.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Sight Screen

Monday, September 05, 2005

here it comes

Just as we had been discussing through this ashes series, here it comes. ICC will experiment on this new technology for judging lbw through replays.

And, guess what, it happened because Aus (and Eng sometimes) were feeling the heat of the 'wrong' decisions of umpires. And the likes of Warne were making the sounds. Doesn't matter that we have been getting the stick from the same umpires for so many series.

And the justification What if Steve Harmison had been out in similar fashion, giving Australia the victory they needed to retain the Ashes?

It would take some of the gloss off the biggest sporting event of the year if human error decided the outcome.


So, the less bigger sporting events of the year (umm e.g. Ind-Pak test series) are not important. Hence those did not merit a rethink on re-use of technology.

134 Comments:

  • lets not have an umpire to begin with if we are going to ask technology to solcve all our problems. instead of half assing it lets go the whole hog and get rid of the umpire all together. i hate the idea that we have as much technology as we do today. screw it. lets make cricket a boring game with no scope for error at all.similarly lets allow aluminium bats. the reasoning being that if bowlers get every decision accurately lets empower the batters by giving them aluminium bats.similarly lets use a new ball every over(baseball style) and exterminate spinners/ anyways a machine might find it hard to gauge whether a spinner is going to hit the wicket in an LBW decision. im sorry for the over exaggerated dramatics but i honestly believe that this is going to f%@& the game up.

    By Blogger K-Slice, at 06:49  

  • I think this shows that Steve Bucknor's shocking decisions against SRT can get away free but not the same ones against the likes of Bell, Martyn, etc.

    Dont know how Dalmiya has never managed to breach this territory yet. Maybe since this has got nothing to do with money...

    By Blogger madhugr, at 06:55  

  • yeah madhurg thats my lament also. the ICC administration...the various committee heads, the whole paraphernalia...they seem to closely follow and mintor these 'important' series....but no one cares whats happening in poor India playing poor Pakistan on the dustbowls of the poor country. Sunil Gavaskar seems to be the only ICC admin member following our games. Any else ? Do they have any people monitoring our games ? Do they have any subcontinent representation in the ICC setup (or even from WI, SA etc) who are focussing on games not involving Aus, Eng ?

    All rule changes, all ICC technical issues are dominated by these two countries. Even when they have a few token representatives from Pakistan, India etc.

    And yeah, I also wish Dalmiya had done something about this. But as you said, no money here ;)

    By Blogger worma, at 07:12  

  • Ganguly's dificulty against short-pitched bowling highlighted in this artcile:

    http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/videoconseries/content/story/218158.html

    By Blogger rp, at 08:57  

  • To say that cricket is not boring currently because of the errors of the umps does not say much about the game.

    I think this one was long overdue. No matter what effected the change, we should rejoice that the change is finally happening. Nevertheless the preferential treatment given to caucasian cricketers is sad. Though I don't think Dalmiya doing anything would have helped. It would have been labeled as another of his scheme or another salvo in his war against Malcom speed et al.

    The players should now ask the questions.

    By Blogger Amit, at 09:02  

  • amit, ofcourse I am rejoicing ! very very welcome change, it would make world of difference to the game. I don't want to spoil my five precious days watching a game marred by a stupid decision made by an umpire who is missing a simple information that everyone else in the world is getting.

    First of all, most of the people who oppose the use of technology don't even know for sure how reliable it is. If its reliable in saying how much the ball would have swung or spun, why not. Then its great to use it. Going by hawkeye, it does seem that its able to make that judgement. I dont think the game is balanced because 'sometimes' the bowlers get an lbw when there is an edge involved, and sometimes the batsmen get away despite the ball pitching in line of leg(instead of outside). I dont think it evens out. How do you know what final score a batsmen(wrongly given out) would have ended up with ? If you don't know that(unless you are God, or illogical:) ) then you cant argue that it evens out.

    As you rightly guessed, my rant is about all the 'valuable' changes being governed and directed by the Eng and Aus administrators, to suit Eng and Aus players etc.

    If Dalmiya had done something about this, I don't care how that would have been labelled, I would still have been happy at the attention. As also I dont care today about the reasons for the preference given to India for business related aspects of the game

    By Blogger worma, at 09:14  

  • Pakistan always seem to be in the forefront for demanding neutral umpires and such. I am sure that if India proposed to Pakistan to champion the cause of using more technology to make correct decisions, they would consider it. For the next bilateral series, they could mutually agree to use technology to a greater extent.. and make sure the ICC appointed umpires agree as well.. Why would ICC have a problem with it? I think the lame excuse is that it will take up too much time analysing the videos, but then do you want to end a game 3 hours early just because of an umpiring error?

    By Blogger Tiger, at 09:15  

  • I must admit the post reeks a bit of the subcontinental chip on the shoulder - instead of taking the positive view that whatever the reason, ultimately a forward looking development has come out of the ICC. Given that neither India or pakistan are involved in a series at the moment ( and it's been a while since they were involved in a close one), what exactly is so inflammatory about the ICC using an example of the current test series which is probably the closest and most exciting one for a while ?
    About time to lose the victim complex I say...

