Innovation

[neville cardus]

I posted the following in a ten-minute burst on another forum a month and a fortnight ago, after England smashed the record for the highest-ever ODI total:

 

[neville cardus]

Challenged to increase my sample size, I set about collecting data for every subsequent T20I. So far, fourteen scoops have yielded just twelve runs (at 5.14 an over) and given up one wicket. Factor in ODIs, and the picture becomes rather worse.

Just as remarkable as my findings to date about the productivity of this stroke is what I've discovered about its scarcity: Those fourteen are from six T20Is spanning 1,332 deliveries -- a scoop-rate of 1.26 per twenty-over innings. And yet we're supposed to believe that this is the stroke which encapsulates or emodies the shortest format. If it were remotely as revolutionary as is universally claimed, you'd expect to see it a bit more often.

Perhaps Dilshan's team-mates had a point? Apparently they've been telling him that "the dilscoop is a shot only a brainless cricketer plays."

 

[Howe_zat]

There's more to innovation than just new shots. There are only so many directions in which to swing a stick at a ball and over the course of 100+ years of scrutiny cricket has pretty much found them.

Batsmen are more aware of what they're capable of, particularly with more of their training focused on strength and range hitting, and are prepared to take more risks more often with the knowlede that it usually comes off compared to the cautious approaches of previous generations. That's because they're also taking advantage of the flat wickets, short boundaries, fielding restrictions and most importantly heavily rotated (i.e. secondary) bowling attacks.

 

[neville cardus]

And bigger bats. There are people who affect to find this explanation unconvincing, but it's extraordinary how often even a mi**** travels the distance now. I don't know if or how often you watch extended archival footage, but just the other day I saw Gower toe-end one to midwicket and wring his hands at the aftershock. You never see that now.

 

[cnerd123]

Yea and when we talk innovation in modern day limited overs cricket, it has much to do with the batsman's willingness to hit the ball in unconventional areas and bowlers willing to experiment with new strategies. There is a lot more playing with the percentages, and a lot more players honing ways to bat and bowl in ways that defy 'conventional' wisdom - things like hitting across the line and treating each ball as a unique event in itself rather than as part of a longer bowling spell.

 

[neville cardus]

Well, I don't know that any of that deserves the term "innovation," which implies something new and unanticipated. The things you describe are precisely what one would expect from such a condensed form of the game.

 

[cnerd123]

Well, I don't know that any of that deserves the term "innovation," which implies something new and unanticipated. The things you describe are precisely what one would expect from such a condensed form of the game.

Yea, more like new mindsets/definitions of 'good' technique and gameplans vs. actually doing anything new on the field.

Cricket is so old, basically everything has been seen and done.

 

[Howe_zat]

Well, I don't know that any of that deserves the term "innovation," which implies something new and unanticipated. The things you describe are precisely what one would expect from such a condensed form of the game.

Yeah fair enough. It did take them a long time to get around to it though, which is probably why commentators who played plenty of ODI cricket in the 80s and 90s insist on talking about the modern game with such reverence.

I think most of the innovation in one-day cricket comes from the bowling side of things.

 

[indiaholic]

And all shots may not be played with the intention of scoring runs. Introducing the possibility that you are willing to play that helps move the field around.

The biggest innovation in modern limited overs cricket is just sheer the number of options against yorkers that are a tiny bit inaccurate.

 

[weldone]

Ya not a fan of scoop and reverse scoop

 

[neville cardus]

So much of what people find entertaining in short-form cricket is really just bad cricket. The scoop excites to no end, but it doesn't seem terribly effective.

 

[neville cardus]

But I'll keep updating my database to see if things improve.

 

[harsh.ag]

So much of what people find entertaining in short-form cricket is really just bad cricket. The scoop excites to no end, but it doesn't seem terribly effective.

That's the whole point though.

 

[neville cardus]

Eh? The whole point is to be bad?

 

[harsh.ag]

Eh? The whole point is to be bad?

The whole point is not to care if it's not that good. There are other considerations.

 

[neville cardus]

Such as? This sounds suspiciously like the argument that sustains Michael Bay's career.

 

[indiaholic]

Dont think it is entirely without value though. Have seen bowlers changing their length once you play the scoop effectively.

 

[Dan]

Yeah, show a willingness to play a scoop and all of a sudden fine leg is back, long on has to come up, and you can pump the resulting ball down there for six. Show you can get a scoop away, and even if it's less effective on that particular ball, you're positively impacting your ability to score off the next ball, and the ball after that.

 

[weldone]

Yeah, show a willingness to play a scoop and all of a sudden fine leg is back, long on has to come up, and you can pump the resulting ball down there for six. Show you can get a scoop away, and even if it's less effective on that particular ball, you're positively impacting your ability to score off the next ball, and the ball after that.

If that's a proven fact then smart captains will stop making such field changes in future.

 

[neville cardus]

Yeah, show a willingness to play a scoop and all of a sudden fine leg is back, long on has to come up, and you can pump the resulting ball down there for six. Show you can get a scoop away, and even if it's less effective on that particular ball, you're positively impacting your ability to score off the next ball, and the ball after that.

As I said earlier, though, very few players seem willing to scoop. There are only 1.26 per innings, or 2.52 per match, in my expanding database.