Today’s article is a guest post on technology in coaching from Bala of criccube.com, republished with permission.

It is often said that Cricket is a simple game and that we should strive to keep it that way. True indeed. Just to put it in perspective, we also hear Virender Sehwag's game being described as simple and uncomplicated. To understand this, you could possibly imagine a crack shooter who has to line up his shot with a steady hand and an even steadier base - no matter what external influences there are - and press the trigger. In effect, sometimes in sport as in life, it is the things that you do not do that matter the most rather than a detailed list of things that you are forced to do. That is what keeps it simple.

Which brings us to the point of technology in a game with so much history, perspective, romance and polarized opinion as cricket. Modern cricket has not been lax in adopting various facets of technology in order to woo TV audiences and also to help the umpires get more decisions correct. Perhaps the best innovation to come through to cricket has been the video replay helping the 3rd umpire in run out decisions. Arguably the worst innovation is the introduction of devices such as Hawkeye/Hot Spot to adjudicate on LBW and/or caught at the wicket decisions.

Ask Technology for Information; Not Decisions!

Increasingly the man in the white coat is being sidelined. Gradually his presence and judgment is being devalued. And yet we want for cricketers to respect him and not show signs of dissent! If that is not hypocritical, then what is?

Not for a moment is this article campaigning against the UDRS. Nor is it shedding light on the accuracy or lack thereof of these technologies (on which an independent evaluation is very much needed by the way). Instead it is just walking through the typical work flow in such scenarios and the general lack of logic therein. At the very point that there is an umpiring decision against which the players have asked for a review, all control over the decision goes out of the standing umpire's hands. The 3rd umpire uses Hawkeye/Hot Spot or other technology aids and is supposed to deliver his decision. What is often said is that he can choose to agree or disagree with the standing umpire's decision. What is not said though is that he cannot disagree with the findings or lack thereof of the technology in and of itself! Supposing that Hawkeye shows half the ball pitching in the line of leg stump and the other half pitching outside, the umpire will have to take that input. He is not allowed to exercise his judgment call. Yes, for a final decision he will have to rely on what the technology's take is in the matter of contact with the stumps. But note that here too it is the technology whose word is final and binding. The 3rd umpire is the bearer of the decision not the taker. This has to stop. We can easily extend this work flow to other related scenarios; the issue remains the same.

Blame the Users; Not Technology

The ongoing India-Australia series has seen some interesting discussions develop over the media space. No less a personality than Greg Chappell has commented about the Indians' use of technology - as in bowling machines - in their practice. Rest assured; he has not spoken favourably of such practices.

Leave alone the fact that the Australians just concluded a specialist batting camp which involved extensive usage of the bowling machines, the simple point is that technology - in this case, the machines - cannot be blamed for the manner and extent of usage thereof. The argument that Mr. Chappell is putting through basically concludes that pre-determination in foot movement is a by-product of using these machines.

The bowling machines exist to solve a particular purpose. There is no bowler in the world who can consistently bowl quality pace or spin with the ball landing nearly exactly where the batsman wants it to (or does not want it to - depending on the practice session) every time. However there are a few cardinal, yet common sins that have to be guarded against when using such tools. The tendency of batsmen to surreptitiously 'read' the angle of the machine head and therefore the length of the ball is something to be avoided. As also the accompanying tendency to get set preternaturally early when facing the bowling machine.

It is a moot point that those falling into these two above mentioned habits are defeating the whole point of the practice session. All said and done, there appears to be no logic in blaming the devices for any habits that batsmen tend to develop or don't. These devices can be as useful as we let them be. We just have to remember that it is the human using the machine who controls its usage. Not the machine itself!

Not to mention that today there are bowling machines and allied technologies which are well placed to very closely replicate the real-time experience of facing opposition bowlers!

So it begs the question - how is a Ponting reaping the benefits of using the bowling machine while the Indian batsmen seemingly are not?

Having it is Different from Using it!

In modern cricket players are a spoilt lot. They have access to video footage and still photographs of a wide database of players. And when they want it they have access to their best moments with bat and ball. Added to this is the availability of a professional video analyst who travels with the team and works with the coach in helping the players with technical issues as and when they crop up.

In theory this should be a great boon. It holds promise big enough that it can help extend the run of a player in the national team. A simple sorting-out of technique can save a player from being shot out or found out and help him perform closer to peak potential. In theory this should immensely help the team because it helps filter out the players that do not perform. For these are the ones who are aware of their issues but are not able to make the physical and/or mental adjustment required. But having it is not the same as using it apparently.

A glaring example in this case is that of Rahul Dravid in his last two tours overseas. He has managed to develop a glaring technical error which renders him vulnerable to balls pitched up and swinging - especially when directed at the stumps. To the extent that he has now been dismissed clean bowled for 8 times over the last 10 Test matches he has featured in. Do we still blame technology in this case? Or do we wake up and blame the system and the humans with the responsibility to use such technology who failed to act in a timely fashion so as to help the game and the players?

Coach the Driver; Technology the Vehicle

We now come to the nub of the issue where a lot of coaches (past players themselves) tend to distrust the usage of machines and high-flying technology. The reasons can range from a misguided aversion to these machines to a genuine lack of understanding of their application.

At no time can technology replace human input and decisions. It is time the ICC or even some of the individual boards instituted camps and special training sessions to properly and comprehensively introduce the various technology aids that are available to the modern coach and player. This will lead to an increase in curiosity and respect for technology in the coaches and a proportionate decrease in the distrust and aversion towards the same.

This could also help promote consistency in methods adopted by coaches and in the long run could even result in cricket moving to a new paradigm. For this to happen however, the camps and panels mentioned must identify technology which is good for the TV viewers and separate it from technology which must be used as Umpiring decision aids. The fans are the biggest stakeholders beyond doubt. But then the players and the umpires are the workers who deliver the cricket product to the TV audiences. We ignore their comfort, satisfaction and trust at great peril.