ICC World Cup Group A Game: Aus V Afganistan.

[carlton2dabone]

Your logic is so mind-numbingly stupid I can't even be bothered arguing with you

Again great rebuttal, not.

Its simple logic mate.

If I review an umpires decision and get enough conclusive evidence to reverse an umpire decision, but then you later review an umpires decision but drs cannot give you enough conclusive evidence to reverse the on-field decision,

then that means that I ultimately got an advantage from the technology because in my review the technology was able to correct the decision,

where as in your review you didn't get that same advantage because of the inability of the drs system to provide enough conclusive evidence.

 

[94_Eagles]

Time for a game of FIFA 15

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Your logic is so mind-numbingly stupid I can't even be bothered arguing with you

I feel more stupid after reading it...

What if a captain blows a DRS...well so what! Don't blow the challenge on a Hail Mary 50/50. Pretty simple. In fact Clarke and for that matter Smith was fairly good at not challenging unless it is obviously wrong. Those are the ones DRS is designed for not ones that may or may not be out.

 

[caboose]

Your logic is so mind-numbingly stupid I can't even be bothered arguing with you

What I'm about to say is hard to believe, I know.

But the post he made about his visit to the brothel was actually superior in quality to the complete tripe he has written since.

 

[carlton2dabone]

Wait so if one team gets a favourable decision with no DRS that's the run of the green - A OK. With DRS - A OK...

Again if each team abides by the decision of the on-filed umpire, then one team might get a howler while the other might a correct decision. That's the luck of the green.

But when you introduce technology, you give each side a chance to review the umpire decision.

If the technology is able to correct one decision but cant provide enough conclusive evidence to correct another decision, that's not right.

By being able to reverse a decision for one team, but not having enough evidence to be able to reverse another decision for another team, you are saying that one team gets the benefit of correcting the umpires original decision and another team doesn't get that benefit because the technology cant provide enough conclusive evidence to decide one way or the other.

 

[TheDrop]

Time for a game of FIFA 15

Great idea!

 

[The Falcon Strike]

But if you rely on the on-field umpires, then both teams have to deal with one decision from the on-filed umpire.

With drs, one team sometimes get the advantage of 2 decisions because drs can show enough conclusive evidence to support or reverse a decision, and at other times a team doesn't get that same advantage of 2 decisions because drs isn't able to provide enough conclusive evidence to support or reverse a decision.

Not sure if you are serious or not?

Both sides are equally likely to get the rub of the green before they step into a cricket field.

If your claim is that the team who the ump sided with gets an advantage - then that is right and in the spirit of the system. The ump has to be clearly wrong for a decision to be overturned, not just "possibly wrong"

LBW isn't an exact science no matter the technology

 

[carlton2dabone]

I feel more stupid after reading it...

What if a captain blows a DRS...well so what! Don't blow the challenge on a Hail Mary 50/50. Pretty simple. In fact Clarke and for that matter Smith was fairly good at not challenging unless it is obviously wrong. Those are the ones DRS is designed for not ones that may or may not be out.

And what happens if the umpire gives a not out in 2 different decisions that could be slight nicks.

One team uses their appeal for this slight nick and they are rewarded with enough conclusive evidence to support their appeal.
The other team uses their appeal for their own slight nick and the technology cant provide enough conclusive evidence to decide one way or the other.

So in effect, both teams use their appeals for slight nicks decisions, yet one team has the benefit of enough conclusive evidence while the other doesn't.

 

[carlton2dabone]

Not sure if you are serious or not?

Both sides are equally likely to get the rub of the green before they step into a cricket field.

If your claim is that the team who the ump sided with gets an advantage - then that is right and in the spirit of the system. The ump has to be clearly wrong for a decision to be overturned, not just "possibly wrong"

LBW isn't an exact science no matter the technology

Ok, but what about when the technology can give enough conclusive evidence to reverse an on-field umpire, yet at other times it cant give that same conclusive evidence to reverse an on-filed umpire.

One team ends up getting the rub of the green with the technology to reverse a on-field not out decision, and another team doesn't get the rub of the green with the technology to reverse the same on-filed not out decision.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Ok, but what about when the technology can give enough conclusive evidence to reverse an on-field umpire, yet at other times it cant give that same conclusive evidence to reverse an on-filed umpire.

One team ends up getting the rub of the green with the technology to reverse a on-field not out decision, and another team doesn't get the rub of the green with the technology to reverse the same on-filed not out decision.

