India's tour of Australia - December/January 2015

[PokerAce]

I don't think you can oppose DRS and then moan when bad decisions are made and you can't get any input on them... Doesn't make a difference about what has happened other times.

First of all no one is moaning about anything. Yeah there were bad decisions, BCCI chooses to live with them. There is no hypocrisy there. The hypocrisy is with moaners who chop and change their position from series to series. Last year in the Ahses the biggest joke on Earth on was DRS. Yet one yr later that is convenietly forgotten and the same ppl take pot shots at the BCCI, the only board that has maintained a constant position on the issue of DRS.

Fking hilarious.

 

[grkrama]

ICC news : Hawk-Eye admits technical error in Masood dismissal | Cricket News | Cricinfo ICC Site | ESPN Cricinfo

Im sure many boards are not even questioning it..

Why should any board accept a system that

1. technically imperfect
2.Not a standardized uniform system
3. way its implemented like a lucky draw is a joke...
4.due to these imbalances the natural flow of the game heavily
5.Costly

 

[_Sam_]

1) A one off incident. It does a lot more good than without it.
2) It is pretty much as standarized as it is and the only way for it to be more so would for it to be compulsory in all international games.
3) Its implemented in a way that if a side feel they've been hard done by they can review it. I don't see how that's a lucky draw?

5) Most major broadcasters already used all the technology previously so how would it make a difference?

 

[grkrama]

1.many one off incidents....but every incident is regarded as one off by drs supporters not to mention the unreported ones .
2.nope it varies in form and function and what parts are used varies between tournaments, nations, their pocket, not to talk of domestic level
3. its implemented in a way
a.)were the player who is not in the best position to judge is made a judge..
b.) the system is not here to rectify mistakes but for reality show entertainment.. so once you use 2 draws we dont care if we make mistakes after that which will dynamically change the flow of the game
c.) we wont let coaches of either side or third umpire who have access to live feed to appeal against against decisions before the batsman crosses the rope as it is too sensible right for our icc honchos.
5. licensing..boards have to pay for it separately.. broadcasters who are basically the paymaster of the cricket boards can obviously afford it.

 

[grkrama]

I have had one of the worst fevers I remember in the past three days, and I saw the India 4th innings chase in that dazed state. I feel terribly gutted naturally, but I cannot help question some of the shots that were played. I think this is it for Rohit, and in the next test either Raina comes in or a 5th bowler.

Saha was the one who disappointed me the most, wtf was he thinking ... 15 runs in the over and he threw his wicket away like it didn't matter. Shami again, wtf was that shot all about?

Dhawan may get another opportunity as he got a dodgy decision but he needs to capitalise. The trouble is in the absence of Bhuvi and Ashwin India have a tail just too long. So playing 5 bowlers is a risky option, as Australia only need to pick 5 wickets, and other 5 wickets kinda give themselves away.

Bhuvi in addition to being our best bowler adds that stubbornness down the order. Thus him being injured was a double blow.

Vijay, Dhawan, Pujara, Kohli, Rahane, Raina, MSD, Ashwin, Yadav, Aaron, Ishant.

Raina to be the fifth bowler. Also adds some depth to the batting.

was really disappointed with the way saha threw it...rohit has to come good when it matters as long as he cant do that i dont think he will fit the teams needs despite the talent. I really hope raina gets a look in.Probably they are taking kohli's call for aggression literally . wish you to get well soon bud.

 

[_Sam_]

1) Would it be possible for you to link to a few articles that show examples of mistakes?
2) I've not seen DRS used at any domestic level for starters. In most cases practically any wicket can be judged with the use of slow motion replays, the only one of which you'd argue not is LBW and I believe it's basically mandatory for hawk eye to be present.
3)
a) Along with the umpire the bowler is in practically the best position to judge and lbw. Then the wicketkeeper is probably in the best position to judge a caught behind. I don't really see what you mean here.
b) The limit is there otherwise you would get a review on every wicket which would make it aimless. It's there to correct mistakes not be a replacement.
c) Same reasoning as point B, it's there to correct mistakes not be a replacement. Are you really suggesting a wicket should be reviewed, the players should find out the result then decide whether they want to challenge the decision .
5) I doubt the boards pay much extra for the use of the technology as it's all used through the host broadcaster who already have the licenses.

 

[PokerAce]

wish you to get well soon bud.

Thx ... halfway thr ... just another good rest tonight should do it

 

[PokerAce]

1) Would it be possible for you to link to a few articles that show examples of mistakes?

