So you think Stuart Broad is rubbish at the DRS? Think again

Patterns in his celebrappeals show he is actually a fine judge of when a leg-before shout is out

Charles Reynolds15-Jun-2023It is testament to how good Stuart Broad has been with the ball throughout his career that he is still thought of primarily as a bowler. In reality he should be considered one of the greatest allrounders the game has ever seen.No, not in the gaudy sense of combining both bowling and batting skill — any Jacques, Dick or Garry can do that. Broad is at the apex of his sport in the twin disciplines of bowling and comedy.That last owes much to his reputation for being overzealous with DRS — an aspect this article wishes to address: the widely held belief that Broad is a liability when it comes to third-umpire referrals, his insatiable lust for wickets leading him to have absolutely no sense of judgement when involved in any sort of DRS situation.Yes, there may well be countless examples of his over-eagerness leading to highly questionable referrals — at this point there’s probably even a YouTube montage dedicated to them somewhere — but I have long maintained that, in fact, subconsciously, Broad is one of the finest instant judges of lbw in the game.The key to Broad’s DRS judgement is in his celebrappeal

My theory is that far from being the hapless, trigger-happy, review-eater of public perception, Broad, in fact, has a highly sophisticated, subliminal, inbuilt Hawk-Eye. Nighthawkeye, if you will.Fittingly, the key to unlocking this revolves around another key pillar of the church of Stuart Broad, the «celebrappeal». For the uninitiated, this is a term coined by Dave Tickner for the manner in which Broad usually appeals lbw or caught-behind decisions to the umpires: celebrating the wicket first and then only very belatedly turning round to appeal, if even bothering to do so at all.It has long been my theory that Broad’s subconscious DRS wizardry can be unleashed simply by analysing at which point during his celebrappeal he instinctively turns around to the umpire. The earlier he turns, the less out it is, the later he turns, the more out it is.How does this theory hold up in the face of data?The method: analysing every Broad lbw appeal since 2019
Thankfully in the modern age of cricket analysis, practically every ball bowled is filmed, tagged and logged in a database somewhere. So using video generously provided to me by an organisation that wishes to remain anonymous — the cricket establishment is clearly not quite ready yet to be seen supporting such controversial research — I looked at every Broad international lbw appeal from the start of 2019 up to, but not including, the recent Test against Ireland.The starting year of 2019 was chosen simply because it was the furthest point in the past from which deliveries were tagged in the database with «lbw appeal», but it nevertheless gave me a healthy sample of 83 deliveries to analyse.I took an imaginary top-down view of a cricket pitch and from popping crease to popping crease, divided it into ten equal horizontal segments, starting with No. 1 at the bottom, the non-striker’s end, going up to No. 10 at the top, the striker’s end, noting down at roughly what point in each appeal Broad turned around to the umpire, and correlating it with the result of the appeal.From this I was able to calculate the out percentage for each of the ten sections of the pitch — that is, the percentage of times a batter was actually out (from dismissals given on the field that were not overturned by DRS, and those given out after successful reviews). This would allow me to see whether there was, in fact, any correlation between the point at which Broad turned to appeal and whether the delivery was actually out.A disclaimer here: while cricket has made great strides in analytics in recent years, one area where it still lags behind other sports is player positional tracking — i.e. recording player movements for exact positioning data, much like Hawk-Eye does for the movement of the ball. (It is largely because of this lack that effective metrics for judging players’ fielding ability still don’t exist and too much subjective human input is required.)Sadly, that does mean that an element of subjectivity — in this case, the point I judged Broad to have turned around for each of these 83 deliveries — had to be inserted into this otherwise highly rigorous scientific study. However, I strove to maintain the highest levels of consistency throughout the result-recording process.Stuart Broad: lbw expert
A thorough analysis of the data revealed fairly overwhelmingly that Broad is, in fact, a highly sophisticated lbw-judging machine.Firstly if we look at the heat map of the points in his celebrappeals at which he turned round to appeal, we can see that, rather surprisingly, 43.4% of the time, he appeals before he gets to the halfway mark on the pitch — a little earlier than you might expect from the game’s premier celebrappealist — although there a still a solid amount of those late turnarounds that have established his standing in the field.Compare this however with the out-percentage heat map above and we can instantly see the huge correlation between the point at which Broad instinctively turns round to appeal and whether the batter is out or not. Quite definitively, as you can also see from the graph of the compiled data below, there is a clear link between the point at which Broad subconsciously decides to turn and appeal to the umpire and how unequivocally out the delivery actually is.