ICC Test championship

by Guest Tue 15 Nov 2011, 11:04 am

First topic message reminder :

The ICC test championship has been put back to 2017 with the BCCI against the idea, whereas the other nations have voted in faovur of it.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/current/story/540505.html

by rich1uk Sat 19 Nov 2011, 9:44 am

anu_d wrote:
rich1uk wrote:i repeat

all that they have proved is that DRS is not 100% accurate

it was never intended to be 100% accurate

baaaaaaaaaaaaaaa baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

stop acting like a BCCI puppet

by anu_d Sat 19 Nov 2011, 10:00 am

rich1uk wrote:
anu_d wrote:
rich1uk wrote:i repeat

all that they have proved is that DRS is not 100% accurate

it was never intended to be 100% accurate

baaaaaaaaaaaaaaa baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

stop acting like a BCCI puppet

OK...thx for confirming you have lost the rational part of the debate.

and resporting to the blanket "BCCI-is-Bad-and-it-is-shameful-to-agree-with-them-on-anything"

Sorry if you discount the tones and overt manerisms of BCCI...and look at the issues they raise....they are quite solid.
that is why they WIN everytime...espcially against the imperialistic toned dictates

by rich1uk Sat 19 Nov 2011, 10:03 am

this argument ceased to be rational when you suggested that if DRS had been applied properly then india might have got a 2-1 result out of the test series this summer

i wondered how long it would take you to throw in the old "empire" card

you never disappoint anu

by skyeman Sat 19 Nov 2011, 10:07 am

anu_d wrote:
rich1uk wrote:i repeat

all that they have proved is that DRS is not 100% accurate

it was never intended to be 100% accurate

I doesn't matter what you think BCCI proved or didn't

there was no FORMAL statement from ICC refuting the technical presentttaion from BCCI to the various Boards....
the only FORMAL outcome was ICC accepting BCCIs proposal and dumped DRS / technology as a mandory thingy.

Anu, is it not obvious why there was no statement from the ICC?. You have just been told many times.
The same with DRS being mandatory, the ICC originally saying that both sides had to agree to its use. Of every match that i have seen (with India not playing) the players, commentators and fans want the full DRS to be used, saying it definitely improves decision making.
Why can the BCCI, who want a 100% foolproof system not be prepared to accept DRS's limitations when it clearly improves the maority of decisions. It is like a lot of your statements and reasoning - Nonsensical.

by anu_d Sat 19 Nov 2011, 10:12 am

@skyeman

Anu, is it not obvious why there was no statement from the ICC?. You have just been told many times.

don't tell me what you think ICC should have said or would have said....quote them please...REFUTING BCCI's claim...and not a mere admissional quote from ICC that it's upt to the countires to decide

- Nonsensical.

that is what you will sound if you don;t find the appropriate quote from ICC Very Happy

by skyeman Sat 19 Nov 2011, 10:18 am

anu_d wrote:@skyeman

Anu, is it not obvious why there was no statement from the ICC?. You have just been told many times.

don't tell me what you think ICC should have said or would have said....quote them please...REFUTING BCCI's claim...and not a mere admissional quote from ICC that it's upt to the countires to decide

- Nonsensical.

that is what you will sound if you don;t find the appropriate quote from ICC

Anu, again you are missing the point. The ICC can not disagree with the BCCI over saying that DRS is not 100% accurate (every one Knows that). But every other Test playing country would still prefer to use it.

by anu_d Sat 19 Nov 2011, 10:23 am

Anu, again you are missing the point. The ICC can not disagree with the BCCI over saying that DRS is not 100% accurate (every one Knows that). But every other Test playing country would still prefer to use it..

skyeman,

that in underlined was not the only case put forward by BCCI with supported evidence presented to various boards in an ICC conference in Oct.