    By Blogger Piyush, at 09:17  

  • piyush...read my views above. I am very happy about it. But to remove my victim complex, can you tell me exactly why this is being taken up NOW ? Has the technology improved since our Ind-pak series ? Has anyone come up with a new irrefutable argument in favour of technology use ? (the new argument being give by ICC is that 'biggest sporting event of year' thing !...well thats their view isn't it, to me biggest event can be an Ind-Pak or an Ind-SL series?)

    And what is this about 'close series' that you mention ? Why should it be brought up because we have a close series ? This should have nothing to do with close series, its about finishing a series with less heartburns for the fans (of either or both sides)

    Tiger, sure we can back up Pakitan's claim. But did this technology ruling come from Aus claiming it, and Eng backing their claim ? No, it came 'automatically' because the ICC machinery is 'watching' their game and taking right signals from there. And btw, I dont think they can mutually agree to use of more technology unless ICC has sanctioned it (either in optional or mandatory category). Nor can they ask the ICC umpires to comply with their mutually accepted criteria. The umpires follow the ICC rules, not mutually agreed principles. Why would the ICC have a problem with it...well no they wont..but they would listen to it, debate it, then may or may not make a law out of it.

    And that time excuse is really lame. As some commentator (in ashes, or in videocon series) recently said, they spend so much time analysing a diff between 3 and 4 runs (as field stops at boundary) which is just a matter of 1 run, while the lbw can be a matter of winning and loosing a game !

    By Blogger worma, at 09:27  

  • ICC is heavily poplulated by the English and Australians, so its only natural that the likes of Michael Speed et al watch the Ashes and such and thus a bad decision during the Ashes inspires them to greater heights! I mean if there was a kabaddi match between Papua New Guinea and Guinea Bisau, and they want to introduce a new rule change, India wouldnt care to listen..

    By Blogger Tiger, at 09:57  

  • Worma,
    Unless the changes coincide with an india or Pak series, you can always make the "why now" arguement and hint at some sinister conspiracy. The fact is there is Indian and Pakistani representation in the ICC decision making proces now ( Gavaskar, Ehsan mani ) etc. I would prefer to take the better late than never view and just applaud the decision.

    By Blogger Piyush, at 10:00  

  • tiger, quite true. So next time we feel to be getting the stick because of umpires(or any other rule), what we do is pray that the same problem comes up in an Aus-Eng match!
    ..ok I'm exaggerating, but u get the hang of it ;-)

    By Blogger worma, at 10:03  

  • I had posted this on the other blog - but posting it again here since this is more recent!!!

    I dont know how many of you in India watch the channel - Sahara News - and a program called "SILLY POINT" on every match-day, doing the analysis of the match, take user-calls, etc. Usually the program consists of Kirti Azad, Ashok Malhotra (both ex-selectors) and either Maninder Singh or Srinath.

    During the program, Maninder raised the point to both the ex-selectors that what happens during selection? Do selectors push people from their own zones, etc? In reply to this, Ashok Malhotra explicitly mentioned that during selections of India-A and Board Presidents XI teams, selectors push their zonal players!!! But this doesnt happen for TEAM INDIA. He was also claiming responsiblity of discovering players like sehwag, yuveraj, kaif and even dhoni.

    Kirti on the other hand, remained silent and said that when he tried to do things the other way, people wouldnt allow him to do it.

    So, now publicly, its been acknowledged that zonal choicism has a say in selection matters.

    Why have India-A matches from now on? or for that matter select BP11 teams for visiting teams? Its just a farce.

    By Blogger madhugr, at 10:04  

  • piyush, so you are saying that the rule changes have not happened because of the bad decisions in Ashes ? Wow, you seem to be acquiting the ICC of a bias which they themselves have so much as conceded in their statment! Did you read it + The part about 'the biggest sporting event of the year' etc ?

    I would not have made a 'why now' statement had they not overtly stated the reason for 'why now'.

    Dude the ICC decision making process is not equally represented by Asians. And even if it was, I dont care as long as they collectively are not looking at the asian games to get active inputs for their change process.

    By Blogger worma, at 10:08  

  • madhugr, zonal selection is not a problem...each region would have its representatives...they would watch games of their zones...and put up the case of these good players in such selectorial meetings...if (and its big IF) they all did their job honestly, and without applying pressure tactics...then these cases put up by zonal selectors wud be taken up by central selectorial committee..which would call the selection camp for those players whose name has been reccomended...in these selectorial camps they would judge all such aspirants on same platform (team management would closely watch them, give inputs etc). Its similar to the parliamentary system we have where the MPs bring up the case of their regions...are debated upon etc.

    So, it depends upon the people who are holding the position...not the system itself (which may have some problems, but is not outrightly flawed). I think its pretty similar in Aus also (but not sure exactly, once we brought his up earlier, and thought would discuss it with Prem. Lets see if PREM is reading these comments :) )

    And btw, in parliamentary system also, this process fails because of bad personnel, not bad system ;-)

    By Blogger worma, at 10:16  

  • I always knew bucknor would face the music when he dissed the aussies. It was a given guys.

