Sam Bracey.Pdf (713.2Kb)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Cardiff Metropolitan University | Prifysgol Fetropolitan Caerdydd LATE SUBMISSION WITH PERMISSION (MARK TO BE RECORDED AS FIRST ATTEMPT) Student Name: Student Number: Sam Bracey 20018354 Programme: SPE Year: 3 Term: 2 Module Number & Title: SSP6050 Independent Project Original Submission Date: 19 March 2015 Date extension requested: 9th February 2015 Programme Director: Anna Bryant Date agreed by PD: 20th February 2015 New Submission Date: 2nd April 2015 Note: A completed copy of this form must be attached to your dissertation. Both dissertation and form must be submitted by the ‘new submission date’. Failure to do so will result in a maximum mark of 40% as a second attempt. Cardiff School of Sport DISSERTATION ASSESSMENT PROFORMA: Empirical 1 Student name: Sam Bracey Student ID: St20018354 Programme: SPE Dissertation title: The Wicketkeeper’s Role in Twenty20 (T20) Cricket: Wicketkeeper or Batsman? Supervisor: Ray Ponting Comments Section Title and Abstract (5%) Title to include: A concise indication of the research question/problem. Abstract to include: A concise summary of the empirical study undertaken. Introduction and literature review (25%) To include: outline of context (theoretical/conceptual/applied) for the question; analysis of findings of previous related research including gaps in the literature and relevant contributions; logical flow to, and clear presentation of the research problem/ question; an indication of any research expectations, (i.e., hypotheses if applicable). Methods and Research Design (15%) To include: details of the research design and justification for the methods applied; participant details; comprehensive replicable protocol. Results and Analysis (15%) 2 To include: description and justification of data treatment/ data analysis procedures; appropriate presentation of analysed data within text and in tables or figures; description of critical findings. Discussion and Conclusions (30%) 2 To include: collation of information and ideas and evaluation of those ideas relative to the extant literature/concept/theory and research question/problem; adoption of a personal position on the study by linking and combining different elements of the data reported; discussion of the real-life impact of your research findings for coaches and/or practitioners (i.e. practical implications); discussion of the limitations and a critical reflection of the approach/process adopted; and indication of potential improvements and future developments building on the study; and a conclusion which summarises the relationship between the research question and the major findings. Presentation (10%) 1 This form should be used for both quantitative and qualitative dissertations. The descriptors associated with both quantitative and qualitative dissertations should be referred to by both students and markers. 2 There is scope within qualitative dissertations for the RESULTS and DISCUSSION sections to be presented as a combined section followed by an appropriate CONCLUSION. The mark distribution and criteria across these two sections should be aggregated in those circumstances. To include: academic writing style; depth, scope and accuracy of referencing in the text and final reference list; clarity in organisation, formatting and visual presentation CARDIFF METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY Prifysgol Fetropolitan Caerdydd CARDIFF SCHOOL OF SPORT DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF SCIENCE (HONOURS) SPORT AND PHYSICAL EDUCATION 2014-5 THE WICKETKEEPER’S ROLE IN TWENTY20 (T20) CRICKET: WICKETKEEPER OR BATSMAN? (Dissertation submitted under the PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS area) SAM BRACEY ST20018354 THE WICKETKEEPER’S ROLE IN TWENTY20 (T20) CRICKET: WICKETKEEPER OR BATSMAN? Cardiff Metropolitan University Prifysgol Fetropolitan Caerdydd Certificate of student By submitting this document, I certify that the whole of this work is the result of my individual effort, that all quotations from books and journals have been acknowledged, and that the word count given below is a true and accurate record of the words contained (omitting contents pages, acknowledgements, indices, tables, figures, plates, reference list and appendices). I further certify that the work was either deemed to not need ethical approval or was entirely within the ethical approval granted under the code entered below. Ethical approval code: 14/5/37U Word count: 9830 Name: Sam Bracey Date: 9th March 2015 Certificate of Dissertation Supervisor responsible I am satisfied that this work is the result of the student’s own effort and was either deemed to not need ethical approval (as indicated by 'exempt' above) or was entirely within the ethical approval granted under the code entered above. I have received dissertation