General Cricket Discussion

[PokerAce]

Thanks for finding my post. You just proved that I didn't say anything about India not liking DRS because they wouldn't win.

Teams from other nations would face similar problems against spinners.

Are u thick or something. What do u mean u said, India wouldnt win. That is the whole essence of what u wrote.

U said Indian batsmen are more likely to get out lbw than before to spinners. Just how does a team's batsmen becoming more likely to getting out affect the chances. Favorably or Unfavorably?

Anyway you got the point, you are just trying to hide behind technicalities of well those were not the exact words and blah blah. The essence of what you wrote was Indian batsmen were likely to get out more and thus India would be less likely to win. And when I give u instances of when India won despite DRS you go, well thats not waht I said. lol

 

[PokerAce]

that's not what i'm saying: work on it to make it much better sure; but not ditch the thing while you tweak it because its already a positive to world cricket.

See this is where I don't agree.

We both agree that its at times "making injuries worse", and needs to be tweaked. Well why not take it away for like 6 months to a year (hardly a long period), and bring back an improved DRS, where the mistakes have been eradicated, and in the meantime, no injury is made worse that it would be.

The downside, okay some players will get a few bad ones from the Umpires. Yeah well they have for so long, why not for 6 more months.

Thus yeah there may be a few injuries, but no injury made worse than it would have been.

 

[IceAgeComing]

To carry on my analogy: you don't throw away airbags in cars just because they have a very very minor chance of going off by itself: what you gain by having airbags in your car heavily outweighs the danger of them going off by themselves. Although they really should have all the DRS items there and if they can't make a decision because of, say, the absence of hot spot then they should give the review back.

Anyway I'd rather watch Machan and Berrington bat than have yet another boring DRS debate

 

[Snowy]

More Mistakes less mistakes, the bottom line is = There Are Still Mistakes, and this time DRS is contributing to the mistakes.

I'll repeat, the NETT IMPACT is less mistakes. DRS is not contributing to mistakes overall. You can't neglect the correct decisions/reversals it makes. The overall contribution is positive, There are more correct decisions than mistakes.

Why do you want to abandon a system which is ultimately reducing errors?

There will never be a mistake-free system as long as human error is involved.

 

[bigred]

Are u thick or something. What do u mean u said, India wouldnt win. That is the whole essence of what u wrote.

U said Indian batsmen are more likely to get out lbw than before to spinners. Just how does a team's batsmen becoming more likely to getting out affect the chances. Favorably or Unfavorably?

Anyway you got the point, you are just trying to hide behind technicalities of well those were not the exact words and blah blah. The essence of what you wrote was Indian batsmen were likely to get out more and thus India would be less likely to win. And when I give u instances of when India won despite DRS you go, well thats not waht I said. lol

I'll repeat again just for clarification. Mr Manjrekar, on a tour just over 3 years ago, suggested that senior players were worried about the impact Graeme Swann would have if DRS were in use. That doesn't mean that I think India had less chance of winning. On the contrary. Perhaps Bell, Strauss etc had the same concerns but weren't asked for an opinion by their board. Who knows.

You can keep inferring all you want. But this is the third time I'm saying this now. Would you be so kind as to let me be the judge of the meaning behind my own words? Thanks

 

[PokerAce]

I will incorporate my response in your post itself.

I'll repeat, the NETT IMPACT is less still mistakes. DRS is not contributing to mistakes overall. (How can u say drs is not contributing to errors. For instance the Khwaja discussion, what do u call that, a great decision). You can't neglect the correct decisions/reversals it makes. (Who is ignoring them, I am pointing the ones it doesn't get right). The overall contribution is positive, There are more correct decisions than mistakes. (Again why are u so happy to live with DRS mistakes, as long as its get many right)

Why do you want to abandon a system which is ultimately reducing errors? (Abandoned Permanently - no, Sent back to the drawing board for Worked At To Reduce The errors its making - Yes)

There will never be a mistake-free system as long as human error is involved.(But with DRS where is the room for Human Error. Why are u happy with Umpires through their ingorance of what they are supposed to do, unnecessarily creating a grey, when DRS puts everything in Black and White. With DRS there is almost no room for Interpretation. The Haw-Eye tells u where the ball was going to stumps, or it wasn't. Sniko tells u whether there was an edge or not. This is all in black and white, so there should be no human error, and the system can be human error mistake free.)

 

[ethybubs]

why are u so happy to live with DRS mistakes, as long as its get many right

Perhaps because that is the point of DRS?

 

[MattW]

I will incorporate my response in your post itself.

Why do you think that it is preferable to have more umpiring mistakes as long as those umpiring mistakes are without the assistance of technology?

If you remove DRS - even to "Sent back to the drawing board for Worked At To Reduce The errors its making" - you are directly increasing the rate at which wrong decisions are made in cricket. When we have the technology it is unacceptable to deliberately increase the rate of mistakes by not using it.

I would assume you want to also remove umpires from the middle of the ground and return to them when they are 100% accurate? Send the concept of on-field umpires back to the drawing board to reduce the errors they are making.

 

[ethybubs]

We'll have to wait for @PokerAce to get his argument back from the drawing board when it's 100% sound.

 

[Snowy]

@MattW @ethybubs

Can either of you let me know if my point of view doesn't make sense? I literally don't understand how my points can be read in that way.

"Sniko tells u whether there was an edge or not" - even this point is wrong. Snicko can still yield very subjective evidence

 

[stefan]

Any reason why with the world cup being played in 2 countries there is only 1 game a day?? Surely there should be 2 games a day for the pool matches...

 

[Skater]

Any reason why with the world cup being played in 2 countries there is only 1 game a day?? Surely there should be 2 games a day for the pool matches...

That would halve the length of the tournament! The ICC wouldn't tolerate something as sensible as that.

 

[_Sam_]

That would halve the length of the tournament! The ICC wouldn't tolerate something as sensible as that.

Wouldn't quite, a lot of days still have 2 games.

 

[Ohm]

Cutest thing I have came across! ^_^

http://t.co/NBtdvz1z5h

 

[IceAgeComing]

That would halve the length of the tournament! The ICC wouldn't tolerate something as sensible as that.

The ICC are actually full of very good decision makers. I mean; who wouldn't both decrease the number of teams in the tournament while also making the competition longer?