↓ Skip to main content

Hand and Eye Dominance in Sport: Are Cricket Batters Taught to Bat Back-to-Front?

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
15 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
47 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
Title
Hand and Eye Dominance in Sport: Are Cricket Batters Taught to Bat Back-to-Front?
Published in
Sports Medicine, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s40279-016-0516-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

David L. Mann, Oliver R. Runswick, Peter M. Allen

Abstract

When first learning to bimanually use a tool to hit a target (e.g., when chopping wood or hitting a golf ball), most people assume a stance that is dictated by their dominant hand. By convention, this means that a 'right-handed' or 'left-handed' stance that places the dominant hand closer to the striking end of the tool is adopted in many sports. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the conventional stance used for bimanual hitting provides the best chance of developing expertise in that task. Our study included 43 professional (international/first-class) and 93 inexperienced (<5 years' experience) cricket batsmen. We determined their batting stance (plus hand and eye dominance) to compare the proportion of batters who adopted a reversed stance when batting (that is, the opposite stance to that expected based on their handedness). We found that cricket batsmen who adopted a reversed stance had a stunning advantage, with professional batsmen 7.1 times more likely to adopt a reversed stance than inexperienced batsmen, independent of whether they batted right or left handed or the position of their dominant eye. Findings imply that batsmen who adopt a conventional stance may inadvertently be batting 'back-to-front' and have a significant disadvantage in the game. Moreover, the results may generalize more widely, bringing into question the way in which other bimanual sporting actions are taught and performed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 47 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 15%
Student > Master 9 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 5 8%
Researcher 4 7%
Other 13 21%
Unknown 14 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 23 38%
Psychology 5 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 7%
Neuroscience 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 17 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 167. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 February 2023.
All research outputs
#246,586
of 25,628,260 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#229
of 2,890 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,420
of 315,977 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#7
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,628,260 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,890 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 57.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,977 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.