offspinner) out of the attack on a wicket that was turning a bit by playing reverse sweeps with very little risk. We've seen the same with Mishab against Ali in test cricket.

Another 10 or 15 years and nearly every odi player will probably have the ramp/scoop in the locker and be good at playing it. The more options you have, the tougher it is for the opposition to defend against.- generally - some guys have so much power that they don't need to worry too much about scoops.

Kallis did it in the 2nd innings of the Cape Town 2011 Test match against India when Harbhajan was on a roll and looked like he'd run through them. Great knock that was.

 

[Burgey]

Another innovation I'd like to see is a bowler being allowed to beam any batsman who plays a reverse sweep/ switch hit/ scoop.

 

[weldone]

NC - did you do any analysis for reverse sweeps? I guess the findings maybe similar for that shot too

 

[Dan]

Think about the opportunity cost of the scoop too. I mean, sure, we can sit here and argue that it decreased his overall innings strike rate, but the ball you play a scoop to is not one you can pull over square leg for six, or uppercut over the slips, or slap over cover easily. If Buttler puts away the scoop against those particular balls, does he score at a higher strike rate? I think not; it's the kind of ball you might try to slog, fail to connect with well, and ends up with a single, whether that be from rolling it out to deep midwicket or chunking it off the inside edge and scrambling through to short fine. Or, going for Death or Glory DLF MAXIMUMS, the kind of ball you hit straight down the throat of an outfielder. Or, y'know, dot ball that doesn't bring in the potential for a wide call.

Naturally, we're not talking an exact science here, but when you consider where the bowler is actually putting the ball, the fields being set, the potential to affect future balls and fields, and the risk/reward calculation for runscoring, I think the scoop is a perfectly fine, albeit risky, option in the death overs.

 

[Howe_zat]

The way Dilshan made it really fashionable in 2009 distorts things a little. It was more effective in that tournament than it's ever been and this was because it had barely been seen before. Bowlers didn't have a plan to deal with it there and then. Plus Dilshan happened to be in magic form at the time and was seeing it like a beach ball.

At the following tournament in 2010 the talk was all about 'slower ball bouncers', which, ostensibly, are crap deliveries, but they were specifically aimed at stopping players from timing balls with just a swing through the arc or indeed trying to scoop. It worked. You don't hear about them any more because the baseball-esque game theory of predicting and reacting RIGHT NOW has moved on.

That's why people say that T20 cricket is full of innovation. It's not about stuff that sticks around forever as a new way of mastering cricket, it's all about staying one step ahead of the here and now.

In Tests you don't get this because what happens RIGHT NOW is of little consequence. You keep 'plugging away' outside off and you can eventually produce the perfect delivery. The tactics are more set in stone. If shot or ball doesn't make its way in from T20 cricket because it doesn't last the test of time, that's fine. It doesn't mean it wasn't innovative at the time.