England vs India 1st test debate

by Guest Mon Jul 25, 2011 5:17 am

First topic message reminder :

Liam_Main wrote: England side:

1) Andrew Strauss (C)
2) Alistair Cook
3) Jonathan Trott
4) Kevin Pietersen
5) Ian Bell
6) Eoin Morgan
7) Matt Prior (WK)
8) Stuart Broad
9) Graeme Swann
10) Chris Tremlett
11) James Anderson

India side.

1) Abhinav Makund
2) Gautam Gambhir
3) Rahul Dravid (WK)
4) Sachin Tendulkar
5) VVS Laxman
6) Suresh Raina
7) MS Dhoni (C)
8) Harbhajan Singh
9) Zaheer Khan
10) Praveen Kumar
11) Ishant Sharma

Should be a terrific match and series!

My Prediction: England to win

Series Prediction: 1-1

C'mon England!

by robbo277 Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:07 am

msp83 wrote:Think that Sachin one was the first mistake of the match from the umpires.

Yeah, it was the first one, but one that would have definitely been reviewed and definitely been over-turned on review. That's the really upsetting thing.

by GSC Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:11 am

The ICC needs to draw a line. Either DRS is ok for all tests or none. How you can have a correct representative test rankings when 1 team plays by different rules is beyond me.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:15 am

Graeme Swann's Cat wrote:The ICC needs to draw a line. Either DRS is ok for all tests or none. How you can have a correct representative test rankings when 1 team plays by different rules is beyond me.

They have, and they said that hawkeye isnt part of it...which is why we have DRS but no hawkeye for this test.

by alfie Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:19 am

Anyway that one's gone - still have 60 plus overs to take 6 wickets - some of whom are not too keen on defending Tremlett - and a new ball due around tea.

This partnership really is the key...just have to keep pressing

by hodge Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:23 am

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
Graeme Swann's Cat wrote:The ICC needs to draw a line. Either DRS is ok for all tests or none. How you can have a correct representative test rankings when 1 team plays by different rules is beyond me.

They have, and they said that hawkeye isnt part of it...which is why we have DRS but no hawkeye for this test.

It should be all or nothing with tech for me, countries shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose which tech they want/don't want for matches, preferably ICC should enforce that all tech should be used for every game

by eirebilly Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:25 am

Afternoon lads, hows the cricket been today. Is there any chance of England winning or will India hold out.

by hodge Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:26 am

eirebilly wrote:Afternoon lads, hows the cricket been today. Is there any chance of England winning or will India hold out.

Tendulkar plumb lbw not given, definitly would have been given out on DRS

by robbo277 Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:31 am

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
robbo277 wrote:Hawkeye doesn't make decisions, it either over-turns them or doesn't have sufficient evidence to over-turn them.

If the impact is over 2.5m away, Hawkeye isn't seen as a more reliable judge than the umpire, so therefore can't over-turn his decision.

Yes but thats my point, thats ridiculous. If the technology cant be accurate at that disatnce how can an umpire be?

How is an umpire any better placed to guess the path of a ball from that distance when they cant even relaibly judge the point of impact yet alone consitently assess where the swing would take it?

If you are saying theres no accurate waty to judge if it would hit the stumps then there should be no method that allows a player to be given out at theat distance. Hawkeye could still be used to show if the ball picthed and impacted inline etc. The predcicted path part should then have a slideing cone whoich shows the element of doubt dependant on teh distance form the stupms and calculations on expected ball movement used to judge where the technology reaches a certain level of accuracy that is greater than the umpires. If the ball ids predeicted to hit or miss by a sufficent margin then the decision can be overturned. That way you will never get hawkeye overturning decisions it was less well able to judge than the umpire and everyone should be happy.

As we can see the rule that Tendulkar cant be given out lbw isnt right.

MSP it wasnt the first mistake, snicko showed that Broads review was correct, although I wouldnt call it a bad call since the touch was clealry marginal.

