General Cricket Discussion

[Ohm]

It was truly delightful to see our pace bowlers getting main wickets in the kick-off match of the tournament that really matters.

 

[Satan666]

I think you need to put down the BCCI kool-aid and stop drinking so much of it.

Your example is like saying that we should get rid of seat belts in cars, because they only save lives 98%* of the time, rather than 100% of the time.



* Disclaimer: I admit, I don't know this figure.

BCCI kool aid.

LOve it, thanks for being so brave to post this, someone neeeded to.[DOUBLEPOST=1424012301][/DOUBLEPOST]

It was truly delightful to see our pace bowlers getting main wickets in the kick-off match of the tournament that really matters.

Care to enlighten us as to which team is 'yours'.

 

[PokerAce]

I think you need to put down the BCCI kool-aid and stop drinking so much of it.

Your example is like saying that we should get rid of seat belts in cars, because they only save lives 98%* of the time, rather than 100% of the time.

* Disclaimer: I admit, I don't know this figure.

Haha you need to put down your I am too cool to actually look at facts and change my mind, attitude first. Or morons like who ever the third umpire was will keep giving out batsmen wrongly in the name of DRS, and then ppl like you will keep jumping to their defence on back of ****** made up stats.

Using your own stats, the analogy is nothing like get rid of seat belts cos 2% of the times they cannot save the guy.

Far from it, the argument you are making is that 98% of lives were saved, but lets, ignore the fact that in many of balance the 2% of the deaths are because of seat belts.

Umar Akmal was wrongly given out today, because of inconsistency in DRS interpretaion, and because ICC has never cared to actually uniformalise data interpretation of DRS and its footage. It is because of this carelessness that Akmal was given out wrongly.

So its not like DRS is like a seat belt which despite its best efforts was unable to save a guy and so needs to be ignored. Rather it was because of the said DRS (seat belt), and all the inherent consistencies it carries with it, that a batsman today was wrongly given out.

Since u r so fond of analogies, DRS is not a case of a seat belt doing its best but failing anyway to save the guy, rather it is like a seat belt that works 98% of the times, but in many of the other 2% of the times, it is the problems in the seat belts that are causing the injury.

If you want to ignore these 2% of the cases, then I really hope that u r not involved in the automobile safety business in anyway.

 

[Ohm]

Care to enlighten us as to which team is 'yours'.

I don't remember posting that sentence in this thread and I'm even surprised if I really did that here mistakenly. Well the point of your, it's India man and I sometimes support New Zealand too when they are not playing to India.

 

[MattW]

If you want to ignore these 2% of the cases, then I really hope that u r not involved in the automobile safety business in anyway.

You don't ignore them - you work on refining the technology while still implementing what we have because of the significant net benefit. If we didn't have the largest cricket board fighting against the technology that job would be easier.

The DRS results in an increase in correct decisions being made, significantly more than the small number of cases where a wrong decision is made despite it.

 

[PokerAce]

You don't ignore them - you work on refining the technology while still implementing what we have because of the significant net benefit. If we didn't have the largest cricket board fighting against the technology that job would be easier.

Actually the largest board has not been opposing DRS. Far from it, in fact it is the only one that has for years now been calling for the technology to be tested. No one seems interested though.

he DRS results in an increase in correct decisions being made, significantly more than the small number of[ many well documented cases where a wrong decision is made despite because of it.

Fixed a large portion of that sentence to tune it with the truth about DRS.

Also as I have said over and over again in previous posts, the "more correct decisions" are being made now, is a stat based off purely on the evidence of what DRS says ... which is weird, as it is the evidence of DRS itself that is in question.

That is to say, everytime DRS and the Umpire disagree, and an umpire decision reversed it is chalked up as - Yay one more extra correct decision.

For instance, the Akmal over turn today will be part of the "more correct decision" because of DRS stat, when it wasn't even a correct decision to begin with, let alone a more correct decision.

The whole point is every time DRS and Umpires disagree, DRS is automatically assumed to be correct. This is quite weird as the accuracy of DRS is itself in question.

Think of it this way, DRS is a school kid, who is thought to be the greatest and most intelligent kid ever, who is to be tested and compared to his teacher (the umpire). This Kid is asked, where is New York and he says, its in the Pacific Ocean, while the teacher (the Umpire) says no no, NY is in the USA.

Now if you take everything the student says to be correct, then he is going to be right, 100% of the times. He is going to be right even when he is wrong !!

If everytime the kid and his teacher differ on an answer, the kid is automatically assumed to be right, then and regardless of how many such questions the kid gets wrong, he is always going to be deemed to get more questions correct than his teacher,

Similarly everytime DRS differs from the Umpires, ppl go yay we are getting more correct decisions. However, this more correct decision is based on the mad assumption that everytime the DRS leads to a decision being overturned, the DRS is always right. As the Akmal decision showed today, and numerous well documented mistakes have shown in the past, not all over-rules post DRS review are necesserily correct, and yet they all go into the more correct decisions now, pool.

