General Cricket Discussion

[zwarrior]

Harsha Bhogle is an amazing commentator who might not have played for India but has good knowledge on what he talks about. If people are saying he hasn't played cricket, so he shouldn't be commentating, I don't agree with that.

Many people review films in news channel/ news paper, have they done any movies ?
Sanjay Bangar is batting coach for us, how good was he with bat when he was playing ?

If you have enough knowledge about something, it's fine. He is one of the best out there who does his job exceptionally well.

 

[Yash.]

Too good, well done although not really sure - YT might take it down due to copyright.

I know that. Just trying my chances.

 

[VC the slogger]

Lol

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/1126937/scorecard/1126898/Kerala-Women-vs-Nagaland-Women-/

 

[Master Khan]

Glenn Maxwell Scored 278 in the Sheffield Shield match in Sydney

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/21547050/jon-holland,-chris-tremain-pin-nsw-maxwell-278

I always thought they should have picked him for the Ashes.
He would have been useful down the order.

 

[Markkkkk]

Shouldn’t have been dropped but can’t be recalled now

 

[Velocity]

Anybody know when Andre Russell comes back to play international cricket and T20leagues? I know his ban is 1 year, but anybody know when it ends?

 

[CerealKiller]

Anybody know when Andre Russell comes back to play international cricket and T20leagues? I know his ban is 1 year, but anybody know when it ends?

Just before the PSL.

 

[asprin]

A little debate up for grabs.

This is what espncricinfo commentary said of over 3.1 of England's 2nd Innings of the 2nd Ashes Test 2017

Hawk-Eye says it was detonating leg full on, not even umpire's call. If they had reviewed, Gaffaney's decision would have been overturned and Cook would be out!

Now, should this considered as a wrong decision on part of the umpire?

1. If yes, does it make sense for the 3rd umpire to step in and reverse the decision? After all, the technology says the ball would have hit the stump 100%. There was no doubt there at all.
2. If no, does that mean the technology hasn't reached that level where it can be trusted yet? And if that is the case, what's the use of having DRS?

 

[WubbaLubbaDubDub]

1. Yes it was a wrong decision by the umpire
2. No it does not as third umpire can only reverse if he/she has been called
3. If the review was taken this would have been given out so technology basically did not fail, Smith most of the time has brain fade moments. When he should be looking at the dressing room he does not So if Smith would have taken it Cook would have been out. So no technology has not failed, Smith failed

 

[asprin]

Yes it was a wrong decision by the umpire

So does it seem fair that the fielding side pays for that? Ok, forgot the third umpire. How about having a system in place where such a decision (mind you, I'm saying in cases where we know 100% that a wrong decision was made) can be reversed. What if Cook goes onto score a match winning 150?

No it does not as third umpire can only reverse if he/she has been called

Fair enough. But you do see the third umpire step in in cases where a batsman is told to stay put while the umpire checks for a no-ball validity. If can come into picture in such cases, why not here?

So no technology has not failed, Smith failed

While that is true, the point here is that a wrong decision was given and nothing was done to correct it. Why can't be it corrected? What's stopping it from making it a fair fight?

 

[WubbaLubbaDubDub]

DRS was introduced and is used to reverse these blunders. If Cook goes on to score 150 or if England go on to win the match its Smiths fault as he has the liberty and luxury to actually take DRS who sole purpose is to change umpiring blunders. So from my perspective, if umpire did not give it out, Smith did not take DRS and cook was out, its on Smith.

 

[Markkkkk]

For me DRS is to overturn absolute howlers and this obviously was not so there was nothing wrong with what happened, Aus decided not to review and agreed with the umpires decision

 

[asprin]

If Cook goes on to score 150 or if England go on to win the match its Smiths fault as he has the liberty and luxury to actually take DRS who sole purpose is to change umpiring blunders

Even if that means Cook survived because of an err in judgement by the umpire? And I'm sure Smith would have reviewed it had there not been a cap on the number of times DRS can be availed.

For me DRS is to overturn absolute howlers and this obviously was not so there was nothing wrong with what happened, Aus decided not to review and agreed with the umpires decision

Yes, it was not a howler by any means. But it also was not the correct decision (I'm just going by the content of the text and not following the match live, so there is a chance that the content might just be an exaggerating)


Let's put aside DRS for a while. The point I'm trying to make here is why can't a decision be overturned/reversed if we know that it is wrong?

 

[WubbaLubbaDubDub]

What has gotten into Bailey? He was though scored well his batting stance is just weird.

 

[Yash.]

On a side note. Why was Bailey sacked from captaincy? I thought he did a pretty wonderful job considering he built the side that win the 2015 World Cup. Plus, why was he dropped anyway? He batted beautifully, especially against India in the 2016 ODI Series. Then, I didnt see him anywhere.