That's what hawkeye does, it just doesn't show you the cones.

There is an expected path, but there is some doubt and that's why there's "umpire's call". It's not black and white, out or not out. First you take into account the umpire's decision (which you assume right). You then look at the evidence, either hawkeye is sure enough to over-turn the decision, hawkeye shows that there is no reason to over-turn the decision or hawkeye says it is a marginal decision (impact over 2.5m away, possibly clipping the stump etc) and in which case the technology is no more accurate than the umpire. Not that hawkeye won't give you a decision, it will just let you know that there is an element of reasonable doubt, and you should stick with the on-field umpire.

by eirebilly Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:31 am

Oooh, thats two wins for India for not using the DRS. First Mogs now Tendulkar.....

by liverbnz Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:34 am

Raymond wrote:I'm guessing a plump lbw to Sachin was turned down.

Plump? That's a bit harsh on Sachin.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:41 am

robbo277 wrote:
Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
robbo277 wrote:Hawkeye doesn't make decisions, it either over-turns them or doesn't have sufficient evidence to over-turn them.

If the impact is over 2.5m away, Hawkeye isn't seen as a more reliable judge than the umpire, so therefore can't over-turn his decision.

Yes but thats my point, thats ridiculous. If the technology cant be accurate at that disatnce how can an umpire be?

How is an umpire any better placed to guess the path of a ball from that distance when they cant even relaibly judge the point of impact yet alone consitently assess where the swing would take it?

If you are saying theres no accurate waty to judge if it would hit the stumps then there should be no method that allows a player to be given out at theat distance. Hawkeye could still be used to show if the ball picthed and impacted inline etc. The predcicted path part should then have a slideing cone whoich shows the element of doubt dependant on teh distance form the stupms and calculations on expected ball movement used to judge where the technology reaches a certain level of accuracy that is greater than the umpires. If the ball ids predeicted to hit or miss by a sufficent margin then the decision can be overturned. That way you will never get hawkeye overturning decisions it was less well able to judge than the umpire and everyone should be happy.

As we can see the rule that Tendulkar cant be given out lbw isnt right.

MSP it wasnt the first mistake, snicko showed that Broads review was correct, although I wouldnt call it a bad call since the touch was clealry marginal.

That's what hawkeye does, it just doesn't show you the cones.

There is an expected path, but there is some doubt and that's why there's "umpire's call". It's not black and white, out or not out. First you take into account the umpire's decision (which you assume right). You then look at the evidence, either hawkeye is sure enough to over-turn the decision, hawkeye shows that there is no reason to over-turn the decision or hawkeye says it is a marginal decision (impact over 2.5m away, possibly clipping the stump etc) and in which case the technology is no more accurate than the umpire. Not that hawkeye won't give you a decision, it will just let you know that there is an element of reasonable doubt, and you should stick with the on-field umpire.

Yeah which is why I said it should use the cones system.....it could show those.

Its riduclous to say its OK for an umpire to make a decision when they are less reliable than the technology, but you wont use that because its not reliable enough. It is more reliable than the umpire. Its making the same decisions as the umpire but basing these on actual measurements and applying consitent calculations rather than guessing. The element of doubt can be measured objectivly, an umpire is guessing subjectibvbly ( and applying the tendulkar rule)
If it can be shown form the cone of doubt on the predicted path that the umpires decision was definatly wrong why not overturn it?
If the doubt is so great that even hawkeye cant be relied on when it suggests youre hitting middle stump then how can any lbw from that distance ever fairly be given by an umpire?
In this case we have a situation where a player is given out by an umpire in a position where we dont trust hawkeye to make the same decision, its silly.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:42 am

And while we are at it can we get some technology that helps Strauss catch gahhhhh

by Raymond Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:42 am

liverbnz wrote:
Raymond wrote:I'm guessing a plump lbw to Sachin was turned down.