How is that any different to an umpire missing a thick edge for one team ... And firing a bloke from the other side who hit the ground

 

[The Speaker]

Should have had 12 sides next tourney

Afghanistan are 12th in the world.

 

[The_Reaper]

Just back.

Was good fun.

Afghan chicks are hot

 

[Milang_Panthers]

Just back.

Was good fun.

Afghan chicks are hot

Was a great night.

 

[Andrew Mc]

Pay the extra 10 bucks and get the HD channels!

It's via sat/dish - noone gets GEM/Mate/other HD channels that way - only via cable.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Pretty poor crowd - why they didn't schedule the Aus Perth game to be on the public holiday I'll never know.

I thought it looked like a really nice size crowd if you were at the ground. Plenty of room to stretch out on the grass

 

[MowShow]

Ok, but what about when the technology can give enough conclusive evidence to reverse an on-field umpire, yet at other times it cant give that same conclusive evidence to reverse an on-filed umpire.

One team ends up getting the rub of the green with the technology to reverse a on-field not out decision, and another team doesn't get the rub of the green with the technology to reverse the same on-filed not out decision.

Gee mate, you had an absolute mare.

When I stopped following this thread last night you were embarrassing yourself with some pretty laughable off topic posts.

I jump back in to read the last few pages this morning only to see you dishing up some woeful logic and getting smashed left and right.

For your sake I hope it's a dip in form and you're not a perennial under performer a la Shane Watson.

Back to your post - so you're basically saying it's better to get less decisions correct on the basis that we will never get 100% correct and it's better to have it be more of a crap shoot where both teams can get lucky?

Your example is atrocious. One team does not get rub of the green in that scenario. One team gets an incorrect decision overturned, the over has an inconclusive decision withheld. It makes sense and isn't hard to comprehend.

After reading your posts tonight, you might be better suited to tinder than bigfooty.

Best of luck champ.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

I have followed cricket since the 1960s, seen remarkable players come and go, seen many changes in the way the game has been played, some to the benefit of the game, some not so.

I watched Glenn Maxwell's innings with interest last night. I can see where many newer cricket supporters would enjoy the way he goes about his business, inovative is one way to describe the way he bats. There is no denying he has an extraordinary ability to play the game, and here's where he frustrates me. I can see many younger batsmen with far lesser ability trying to practice the strange shots he pulls out of the bag from time to time, and I'm not sure that would be a good idea. As a young lad, I saw Barry Richards play the most effortless sweep just by flicking his wrists. I kept trying it, and kept getting out, LBW. I finally realised there were some things Richards could do that mere mortals couldn't.

The way Maxwell bats is exciting, it's entertaining, it's frustrating, and I'm not sure it's how I like the game to be played. Anyway, I've said my piece and leave it up to the cricket public to decide. My personal views are if Maxwell adopted a more orthodox approach, he has the ability to become a wonderful Test cricketer, but if he continues to play in this fashion, that will never happen.

 

[FRUMPY]

That's why he generally struggles against really good sides eg NZ and SA. Consistent bowlers trouble him. That said he has improved a lot lately.

Averages 52 against SA with 2 100s and 2 502 in 8 innings and has played one game against NZ. Good point though

 

[FRUMPY]

I have followed cricket since the 1960s, seen remarkable players come and go, seen many changes in the way the game has been played, some to the benefit of the game, some not so.

I watched Glenn Maxwell's innings with interest last night. I can see where many newer cricket supporters would enjoy the way he goes about his business, inovative is one way to describe the way he bats. There is no denying he has an extraordinary ability to play the game, and here's where he frustrates me. I can see many younger batsmen with far lesser ability trying to practice the strange shots he pulls out of the bag from time to time, and I'm not sure that would be a good idea. As a young lad, I saw Barry Richards play the most effortless sweep just by flicking his wrists. I kept trying it, and kept getting out, LBW. I finally realised there were some things Richards could do that mere mortals couldn't.

The way Maxwell bats is exciting, it's entertaining, it's frustrating, and I'm not sure it's how I like the game to be played. Anyway, I've said my piece and leave it up to the cricket public to decide. My personal views are if Maxwell adopted a more orthodox approach, he has the ability to become a wonderful Test cricketer, but if he continues to play in this fashion, that will never happen.

Look at dave warner, he was brash and did some amazing shots that came off half the time. With maturity and coaching over time he has reigned himself in and is now a world class batsmen. I can see the same with maxwell although i do think he will have more licence to play the bigger shots as he comes in down the order opposed to warner opening.

