Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Thought the gist of article wasn't the poor eyesight but that McCullum is cognitively better?
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official*** New Zealand in Australia 2011
- Thread starter Hurricane
- Start date
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Yeah Martin's eyesight is fine; he just doesn't process the information his eyes pick up quickly enough. From what I can gather it's the scientific explanation for "unco".
Last edited:
Perhaps a sign I should read articles before I comment..however it doesn't seem like anything Martin is able to remedy. Just like Murali and his double jointed arm, except not really.
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah like I said in the eyesight thread, be nice if the issue got more research $ because how the eye perceives and processes info in sporting contexts seems to be missing a lot of info and I'd think the latter would be a massive bunch of factors in how people bat and why some can and others can't.
I remember a study a while back where it was described how as the ball enters your peripheral vision, because that part of the eye makes some educated guesses/approximations about the track of the ball, it can perceive swerve where there is none or none where there is some. By the time the track of the ball passes into the foveal vision, the part of the eye which sees things as they are, it's too late and you've committed to the shot. It was put up as an explanation for why people perceive 'late' swing when, in reality, the curve of the ball was parabolic. Amazing area which doesn't get a lot of attention.
I remember a study a while back where it was described how as the ball enters your peripheral vision, because that part of the eye makes some educated guesses/approximations about the track of the ball, it can perceive swerve where there is none or none where there is some. By the time the track of the ball passes into the foveal vision, the part of the eye which sees things as they are, it's too late and you've committed to the shot. It was put up as an explanation for why people perceive 'late' swing when, in reality, the curve of the ball was parabolic. Amazing area which doesn't get a lot of attention.
Woodster
International Captain
Think it alludes to the processing of information through the eyes in the Bob Woolmer book 'The Art of Science and Cricket'. I have this so I can dig out the section and put some interesting parts of the info into the relevant thread.
Hurricane
Hall of Fame Member
Good article.
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Do it. Would be interested in how recent his info is.
This is what I'm talking about;
The Secret of the Curve Ball | Mighty Optical Illusions
NZTailender
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
Is this also to do with how reflex catches work?
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Yep, same thing. Both skills are based around tracking the path of a moving object and reacting to it. The quicker your brain can process all that, the better your basics will be for both batting and catching (obviously your technique and temperament comes into it after that). It's why most good slippers are/were top order batsmen.
Last edited:
Pup Clarke
Cricketer Of The Year
Wow, a post from Woodster that isn't stating the obvious!
TumTum
Banned
NZTailender
I can't believe I ate the whole thing
Cool! When I was younger and fielded in close I took a few catches without watching it into the hand (which is the mantra).
Mind you, I was (and still am) a **** batsmen because I didn't watch it onto the bat either.
Yeah could never ever do this myself, planning on playing cricket again next year and keep telling myself I will not be utterly useless if I do. Just know I will not be able to though. seems so simple but is so hard to do.
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
The point is that the tracking isn't as simple as first thought (i.e. just keep your eye on the ball). It's not a simple perception (i.e. faulty vs awesome eyes) or processing (processing speed once the signal leave the cortex) it's both and then on top of that, cognition. I'm no expert in this area but I believe it's been well-established that peripheral vision has a much wider field of view and better motion detection (is dominated by rods rather than cones) than the fovea but the trade-off is that, being rod-dominant, it won't perceive detail as well as cones are more for detailed/high-resolution perception, hence the fovea is cone-dominant. So the peripheral vision is more sensitive and works better at night but has a lower resolution than the fovea.
Getting into more fuzzy territory but, as more of the cortex is devoted to perceiving what the far smaller fovea 'sees' (>50%), to keep up processing speed, the brain has a heap of short-cuts and makes some educated guesses about the speed, direction, etc. of a moving object as perceived by the peripheral vision. This means it's more likely to make mistakes and, as I said, when the ball passes from the peripheral vision to the fovea and you're seeing the ball as it really is moving, probably too late to back out of the shot (assuming you're going to play one).
All this is independent of what your brain does with the info once it comes in. Quick calculation suggests that a bloke who lets go of the ball at 150Km/h, you've got about 450ms play a shot. It takes 80ms (from memory, heh) for the signal to go from your eyes to the visual cortex so that leaves 370ms to bounce that signal around your pre-frontal cortices, the motor cortices and get your arms and legs moving to do something with the ball. It's fairly well-established that a lot of the physicality is achieved with pre-emptive movement built-upon from years of practice (450ms is nowhere near enough time) but still, not a lot of time. And, of course, this is assuming your brain only perceives and reacts to one signal, which is obviously untrue (i.e. you track the ball down the pitch taking in new information as it comes).