More specifcially:

1) BCCI said DRS is not accurate
2) BCCI also showed that it was highly inaccurate ( whihc goes much beyond saying merely inaccurate)...more than 50% or thereabout using Eng series decisions as a case study
3) BCCI also showed that the 3rd umpires were discretionary / inconsistent in their interpretation of technology availbale.
ICC may have agreed and all would agree to item 1)

However ICC's silence on items 2) and 3) is damaging to the future cause of DRS and to their own cerdibility as a governor of the game.

by rich1uk Sat 19 Nov 2011, 10:28 am

anu_d wrote:2) BCCI also showed that it was highly inaccurate...more than 50% or thereabout using Eng series decisions as a case study

is there a word to use when someone is beyond deluded ? Headscratch

by skyeman Sat 19 Nov 2011, 10:29 am

2) BCCI also showed that it was highly inaccurate...more than 50% or thereabout using Eng series decisions as a case study
3) BCCI also showed that the 3rd umpires were discretionary / inconsistent in their interpretation of technology availbale.

Anu, do you not think that these two points came about because of one thing:
India would not use the FULL DRS.

by skyeman Sat 19 Nov 2011, 10:32 am

rich1uk wrote:
anu_d wrote:2) BCCI also showed that it was highly inaccurate...more than 50% or thereabout using Eng series decisions as a case study

is there a word to use when someone is beyond deluded ?

Anu

by anu_d Sat 19 Nov 2011, 10:35 am

skyeman wrote:2) BCCI also showed that it was highly inaccurate...more than 50% or thereabout using Eng series decisions as a case study
3) BCCI also showed that the 3rd umpires were discretionary / inconsistent in their interpretation of technology availbale.

Anu, do you not think that these two points came about because of one thing:
India would not use the FULL DRS.

No I don;t think so.
It also doesn;t matter what you might think about items 2 and 3

we need to hear what ICC ( the formal governor of the game) has to say about it.

still awaiting the formal quote from ICC to be produced here......in the absence of whihc you know what you sound like ? Very Happy

by skyeman Sat 19 Nov 2011, 10:45 am

Anu, which statement are you talking about; this is what i sais=

"Anu, is it not obvious why there was no statement from the ICC?. You have just been told many times.
The same with DRS being mandatory, the ICC originally saying that both sides had to agree to its use"

The first one i said there was no ICC statement (so how can i produce one
The second, is that not obvious,

by anu_d Sat 19 Nov 2011, 10:51 am

2) BCCI also showed that it was highly inaccurate...more than 50% or thereabout using Eng series decisions as a case study
3) BCCI also showed that the 3rd umpires were discretionary / inconsistent in their interpretation of technology availbale

@ skyeman
those are the questions that ICC need to answer throuhg a tarnsparent explanations

by rich1uk Sat 19 Nov 2011, 10:54 am

why do the ICC need to answer them when they are figments of your imagination ?

by skyeman Sat 19 Nov 2011, 11:02 am

rich1uk wrote:why do the ICC need to answer them when they are figments of your imagination ?

LOL I dont know whether to laugh or cringe at Anu's views.

by Mad for Chelsea Sat 19 Nov 2011, 11:02 am

anu

with all due respects you come up with these statements 2 and 3 with nothing to back it up. Can we see the evidence please? I don't remember more than one or two incorrect calls from the England series not being over-turned thanks to DRS (as it was allowed by the BCCI to be used, so only catches, not LBWs), and they were very fine edges not picked up by hot spot (I think Laxman was one). How this would have changed any series result I don't know.

Can we also see some evidence as to incorrect DRS decisions favouring India's opponents 90% of the time? And a list of the DRS-based decisions which effected India in the England series and would have changed the series results?

