Analysis of Cricket Ball Type and Innings on State Level Cricket Batter's Performance
Analysis of Cricket Ball Type and Innings on State Level Cricket Batter's Performance
复制标题
DOI：
10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02347
复制
发表时间：
2019-10-24
影响因子：
3.8
通讯作者：
Doma, Kenji
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Connor, Jonathan Douglas;Sinclair, Wade H.;Doma, Kenji
背景：本次调查的目的是比较澳大利亚一流比赛中使用的板球类型和局数中板球击球的表现。方法：从谢菲尔德盾锦标赛的两个赛季（N = 60 场比赛）中收集了 43 名州级板球击球手的击球表现测量结果，其中使用了 Kookaburra((TM))（n = 30 场比赛）和 Duke((TM))（n = 30 场比赛）板球。结果：第一局击球表现在平均得分（37.5 +/- 13.4 比 31.2 +/- 11.3）、面对球数（60.7 +/- 26.2 比 49.9 +/- 23.6）、边界 4 秒（3.8 +/- 1.9 比 2.9 +/- 1.4）和边界 6 秒（0.2与第二局表现相比，每场比赛的得分（p < 0.05）+/- 0.3 vs. 0.1 +/- 0.3）以及世纪得分（5.74 +/- 8.56 vs. 1.49 +/- 5.14%）（p < 0.05）。任何击球性能测量均没有因球类型而产生差异 (p > 0.05)。然而，在杜克((TM)) 球赛期间，速度投球手取得的三柱门明显较多(85.0 +/- 12.8 比76.4 +/- 13.9%)，而在Kookaburra((TM)) 球赛期间旋转投球手取得的三柱门相对较多(14.2 +/- 12.5 比22.0 +/- 14.1%；p < 0.05)。结论：在涉及 Kookaburra((TM)) 球或 Duke((TM)) 球的比赛中，板球击球表现相当。然而，速度投球手更成功地将他们的技能转移到 Duke(TM) 球，而旋转投球手更成功地使用 KB(TM) 球。随后，击球手可以有效地调整他们的移动技术，并将他们的技能转移到杜克（TM）球的条件下。建议未来的研究探讨板球比赛场地的恶化对板球击球手拦截性能的影响。
Background: The aim of this investigation was to compare the type of cricket balls utilized and innings on cricket batting performance in the First-Class Australian competition. Methods: Batting performance measures of 43 state level cricket batters were collected from two seasons of the Sheffield shield tournament (N = 60 games) that incorporated both Kookaburra((TM)) (n = 30 games) and Duke((TM)) (n = 30 games) cricket balls. Results: First-innings batting performances were significantly greater for the average number of runs scored (37.5 +/- 13.4 vs. 31.2 +/- 11.3), balls faced (60.7 +/- 26.2 vs. 49.9 +/- 23.6), boundary 4s (3.8 +/- 1.9 vs. 2.9 +/- 1.4), and boundary 6s (0.2 +/- 0.3 vs. 0.1 +/- 0.3) scored per game (p < 0.05), as well as centuries scored (5.74 +/- 8.56 vs. 1.49 +/- 5.14%) compared to second innings performances (p < 0.05). There were no differences for any batting performance measures as a result of ball type (p > 0.05). However, significantly more wickets were taken by pace bowlers during Duke((TM)) ball games (85.0 +/- 12.8 vs. 76.4 +/- 13.9%), while relatively more wickets were taken by spin bowlers during Kookaburra((TM)) ball games (14.2 +/- 12.5 vs. 22.0 +/- 14.1%; p < 0.05). Conclusions: Cricket batting performance was comparable in games involving the Kookaburra((TM)) or Duke((TM)) ball. However, pace bowlers were more successful transferring their skill to the Duke((TM)) ball, while spin bowlers were more successful with the KB (TM) ball. Subsequently, batters may be able to effectively adapt their movement technique, and transfer their skill to the Duke((TM)) ball conditions. Future research is suggested to examine the influence of the cricket playing surface's deterioration on cricket batter's interceptive performance.