Plump? That's a bit harsh on Sachin.

haha Plumb* although he is carrying extra padding these days as we speak get Strauss out of the slips and put Trott in.

by hodge Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:43 am

HELL YES!!!!

by **Pal Joey** Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:43 am

Oh no, another dropped catch.

But now SRT is plumb lbw to Jimmy.

by Raymond Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:44 am

YES!!! Come on England.

by eirebilly Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:45 am

That will do, Come on England.... wrap this up.

by Guest Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:45 am

by hodge Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:45 am

one more before the new ball and england should have it wrapped up Yahoo

by alfie Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:46 am

Was just posting something along the lines of "Strauss has just dropped the Test Match" ......And bingo !! Jimmy does him lbw Very Happy

by GSC Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:47 am

1 more this session and England should win.

by liverbnz Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:48 am

Hats off to Anderson. He has really matured into a world class bowler. After bowling poorly first time around, he comes back in the 2nd innings to burst through the India top order.

by Cowshot Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:48 am

Absolutely glued to this! Smile

by hodge Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:49 am

benefit to batter i would say

by **Pal Joey** Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:51 am

lucky... didn't look like any part was behind the line... but benefit of the doubt.

by hodge Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:52 am

the view from the leg side i though he had a few toes behind the line, i know if i were a batter and given out with that, seing those pics i wouldnt be happy as benefit should go to batter in any doubt

by dyrewolfe Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:53 am

Well, that was confusing!

Text commentary said Strauss dropped him, then says Tendulkar was out LBW... Erm

Either, he's gone and with that India's hopes of saving the match become a lot fainter. Lucky the earlier "not out" decision didn't prove to be costly.

@Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler:

I'm guessing preferences for other systems besides Hawkeye stem from the old adage that there's no substitute for the good old Mark 1 eyeball and human brain.

Computer models can be very good, but in some situations (sports being one of them), you there is nothing like an experienced person to judge the flight and curve of a ball. I've noticed that 7 or 8 times out of 10 Hawkeye backs up the umpire's decision (in matches where its used).

Its a similar thing in Formula 1. All teams use CFD and other modelling packages to help design their cars, but the greatest performance gains are usually found with (relatively) old-fashioned wind tunnel testing.

by alfie Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:53 am

Surely if England can get the skip quickly they will win this? I know Harbhajan can bat but don't think dogged defence is his thing...

(Andrew Strauss must be the most relieved man in England at the moment Smile

by msp83 Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:54 am

Tendulkar had it coming all the time, after Gambhir got out, he just wasn't playng his natural game. Can Dhoni repeat 2007?

by **Pal Joey** Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:54 am

Do you have x-ray vision hodge? Wink

it was darn close... I could see the shadow of the 'toes' but the umpire was correct.

by Stellar Key Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:54 am

Third time lucky to remove tendulkar . Well bowled Jimmy. Yet another bad miss and dropped catch from strauss. Nowhere near the standard for test match fielding. Yikes

by dyrewolfe Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:56 am

Ah, text commentary cleared up. Strauss dropped Sachin but 2 balls later Anderson had him LBW.

Anderson is winning England this match here!

...and now it looks like Raina has gone too! Prior reckons he's stumped him but India are reviewing...

by Day V Lately Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:56 am

Anyone else feel weve overbowled Swann a little in this innings?

by hodge Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:58 am

Linebreaker wrote:Do you have x-ray vision hodge? it was darn close... I could see the shadow of the 'toes' but the umpire was correct.

Just didn't think there was enough to say 100% he was out of his crease, therefore you can't give him tbh, if it were an english batter most people here would be saying it wasnt out

by BATH_BTGOG Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:59 am

I have a bad feeling these two could stay here for some time. Crying or Very sad

by hodge Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:59 am

Day V Lately wrote:Anyone else feel weve overbowled Swann a little in this innings?

