'Software' is not what springs to mind when we ask ourselves what is the biggest advantage modern cricketers have over the ancients.

Which is strange -- because technology has, in fact, become a crucial tool for today's players; one that helps them study, analyze, refine, recalibrate...

The Indian team's tech backend -- thanks to the players and coach, who pushed and pushed until the BCCI gave them what they wanted -- is now as good as any in the world. (Interestingly, some three years back, when I brought up the subject with then board secretary J Y Lele, he snorted: 'What is this technology stuff you people keep talking about? Arre, this is cricket, take the bat and go out and play, computer se kya karoge?')

Today, every ball bowled is meticulously entered, in pitiless detail -- the length, the line, what the ball did after pitching, how the batsman coped (degrees of ease or difficulty)...

At the end of the day, a bowler, say, can go to the team's tech guy and say, hey, I got hammered in that afternoon spell, can you show me those balls and where I bowled them?

Instantly, he gets replays -- of his deliveries, of what the batsmen did to them. If he wants, he can compare them with an earlier, or later, spell wherein he got it right.

To get a feel for how useful such analysis is, check this out. In the game thus far, the two lead seamers have been Shane Bond and Zaheer Khan.

Try going to the Wagon Wheel.

In the New Zealand innings, select (from the options on the right panel) the display of Zaheer Khan, against all batsmen.

Take a look at that picture, then go to the Indian innings and similarly select Shane Bond against all batsmen.

In many ways, their performance is identical -- Khan 3/42 in 18, Bond 3/66 in 18.4 overs.

Now see where each gave away their runs. Bond went for 20 in the third-man region, 12 to fine leg, 5 to square leg, and 1 to point, to cite three relevant regions.

Khan went 9 to third man, 8 to point, 5 to fine leg, 9 to square leg.

A couple of things are immediately obvious -- both focused largely on the off corridor; but of the two, it was Bond who was consistently closer to the stumps, while Zaheer tended now and again to go a touch wide -- as evident from the fact that against Zaheer, the opposing batsmen managed to play square through point, arguing width on offer.

Again, look at the region in front of the wicket. Bond gave 10 runs through the covers and 11 through midwicket, while Zaheer gave 5 through cover and 3 through midwicket. Obviously, Bond bowled the fuller length, which meant the batsman could play in front of the wicket more often than they could against Zaheer.

Now combine the two -- full length, and close to the stumps line -- and it is evident that Bond was looking to get batsmen on to the front foot driving, in the hope of finding the edge, while Zaheer was looking to push them back, to bring his best weapon, the ball slanting across the right hander then jagging back in, into play.

Check out how each bowler bowled against lefthanders. Or righthanders. Or try some other bowler versus all batsmen, or one particular batsman versus all bowlers.

It's amazing how much more you "see" when you have a little help from technology.

Check Harbhajan Singh against all batsmen, for instance -- the majority of the runs is through the square leg-fine leg arc. Which means batsmen have been letting the ball come in, then playing off the pad. Does it argue a case for the captain putting a leg slip in place to inhibit that shot?

In passing -- the best bowler on view these last two days has, in fact, been Daryl Tuffey (16-7-25-2). To know why, check out his performance against all Indian batsmen: 13 runs to third man, 5 to square leg, 5 to fine leg. No batsman could force him square, drive him in front, or flick him through midwicket -- check out the enormous acreage on the wagon wheel where Tuffey was not scored off.

That's a brilliant display of sustained discipline and focused line, right there.

Comments: Day 1 | Day 2