He already has developed his shot selection and it will only improve more. He used to try and hit every ball for four/six but is now more circumspect. His major flaw at present is his decision to play a shot before the ball is even bowled, something he has admitted himself.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Averages 52 against SA with 2 100s and 2 502 in 8 innings and has played one game against NZ. Good point though

Bowlers that bowl lets just say '5th stump' line trouble him. His footwork is awful. It is why though he gets away with it in ODI cricket and not in 4 day cricket with 3-4 slips/2 gullies in that form. Even yesterday, his feet went absolutely nowhere. That said I can see how damaging Finch can be and I'll back Warner to bat around him and the team if Finch fails. He is such a trump card if he fires though and he has done that more than he has failed this year. This is coming from someone that can barely stand him 12 months ago.

 

[davis_756]

His major flaw at present is his decision to play a shot before the ball is even bowled, something he has admitted himself.

In one day cricket I don't think this is such a bad thing, to be looking for the gap in the outfield to make sure you get maximum value is the reason he scores 15+ an over while others struggle to score at 10, how he will be able to completely change that for test cricket is the great mystery.

 

[NathanBracken04]

I have followed cricket since the 1960s, seen remarkable players come and go, seen many changes in the way the game has been played, some to the benefit of the game, some not so.

I watched Glenn Maxwell's innings with interest last night. I can see where many newer cricket supporters would enjoy the way he goes about his business, inovative is one way to describe the way he bats. There is no denying he has an extraordinary ability to play the game, and here's where he frustrates me. I can see many younger batsmen with far lesser ability trying to practice the strange shots he pulls out of the bag from time to time, and I'm not sure that would be a good idea. As a young lad, I saw Barry Richards play the most effortless sweep just by flicking his wrists. I kept trying it, and kept getting out, LBW. I finally realised there were some things Richards could do that mere mortals couldn't.

The way Maxwell bats is exciting, it's entertaining, it's frustrating, and I'm not sure it's how I like the game to be played. Anyway, I've said my piece and leave it up to the cricket public to decide. My personal views are if Maxwell adopted a more orthodox approach, he has the ability to become a wonderful Test cricketer, but if he continues to play in this fashion, that will never happen.

Haven't you kind of answered your own argument here? Sure, kids will probably watch Maxwell and then go out and try hit reverse sweeps for six off their first ball. And then when they get a procession of ducks throughout the season, they'll realise how much fun scoring ducks is and try to learn how to score runs in a way that balances risk and reward to maximise runs, which is the whole point of batting with a proper technique.

I do agree though that it is a little frustrating that he can't play a little more within himself when it comes to the longer form of the game. The way he bats is perfectly effective in limited overs but the same technique will see him leave many runs on the field in First Class cricket.

 

[ioppolo]

Was good to see Warner in full flight Unfortunate for the Afghan bowlers, they were better then that. As entertaining as Maxwell's innings was the me and the crowd, some of those shots do piss me off. Bowlers can't do anything these days without the ball getting to the boundary one way or another. Afghanistan were doing alright at 3/94 in the 20th, unfortunately it fell apart from there. Attendance showed over 12k, bullshit, it was at least 15-16k I thought.

 

[western royboy]

His major flaw at present is his decision to play a shot before the ball is even bowled, something he has admitted himself.

It's true the game is changing, four men out allows players to premeditate and take a calculated but low risk shot. The ailing Martin Crowe, posted some of the best technical batting articles and videos ever made. One that I continue to use is "Batting Must Be Instinctive". Maxwell is the direct opposite of this. It looks great when it comes off, it looks horrible when it doesn't. In first class cricket I'd just bowl a foot outside off and watch him self destruct, one day cricket doesn't allow bowlers that luxury, but twice last night, when the ball was two foot from middle stump, (the guide line for off side wides) he had nothing. If he bats three in a test match ever again that will be it for me.

 

[western royboy]

Was good to see Warner in full flight Unfortunate for the Afghan bowlers, they were better then that. As entertaining as Maxwell's innings was the me and the crowd, some of those shots do piss me off. Bowlers can't do anything these days without the ball getting to the boundary one way or another. Afghanistan were doing alright at 3/94 in the 20th, unfortunately it fell apart from there. Attendance showed over 12k, bullshit, it was at least 15-16k I thought.

Warner could quite easily have chopped on for less than 20 as could have Smith, could have easily been a very different scenario.