Processing speed doesn't differ too much from person to person so, to me, there are several bottlenecks; how your brain deals with the hand-over from using peripheral vision to foveal as the ball gets closer as well as the numerous decision-making phases it goes through as the ball gets closer. Maybe, with regards the best players, they just go through fewer decision-making cycles and make the decision to play earlier, maybe they do have faster processing, maybe their hand-over from the different parts of the eye is smoother, who knows? This is assuming a fairly homogenous physiological response to a stressful event too (i.e. facing someone bowling 150Km/h) which obviously would not be the case from person to person.
They talk a lot about this in aviation, actually, although obviously on a timescale of second/minutes than milliseconds. If you're in a stressful situation, the latest research suggests the best way is to make a decision early and go all the way with it rather than second-guessing yourself all the way down to the ground. Second-guessing = delays and, under stress, the info to inform subsequent decisions will already be warped by your stressful state which will lead to more bad decisions, more stress, more warped info, etc. Maybe that's what separates the best from the rest, that ability to decide early that they have all the info needed to play the ball correctly so they just go with it. Maybe, at the millisecond scale, that's what they really mean when they say 'play your natural game' because filling your head with other stuff (including new info as the ball flies down the pitch) causes delays/errors.
Getting into more fuzzy territory but, as more of the cortex is devoted to perceiving what the far smaller fovea 'sees' (>50%), to keep up processing speed, the brain has a heap of short-cuts and makes some educated guesses about the speed, direction, etc. of a moving object as perceived by the peripheral vision. This means it's more likely to make mistakes and, as I said, when the ball passes from the peripheral vision to the fovea and you're seeing the ball as it really is moving, probably too late to back out of the shot (assuming you're going to play one).
All this is independent of what your brain does with the info once it comes in. Quick calculation suggests that a bloke who lets go of the ball at 150Km/h, you've got about 450ms play a shot. It takes 80ms (from memory, heh) for the signal to go from your eyes to the visual cortex so that leaves 370ms to bounce that signal around your pre-frontal cortices, the motor cortices and get your arms and legs moving to do something with the ball. It's fairly well-established that a lot of the physicality is achieved with pre-emptive movement built-upon from years of practice (450ms is nowhere near enough time) but still, not a lot of time. And, of course, this is assuming your brain only perceives and reacts to one signal, which is obviously untrue (i.e. you track the ball down the pitch taking in new information as it comes).
Processing speed doesn't differ too much from person to person so, to me, there are several bottlenecks; how your brain deals with the hand-over from using peripheral vision to foveal as the ball gets closer as well as the numerous decision-making phases it goes through as the ball gets closer. Maybe, with regards the best players, they just go through fewer decision-making cycles and make the decision to play earlier, maybe they do have faster processing, maybe their hand-over from the different parts of the eye is smoother, who knows? This is assuming a fairly homogenous physiological response to a stressful event too (i.e. facing someone bowling 150Km/h) which obviously would not be the case from person to person.
They talk a lot about this in aviation, actually, although obviously on a timescale of second/minutes than milliseconds. If you're in a stressful situation, the latest research suggests the best way is to make a decision early and go all the way with it rather than second-guessing yourself all the way down to the ground. Second-guessing = delays and, under stress, the info to inform subsequent decisions will already be warped by your stressful state which will lead to more bad decisions, more stress, more warped info, etc. Maybe that's what separates the best from the rest, that ability to decide early that they have all the info needed to play the ball correctly so they just go with it. Maybe, at the millisecond scale, that's what they really mean when they say 'play your natural game' because filling your head with other stuff (including new info as the ball flies down the pitch) causes delays/errors.
Last edited:
Ruckus
International Captain
Oh ****!... That's really balls. Really disappointing from two perspectives; it looks like he will be pretty much out for the majority of the India series, and also it indicates he is probably going to career full of injuries ahead of him. They are surely going to have to bite the bullet and play Harris then. Will die a little inside if Starc is up against Tendulkar and co.
Pup Clarke
Cricketer Of The Year
Don't think Australian fans should go into this series fearing the worst from a bowling point of view. I know that some Indian batsman definitely raise their game when it comes to this series, but look at the opening partnership, and untested duo who know there is going to be some serious chin music coming their way. Think their batting hasn't reached 300 for a while as well itbt.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
How?