verification information from this student Name: Date: Notes: The University owns the right to reprint all or part of this document. Table of Contents List of Tables List of Figures Acknowledgements i Abstract ii CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 - Rationale for Study 5 1.2 - Research Question 6 1.3 - Hypothesis 6 1.4 - Delimitations 6 1.5 - Limitations 7 1.6 - Glossary of Terms 7 CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW 10 2.1 - Performance Analysis Research Relating to Cricket 11 2.2 - Wicket Keeping 14 CHAPTER 3 - METHOD 18 3.1 - Research Design 19 3.2 - Equipment 21 3.3 - Participants/Sample 21 3.4 - System Development 22 3.5 - Operational Definitions 22 3.6 - Procedure 25 3.7 - Data Analysis 26 3.8 - Reliability 27 CHAPTER 4 - RESULTS 29 4.1 - Wicket-keeping perspective 31 4.2 - Batting perspective 34 CHAPTER 5 - DISCUSSION 38 5.1 - Wicket-keeping overview 39 5.2 - Batting overview 41 5.3 - Practical Implications 43 5.4 - Future Research Recommendations 45 CHAPTER 6 - CONCLUSION 47 REFERENCE LIST 50 APPENDICES Appendix A - Summary of tournament matches excluded from the current study Appendix B - Summary of tournament matches analysed during the current study Appendix C - The bespoke notational analysis system used during data collection Appendix D - Extra column (win/loss) added to the data collection spreadsheet prior to data analysis, to signify winning and losing events List of Tables Page Table 1. Glossary of essential terms relevant to this study 7 Table 2. Operational definitions outlined prior to data collection 23 Table 3. Kappa results from the reliability study 28 Table 4. Wicketkeeper up to the stumps vs wicketkeeper back from 32 the stumps (seam bowling only) Table 5. Dismissals completed, missed opportunities, and byes 33 conceded by wicketkeepers in winning teams compared to losing teams (spin and seam) Table 6. Raw batting statistics for the wicketkeeper from each team 34 Table 7. Wicketkeepers’ batting performances in winning teams 35 compared to losing teams Table 8. Comparison of batting performance - current study vs 42 Lemmer’s (2008; 2011b) studies List of Figures Page Figure 1. Flowchart illustrating the data collection process adopted to 26 fill in the notational analysis system Figure 2. Number of deliveries where wicketkeepers stood up to the 31 stumps in winning teams compared to losing teams (seam bowling only) Figure 3. The wicketkeepers’ batting positions in winning and losing 35 teams Figure 4. The individual batting scores for the wicketkeepers in 36 winning and losing teams Figure 5. The number of runs per partnership, in which 37 wicketkeepers contributed Acknowledgements I would like to thank Ray Ponting for his assistance and continued support throughout my final year at university. i Abstract The context of the study is the current interest in T20, the newest format of the game, often considered to be the future of cricket. With cricketing priorities changing in the last decade, wicketkeepers are currently required to score runs heavily, with selectors sometimes sacrificing wicket-keeping quality. Such a philosophy is debatable, especially since the role of the wicketkeeper is largely ignored in academic research. As a contribution to the debate, using a basic method, this study sought to provide a greater understanding of the wicketkeeper’s contribution to a winning team’s performance. Should a wicketkeeper’s batting or wicket keeping ability carry the most weight, when selecting a team for T20 cricket? Using notational analysis, the study compared the performance of wicketkeepers from winning and losing teams, in relation to both their batting and fielding contributions, during the 2014 T20 World Cup in Bangladesh. Particular attention was paid to a specialist skill of wicket keeping, standing up to the stumps. Mann Whitney U tests identified a few significant differences between winning and losing teams. From a wicket-keeping perspective, winning wicketkeepers stood up to the stumps (3.07 4.42 deliveries) significantly more (p = 0.023) than losing wicketkeepers (0.69 2.07 deliveries), during the powerplay overs. During the non-powerplay overs, standing back emerged as significantly better in relation to both ‘Dot Ball %’ (p = 0.015) and ‘Wicket %’ (p = 0.002). From a batting perspective, winning wicketkeepers contributed in significantly more (p = 0.005) partnerships of 50 plus runs (8), than losing wicketkeepers (1). Results from both winning and losing teams confirmed the perception that wicketkeepers are generally expected to bat in the top order in T20 cricket. The study did not conclusively identify whether batting or wicket keeping should be the priority for selection of the wicketkeeper in T20 cricket. As a result, future quantitative research is required, using a larger sample, and qualitative research relating to professional perceptions