What the experts think : fast bowling expertise acquisition and talent development

For applied sport scientists charged with developing talented performers an essential requirement is to identify components contributing to the development and maintenance of expertise. Previous qualitative analysis has revealed several psychological (e.g., mental focus, goal-setting and selfevaluation), socio-cultural (e.g. community and family support, cultural influence), physical (e.g., strength, height) and environmental (e.g., access to facilities and climate) constraints on successful Olympian development (Abbott et al., 2005). Open-ended interviews with expert athletes and/or expert coaches have been used to reveal competencies of elite performers to derive factors associated with success (Durand-Bush et al., 2002). However, the influence of these factors is likely to be sport-specific due to different task constraints and the changing nature of the performer-environment relationship through practice, coaching and competing (Vaeyens et al., 2008). So far, only one study on expertise acquisition in cricket has been undertaken. Weissensteiner, et al. (2009) found that development of expertise in cricket batting in Australia may be facilitated by early unstructured play (i.e. ‘backyard cricket’), a wide range of sport experience during development, and early exposure to playing with seniors.

Quantifying variability within technique and performance in elite fast bowlers : is technical variability dysfunctional or functional?

In fast bowling, cricketers are expected to produce a range of delivery lines and lengths while maximising ball speed. From a coaching perspective, technique consistency has been typically associated with superior performance in these areas. However, although bowlers are required to bowl consistently, at the elite level they must also be able to vary line, length and speed to adapt to opposition batters’ strengths and weaknesses. The relationship between technique and performance variability (and consistency) has not been investigated in previous fast bowling research. Consequently, the aim of this study was to quantify both technique (bowling action and coordination) and performance variability in elite fast bowlers from Australian Junior and National Pace Squads. Technique variability was analysed to investigate whether it could be classified as functional or dysfunctional in relation to speed and accuracy.

Fast rates for estimation error and oracle inequalities for model section

We consider complexity penalization methods for model selection. These methods aim to choose a model to optimally trade off estimation and approximation errors by minimizing the sum of an empirical risk term and a complexity penalty. It is well known that if we use a bound on the maximal deviation between empirical and true risks as a complexity penalty, then the risk of our choice is no more than the approximation error plus twice the complexity penalty. There are many cases, however, where complexity penalties like this give loose upper bounds on the estimation error. In particular, if we choose a function from a suitably simple convex function class with a strictly convex loss function, then the estimation error (the difference between the risk of the empirical risk minimizer and the minimal risk in the class) approaches zero at a faster rate than the maximal deviation between empirical and true risks. In this paper, we address the question of whether it is possible to design a complexity penalized model selection method for these situations. We show that, provided the sequence of models is ordered by inclusion, in these cases we can use tight upper bounds on estimation error as a complexity penalty. Surprisingly, this is the case even in situations when the difference between the empirical risk and true risk (and indeed the error of any estimate of the approximation error) decreases much more slowly than the complexity penalty. We give an oracle inequality showing that the resulting model selection method chooses a function with risk no more than the approximation error plus a constant times the complexity penalty.