This will help convince India that DRS is all good...



  •  
    Stink! 🙂





  • Like this comment:
     
    What would have happened if De Villiers appealed the umpires decision? The umpire sends it upstairs and the TMO overrules the umpire because Hawkeye says the ball is missing the stumps. De Villiers stays in - despite his stumps lying on the ground.
     
    Can you review a clean bowled? Batsmen might start if it is only clipping the top of the stumps... 🙂
    What would have happened if De Villiers appealed the umpires decision? The umpire sends it upstairs and the TMO overrules the umpire because Hawkeye says the ball is missing the stumps. De Villiers stays in - despite his stumps lying on the ground.
    What would have happened if De Villiers appealed the umpires decision? The umpire sends it upstairs and the TMO overrules the umpire because Hawkeye says the ball is missing the stumps. De Villiers stays in - despite his stumps lying on the ground.



  • I've always had the entrenched view that Hawkeye is bullshit, and should be rissoled. I like the DRS system, but i think it should have been kept to ironing out the howlers, ie did he hit it/not hit it, not the Shane Watson "i reckon that might be missing by half an inch, let's see if i get lucky".



  • I've always had the entrenched view that Hawkeye is bullshit, and should be rissoled. I like the DRS system, but i think it should have been kept to ironing out the howlers, ie did he hit it/not hit it, not the Shane Watson "i reckon that might be missing by half an inch, let's see if i get lucky".

    You set me up for it so without further adieu, Jaime Lannisters finest cricketing moments............
     
    [media]



  • I've always had the entrenched view that Hawkeye is bullshit, and should be rissoled. I like the DRS system, but i think it should have been kept to ironing out the howlers, ie did he hit it/not hit it, not the Shane Watson "i reckon that might be missing by half an inch, let's see if i get lucky".

    Can you imagine if he and McCullum had seen this while they were still playing.



  • Re: the Watson vid above
     
    What an incredible lack of self awareness!!!
     
    or is it an incredible overestimation of self importance?



  • Re: the Watson vid above
     
    What an incredible lack of self awareness!!!
     
    or is it an incredible overestimation of self importance?

    All of the above and more.
     
    I think the fact that he batted, bowled and looked about as "Aussie" as anyone possibly could fooled people into thinking he was Sobers, Imran, Beefy and Kallis all rolled into one.
     
    He wasn't quite a "bad" player but by fuck he was ordinary compared to his reputation which judging from the vid he brought into.....
     
    Regarding technology the officials need as much help as they can possibly get in my opinion and if the it is there it needs to be used. Nothing fucks me off more in cricket ( or any sport ) than bad decisions. I'm looking at the Voges/Bracewell fiasco earlier this year.



  • http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/story/988643.html
     
    That said, most of Watson's infuriating moments and failings came about in the Test match sphere. It would be harsh to label him anything but a great of the limited-overs forms, and realistic to say that he is the best all-round cricketer Australia has ever fielded in gold, green or T20 black. His career short-form figures would be outstanding enough as a batsman or seam bowler, but together, they stand out more than his front pad on a Test match afternoon.
     
    Of the ten batsmen who sit ahead of him on Australia's ODI run-making list, only Adam Gilchrist scored more quickly, and only four have more centuries. He also sits eighth on the ODI wickets tally. Only Steve Waugh (fifth and sixth in Australia's batting and bowling charts respectively) stands any comparison to this, at inferior averages. As a T20 player, the sample is far smaller, but Watson still sits at second and first as a batsman and bowler respectively. Even in the current World T20, he has opened both batting and bowling.
     
    Watson was not without his faults in the limited-overs arena, for it is not as if his Test match shortcomings suddenly disappeared. He could be ponderous between the wickets, get bogged down after a flying start, or be slow to move in the field, once finding himself caught between the stumps and a venomous Michael Clarke shy. But the limited-overs formula restricted chances for bowlers to arrow in at his problem areas, while also simplifying the task in Watson's mind. Pointedly, he possessed an enormously better record batting second than first.
     
    Invariably, Watson is compared to Jacques Kallis, and inevitably falls short. Yet, in ODIs, there is a justifiable argument for preferring Watson, whose runs arrived at an average of 40.54 but a strike rate of 90.44, as opposed to Kallis's 44.36 and a plodding 72.89. As bowlers, there is no splitting them: 168 at 31.79 and a strike rate of 38.4 versus 273 at an identical average and 0.9 extra balls per wicket. This is all without mentioning the World Cup ledger: Watson two, Kallis nil. In T20 matches, Kallis never really established himself as an international concern.