No one is actually looking into whether DRS got it right or wrong, but merely at how many times it leads to an over-rule, and all those over-rules are assumed to be correct, even when they are blatantly wrong over-rules.

What then is the point of the more accurate decisions now stat anyway. That figure is as flawed as the DRS reviews get at times.

 

[PokerAce]

Apologies, it was second most expensive 5 wicket haul (from BBC Cricket)

5-73: Gordon Goudie, Scotland v Australia, Edinburgh, 2009

5-71: Steven Finn, England v Australia, Melbourne, 2015

5-70: Jason Gillespie, Australia v Pakistan, Nairobi, 2002

Hey, sry had missed this post.

Actually the most expensive or second most expensive point is interesting.

You have quoted BBC Cricket, however Crininfo in its stats feature said this -

There have been 36 hat-tricks in ODIs including Finn's. His achievement, however, was tempered by the fact that he conceded 71 runs, which is the most conceded by a bowler in an innings with a hat-trick.

Thus as per cricinfo the Finn hat-trick is indeed the most expensive ever. Australia v England, World Cup 2015, Group A, MCG : Stats analysis: Finch and Marsh fly high, most expensive hat-trick | Cricket Features | ICC Cricket World Cup 2015 | ESPN Cricinfo

Also here is a list of all hat-tricks ever in ODIs - Records | One-Day Internationals | Bowling records | Hat-tricks | ESPN Cricinfo

Very interestingly there is no mention of Gordon Goudie's hat-trick in 2009 against Aus. It only mentions one hat-trick in 2009 and that was Flintoff vs WI. Weirdly enough the crininfo list doesn't mention Gillespie's 2002 hat-trick against Pak in Nairobi either.

I don't know which list is the correct one, but the two lists are seemingly so far apart, that the compilers of one of them, was clearly smoking something special.

 

[shravi]

so the espn online streaming only works in the us. anyone know what the canadian (legal) equivalent is?

ICC Cricket World Cup 2015

but this is just ridiculously priced compared to espn, or just anything else.

@Aalay

 

[MattW]

No one is actually looking into whether DRS got it right or wrong, but merely at how many times it leads to an over-rule, and all those over-rules are assumed to be correct, even when they are blatantly wrong over-rules.

You don't need to rely on the statistic, it's easily observable through watching the matches where it is implemented. There's significant scrutiny of every decision that gets made through the DRS, wrong decisions with it are uncommon enough that they warrant media coverage.

It would be great if there was someone researching every decision made and then using more data to verify each decision, or categorise the doubtful ones. I'm not aware of the methodology being used - they obviously shouldn't assume an overturned decision is the right one - just as those cases of umpires call giving the benefit of the doubt to the umpire can result in the wrong call.

Every single decision matters in a cricket match - any increase in those made possible by technology is a good thing. You would have to be able to demonstrate that more than half the time the DRS overturned a correct decision for a wrong one for there to be a reason to remove it.

 

[IceAgeComing]

so the espn online streaming only works in the us. anyone know what the canadian (legal) equivalent is?

ICC Cricket World Cup 2015

but this is just ridiculously priced compared to espn, or just anything else.

@Aalay[/QUOTE

jesus christ that's about £100 for 49 games of cricket

 

[themusketeer]

jesus christ that's about £100 for 49 games of cricket

Why online streaming is so costly in other Countries. We get it for 2$ for 49 games on Starsports.com.

 

[shravi]

jesus christ that's about £100 for 49 games of cricket

right!? it's insane! espn's is about $100, which is high, but still doable. canada's always a little bit more expensive, but this is not even affordable. the "package" for JUST the world cup final is $100. for a little bit more, i could probably have gotten a shitty seat at the actual final!

 

[thechudude1]

Any see the fight between fans of India and Pakistan where chairs were being thrown?

 

[themusketeer]

@MattW Can You tell me where to post "Offtopic" post as every thread is converted in World Cup thread ?

 

[PokerAce]

Every single decision matters in a cricket match

Exactly, including those that are messed up because the Umpires who are a vital part of the DRS, got it wrong or where the tech didn't work. Ultimately the tech can be as accurate as u want, but if eventually the person who has to act based on the tech data, is a chimp, the whole exercise is still rather pointless.

Also your argument that DRS blunders are okay, as long as at least more than half the DRS referrals are correct is frankly shocking. What is the point of having a system that aims to remove errors from Umpiring, when it itself is a cause for some of the most blatantly wrong decisions the game as ever seen !!

DRS itself leading to wrong decisions, just strikes at the very base of the idea of having a DRS in the first place. Ultimately where it is one wrng decision or two wrong decision or a lot of wrong decisions as the case actually has been, is irrelevant.

DRS is like a safety feature which is aimed at protecting the players from poor or wrong decisions, and if the safety feature itself starts leading to the very injury it is meant to protect against (in whatever no. of cases) then needless to say it needs to be looked at very very deeply.