It's all very well coming up with bold statements, but you need to back them up.

by rich1uk Sat 19 Nov 2011, 11:08 am

couldn't agree more MFC

in fact during the whole series there were 4 lbw decisions that would have been overturned if the option had been there to refer them to the 3rd umpire. three out of the four decisions were actually against england.

there were a number of decisions where the onfield umpire made a marginal decision which udrs suggested was wrong but none of them would have been overturned as they were just "clipping" the stumps

udrs is not perfect , it never will be, but i am 100% positive that we see more correct decisions when drs is in use than when it is not

by Mad for Chelsea Sat 19 Nov 2011, 11:12 am

rich1uk wrote:udrs is not perfect , it never will be, but i am 100% positive that we see more correct decisions when drs is in use than when it is not

This is the important thing, and I'm pretty sure it's been "proved" (empirically, using statistics - as a mathematician I dislike the word "proved" being used for what is just empirical evidence but that is a completely different point) that the percentage of correct decisions is higher when DRS is being used (something like up to 98% for full DRS).

by Guest Sat 19 Nov 2011, 2:59 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:anu

with all due respects you come up with these statements 2 and 3 with nothing to back it up. Can we see the evidence please? I don't remember more than one or two incorrect calls from the England series not being over-turned thanks to DRS (as it was allowed by the BCCI to be used, so only catches, not LBWs), and they were very fine edges not picked up by hot spot (I think Laxman was one). How this would have changed any series result I don't know.

Can we also see some evidence as to incorrect DRS decisions favouring India's opponents 90% of the time? And a list of the DRS-based decisions which effected India in the England series and would have changed the series results?

It's all very well coming up with bold statements, but you need to back them up.

fantastic stuff mate.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Mon 21 Nov 2011, 1:03 pm

anu_d wrote:
Anu, again you are missing the point. The ICC can not disagree with the BCCI over saying that DRS is not 100% accurate (every one Knows that). But every other Test playing country would still prefer to use it..

skyeman,

that in underlined was not the only case put forward by BCCI with supported evidence presented to various boards in an ICC conference in Oct.

More specifcially:

1) BCCI said DRS is not accurate
2) BCCI also showed that it was highly inaccurate ( whihc goes much beyond saying merely inaccurate)...more than 50% or thereabout using Eng series decisions as a case study
3) BCCI also showed that the 3rd umpires were discretionary / inconsistent in their interpretation of technology availbale.
ICC may have agreed and all would agree to item 1)

However ICC's silence on items 2) and 3) is damaging to the future cause of DRS and to their own cerdibility as a governor of the game.

The real point here though is that

1) Its more accurate than umpires not using it
2) That is a comepltley made up or misrepresented statistic, but even if it wasnt you could still go back to point 1
3) No more so than on the field umpires do already

DRS may not be perfect, but its better than umpires guessing and involves less of point 3 with at leats part of the decision being based on scientofic measurements and formulae that are applied equally ratehr than being entirely reliant on how an umpire feels at the time and what he thought he might have seen.
Deciosns made with DRS will be more reliable than those made without. They also help to greatly reduce dissent and ill feeling between teams and umpires.

What I find really ridculous about the BCCI accepting hawkeye type systems is that they were happy to accept hotspot, which has been shown to be unreliable (again whether its worse than an umpire is debatable) in making definate null calls. However in the England series the third umpires were quite aware of ythis and did not always rely on hotspot as a positive proof froma null response. Im struggling to think of a decision given with DRS in that series that we can confidently say was incorrect (again why Id question your point 2)

by Guest Tue 22 Nov 2011, 10:19 am

ICC have released a statement saying that Haroon Lorgat wont stand for re-election in 2012.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue 22 Nov 2011, 11:42 am

Sure he wont ask for a review of that decision?

by Sponsored content

ICC Test championship

ICC Test championship

Re: ICC Test championship

Re: ICC Test championship

Re: ICC Test championship

Re: ICC Test championship

Re: ICC Test championship

Re: ICC Test championship

Re: ICC Test championship

Re: ICC Test championship

Re: ICC Test championship

Re: ICC Test championship

Re: ICC Test championship

Re: ICC Test championship

Re: ICC Test championship

Re: ICC Test championship

Re: ICC Test championship

Re: ICC Test championship

Re: ICC Test championship

Re: ICC Test championship

Re: ICC Test championship

Re: ICC Test championship

Re: ICC Test championship

Re: ICC Test championship

Re: ICC Test championship