  • http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/story/988643.html
     
    That said, most of Watson's infuriating moments and failings came about in the Test match sphere. It would be harsh to label him anything but a great of the limited-overs forms, and realistic to say that he is the best all-round cricketer Australia has ever fielded in gold, green or T20 black. His career short-form figures would be outstanding enough as a batsman or seam bowler, but together, they stand out more than his front pad on a Test match afternoon.
     
    Of the ten batsmen who sit ahead of him on Australia's ODI run-making list, only Adam Gilchrist scored more quickly, and only four have more centuries. He also sits eighth on the ODI wickets tally. Only Steve Waugh (fifth and sixth in Australia's batting and bowling charts respectively) stands any comparison to this, at inferior averages. As a T20 player, the sample is far smaller, but Watson still sits at second and first as a batsman and bowler respectively. Even in the current World T20, he has opened both batting and bowling.
     
    Watson was not without his faults in the limited-overs arena, for it is not as if his Test match shortcomings suddenly disappeared. He could be ponderous between the wickets, get bogged down after a flying start, or be slow to move in the field, once finding himself caught between the stumps and a venomous Michael Clarke shy. But the limited-overs formula restricted chances for bowlers to arrow in at his problem areas, while also simplifying the task in Watson's mind. Pointedly, he possessed an enormously better record batting second than first.
     
    Invariably, Watson is compared to Jacques Kallis, and inevitably falls short. Yet, in ODIs, there is a justifiable argument for preferring Watson, whose runs arrived at an average of 40.54 but a strike rate of 90.44, as opposed to Kallis's 44.36 and a plodding 72.89. As bowlers, there is no splitting them: 168 at 31.79 and a strike rate of 38.4 versus 273 at an identical average and 0.9 extra balls per wicket. This is all without mentioning the World Cup ledger: Watson two, Kallis nil. In T20 matches, Kallis never really established himself as an international concern.

    That is a good analysis but I'd churlishly say that much of his impressive feats with the bat come about simply because he is playing in a brilliant era for batsmen. No way you're gonna convince me he's up there with Glchrest, M Waugh, Ponting, Clarke etc.
     
    As for being the best in all three formats quite possibly but for whatever reason many Aussies don't tend to bother with the shits and giggle format, Warner and Starc obvious exceptions.



  • While Watson has a justifiable rep as a serial offender re unjustified reviews at least 3 of those were worth going upstairs for - umpires call DRS the umps never going to change his mind.
     
    I reckon he falls over so much at the crease he has no idea where his stumps are.
     
    The look of 'fucking hell sawn off again" every time is priceless though



  • Must have missed all the posters so incredibly vocal in their bitching about India not liking DRS saying "well, they had a point". Has that happened on a seperate thread?



  • That's because one technical glitch doesn't prove shit. No doubt the Indians will love pointing at this but the technology is well proven not just in Cricket but Tennis as well.



  • That's because one technical glitch doesn't prove shit. No doubt the Indians will love pointing at this but the technology is well proven not just in Cricket but Tennis as well.

    I don't think they ever said it was shit. They said it wasn't as good as it was reported. And thery were right.
     
    The new laws are being amended so that the umpires call no longer applies to 50% of the ball hitting, its now 25%. But only for lateral movement as they have serious issues re height (as this highlighted). The lawmakers knew this & still just waved it through. Hawkeye has always been pretty ropey picking height.



  • TBH I don't know exactly what their reasons for not adopting DRS are. If it was concerns around Hawke Eye, then they could easily just adopt Hot Spot. That's a fuck load better then nothing.
    Everybody already knew Hawke Eye is not 100% accurate and, being technology, is open to glitches, but it is mostly accurate. The "umpires call" is there for a reason, we don't have 100% confidence in it. Between Hawke Eye and the umpire we get less bad decisions impacting matches. 20 years ago shit decisions were very much a part of the game. Nowadays one bad decision gets talked about for months as there's fuck all of them.
    In summary: DRS > No DRS. The Indians can go fuck themselves for thinking they are above the game and can refuse to comply with the rest of the cricketing world. Well they don't "think" they are above the game, they know it, as the ICC is weak as piss when it comes to dealing with the BCCI.
    Can you imagine the All Blacks refusing to use the TMO?



  • Eat a dick gollum I've been consistent on my views from the start



  • Can you imagine the All Blacks refusing to use the TMO?

    How is that the same? A rugby equivilant would be a predictive laser thing that tracked a ball in flight & told you exactly where it went out. Or computer tracking for forward passes.

    Eat a dick gollum I've been consistent wrong on my views from the start

    Fixed!



  • Wanker! Haha