Well considering Broad, Tremlett and Anderson have all been off the pitch at some point (all 3 at one time) we haven't had much of an option

by robbo277 Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:00 am

Through my English eyes I'd say he should have been out. But I think that it was 50/50 at best and should stay with the batsman (as KP "caught" at slip did in the first innings).

by Day V Lately Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:01 am

hodge wrote:
Day V Lately wrote:Anyone else feel weve overbowled Swann a little in this innings?

Well considering Broad, Tremlett and Anderson have all been off the pitch at some point (all 3 at one time) we haven't had much of an option

The perils of a 4 man attack I suppose

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:04 am

Would you trust Dickie Bird to stand in a wind tunnel and judge how the air is moving over your car?

Personaly I trust the technology with consitent measurements above adagaes. And agin if I cant trust that mathamatical model to give a fair and consistent decision how can I trust an umpire to given theres dispute even when we are watching slo mo replays.

The umpires are very good and more often that not shown to be correct on review, but theres some calls they arent well placed to make. DRS should take out some of the bad feeling between players and umpires, at least there is a nuetral arbiter (and by that I mean one who judges dispasionatly in all circumstances not that umpiers are deliberatly biased)

by msp83 Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:04 am

Certainly Anderson is a class act, but in this innings, it has been his luck rather than the class that stood out. The Tendulkar one was a pretty good ball, but both Dravid and VVS played loose shots, and the pressure wasn't Jimmy's making. But said that, you have to earn your luck, and Anderson has surely done that. Tremlett's case makes more clear, he bowled much better than Jimmy, but has nothing to show for all his efforts. On another day, he could have bowled not this good and get 2 or 3 wickets.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:05 am

Day V Lately wrote:
hodge wrote:
Day V Lately wrote:Anyone else feel weve overbowled Swann a little in this innings?

Well considering Broad, Tremlett and Anderson have all been off the pitch at some point (all 3 at one time) we haven't had much of an option

The perils of a 4 man attack I suppose

Peril of a 5 man attack being that we could easily have been all out for 200 and staring down the barrel of an Indian win

by Cowshot Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:05 am

I don't think we've overbowled Swann anyway. He's locked down an end beautifully on a not particularly helpful pitch.

by **Pal Joey** Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:05 am

Fine mate. Never said he was out...just that no part was behind the line.

Day V Lately - no, 19 overs isn't overbowled. He is a strike bowler and is an important weapon. Bowling beautifully...he'll get some more wickets the way he's relishing the contest.

by msp83 Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:09 am

Dhoni and Raina shouldn't repeat Sachin's mistake, if there is a scoring opportunity, make use of that. eventually theree will be a ball with your number on it, but if you play positive, at least the runs will come and there will be a bit less of pressure on players who are good stroke makers otherwise. there is scorebord pressure already there is no need for adding on to that. .

by Day V Lately Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:11 am

He has bowled well, and the new balls coming, still seam getting the wickets, perhaps with Swann adding the pressure mind. No real problem with him being on at this 70+ over point, but earlier felt he was on a little bit much.

I wouldnt have 5 bowlers given our squad options by the way, but do always worry about an injury with 4 men.

by **Pal Joey** Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:11 am

I think they're simply being well tied down msp... if they could open up they would.

by alfie Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:12 am

Swann is doing his job in this situation...apart from trying for wickets he keeps the over rate going , get that new ball earlier and have the fast bowlers fresher to take it. Sound tactics in my book.

...and now Trott before the new ball. I'd rather KP myself Smile

by Stellar Key Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:15 am

I wouldn't mind seeing kp nuts have an over or two before tea on the off chance he could get one of this pair out.

by **Pal Joey** Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:18 am

50 overs to go... I have a feeling it's going to be another late night for us alfie. Smile

Good to see KP turning his arm now. (good Bhaji impersonator too...wiping the floor like that... ha ha)

by alfie Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:21 am

Yeah - Strauss must be listening to me , Linebreaker Smile

Late night it will be but at least I won't get tired out from cycling any more...

by Sponsored content