Hawk Eye, that ball ain't bouncing 2.5 feet over the stumps. Don't fking care what Hawk Eye says.

Actually the frequency with which edges don't show up on Hot Spot, was the source of one of the greatest tweets I have ever read. It was by ScyldBerry, when something like, when Warner took his pot shot at Root in the bar, he should have asked for a review, knowing hot spot the blow wouldn't have shown

This one is a bit like a radio broadcast, don't know why they removed the footage, but you can clearly make out what is happening listening to it.

Same Dravid incident another vid.

This Root dismissal

I would honestly rather have a Dhawan ruled out caught wrongly than to have a Joe Root style farce.

Here is one from this article worldinsport.com/fixing-drs/ -

"an appeal was made for a catch against Dravid, at short leg, which Rod Tucker, turned down.
However the English side reviewed the decision, and despite their being no clear evidence of an edge on Hot Spot or otherwise, and without the use of snicko, Third Umpire Steve Davies, overturned the decision and ruled Dravid out, leaving everyone baffled."

www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-2523607/ASHES-2013-DRS-controversy-strikes-Joe-Root-given-out.html If you scroll down this article you will find some more instances of DRS howlers, listed.

This is not even to mention that former Eng skipper Strauss, and not just any random guy, has said that players don't trust hot spot. “Hot Spot just creates confusion. Sometimes it shows up, sometimes it doesn’t, so no-one really trusts it.” What is even the damn point of arguing about a system that a former player, that too one whose side was one of the champions of pushing for DRS, now says, the players no longer trust it, after all the cock ups it has made.

You really think that after all these examples BCCI is not even 1% justified in saying we are sorry but this whole DRS party you guys have got going kinda sux. Are these too many one-offs for you, or are you starting to see a pattern here.

 

[_Sam_]

Sorry I just don't agree personally. I think when you've got a system there that can benefit decisions in such a way with a huge minority of incorrect readings it should be used to the largest extent possible. That's my thoughts though.

To be fair on the bounce one he was pretty far down the track and having seen the side on view I thought it would be quite high on the stumps (on the bails) although that far over does seem a little surprising.

 

[PokerAce]

Sorry I just don't agree personally. I think when you've got a system there that can benefit decisions in such a way with a huge minority of incorrect readings it should be used to the largest extent possible. That's my thoughts though.

To be fair on the bounce one he was pretty far down the track and having seen the side on view I thought it would be quite high on the stumps (on the bails) although that far over does seem a little surprising.

See that point is that you are 100 % in favor of DRS, and so naturally its going to be hard to convince you on it. However can you say there isn't even a 1% justification in being skeptical about DRS, and not exactly being in a rush to use it. BCCI believe it or not was the first side to push for DRS, way back in 2007. However it came to the conclusion that its not good enough.

Also all these stats of more accurate after DRS, are frankly meaningless. The reason is that the accuracy of the DRS system is being checked against its own reading !! Every time DRS differs from the Umps, its always assumed to be right and the umps wrong. Apart from what DRS says, there is no third independant verification done of the reading.

Its like asking a student What is the Capital of India, and he says New York, and you go well done, right answer. If you judge this students accuracy only based off his answers alone, he is always going to be right 100% of the times. The same is being done with DRS.

 

[_Sam_]

You can however judge it against your own view. An example would be the bouncing one above of which you have judged to be incorrect, so by the same logic we can judge other decisions to be correct because they are what we expect .

 

[PokerAce]

You can however judge it against your own view. An example would be the bouncing one above of which you have judged to be incorrect, so by the same logic we can judge other decisions to be correct because they are what we expect .

Ah but are we really judging things on a case by case basis.

No. We are just presented figures likes 3% more accurate after DRS. Well okay but how many of those 3% are actually correct, and how many of the 3% just decisions where DRS and Umps dont see eye to eye.

 

[IceAgeComing]

I'd like to thank Cricket Australia for upping the stock of my avatar a bit

 

[Aalay]

I feel happy for him. I have followed his career since he showed up for the first time in Australian team. He has come a long way to achieve this. Good on him!

 

[Spickery]

Steve Smith was the smart choice as the next Australian Test captain. Brad Haddin would have only been a short term solution for the captaincy and Haddin is 37 years old so it would have been a waste of a opportunity to give some captaincy experience to a youngster and well established player in Smith.

Hopefully Smith leads Australia to victory against India in the second Test on Wednesday.