    By Blogger sachin, at 10:20  

  • off topic, but doesnt it seem like Malcolm speed has been in the ICC higher echleons for ages? Doesnt the Exec officer have a fixed term like the president?

    By Blogger Tiger, at 10:21  

  • Just noticed that India doesnt have a single umpire in the Elite panel nor a single refree in the elite refree panel.. so much for India's clout in the ICC.. even Pakistan has one umpire while Lanka has TWO refrees!!

    By Blogger Tiger, at 10:26  

  • hey worma
    although it does look like a case of ICC bias it has to be said that aus and eng made the right noise and brought out the option of using technology out in the open and included media in the debate.
    what we did was complain about the umpiring. i might be wrong but i dont recall any of our players or anyone in teh media talking about technology.
    but it is a fact that when the old guard were hard done by decisions ICC sat up and took notice.

    By Blogger JD, at 10:27  

  • tiger..on that off-topic itself...doesn't it seem that Ehsan Mani is just the token Asian there (unlike Dalmiya). These days, in all ICC related matters, you get to read his name. Mani's is conspicuously absent !
    Sachin, yep that was the point we discussed earlier also. That Bucknor would not get away with Crimes against Royalty :)

    By Blogger worma, at 10:27  

  • but then jd, is complaining in media the official way of sending the message to ICC ? Btw, I distinctly remember reading somewhere that Ganguly has given poor rating to Bucknor during some series (I think the Aus tour down under). The ICC could have read the report, and asked Saurav for clarifications. Surely then they wud have known the flaws in decisions. This looks to me to be a better process than the ICC reading current and past aussie cricketers making noise in the media. I also remember reading somewhere that the captains reports on umpires and umpiring (which is to be submited after each series by both captains) doesnt count for much. Although I am not sure if this is true or not.

    btw, do you think that the use of technology for lbw etc has never been brought out in media earlier ??? Or do you mean we need to go and submit it to the english and aussie media ?

    By Blogger worma, at 10:33  

  • Preview of the Final between India and NZ on my blog - http://myhistoryisinteresting.blogspot.com/2005/09/india-in-finals.html

    Have a look !!!

    By Blogger madhugr, at 10:34  

  • I always thought ICC was not color blind. Remember even prem commenting on the same lines in a previous panix station. Take for instance the list they came up of bowlers who exceeded 15 deg. If i remember right, none from the list were from aus, nz, eng.

    By Blogger sachin, at 10:38  

  • ganguly did give a poor report on bucknor and i think the team made a formal protest too. but as long as Lords is seen as the home of cricket, the opinions of aus/eng will have a effect on the decisions

    PS; recall reading somewhere that Lords will not be the "home of cricket" anymore. know anymore about this?

    By Blogger JD, at 10:38  

  • http://www.icc-cricket.com/umpires-referees/umpire_assessment.html


    That's the link to ICC's umpire assessment process.. sounds good in theory.. wonder how come Bucknor still keeps his place.. maybe the negative points from Ganguly get negated by glowing tributes from others!

    BTW (how do you post links with a different caption?)

    By Blogger Tiger, at 10:39  

  • jd, yes the ICC hq is shifting to Dubai (they are constructing the building right now, the move should be soon, if I remember correctly...in months not in years)

    tiger, for posting links you need to use html tags...manually...or else just use some html composer to make a tag template and use it.

    By Blogger worma, at 10:42  

  • jd, forgot to add, its not about the location I think. Its about the people and mindset prevelant there.

    By Blogger worma, at 10:43  

  • thats what i meant too(people and mindset). is it the same set of people going to be in charge in dubai too?

    By Blogger JD, at 10:46  

  • Piyush,
    no need to bring out the ictim-complex thing here. It is a known fact the ICC did crap when India raised any issues. Now I dont know if the BCCI made enough noise about it. But it is obvious that when Ponting or MV raises an issue, it needs to be resolved immediately.
    And that analogy about Papua New Guinea and Guinea Bisau playing kabbaddi is not accurate. As far as I know, Pakistan, India or SL are not the Papua New Guineas of cricket. What is being suggested anyway? If a country is not doing good in cricket (or is a low profile nation), ignore its constructive suggestions??

    By the way, any attempt at using more techology is extremely good. Remember that Hawk Eye is 100% accurate and has a very high reliability. (No decision which the HawkEye has shown looked bad and there were very few instances where HawkEye could not make a decision). And in any case, I would prefer technology to completely take over what Bucknor does. Bucknor should have been in a coffin a long time ago.

    By Blogger Toney, at 10:48  

  • toney well said...and LOL :) (about Bucknor..how I despised him in those evenings :-))

    jd, ofcourse its the same people, just sitting in a tax-free location instead of London. Thats all.

    By Blogger worma, at 10:52  

  • sorry guys for threadjacking.. but thought this newsitem was interestign

    http://ww1.mid-day.com/news/city/2005/september/117930.htm

    By Blogger sachin, at 10:53  

  • toney
    its all well and good to use the technology but wont it make an umpire redundant. all they will be left to do is adjudicate on no balls and edges.
    take the case of run outs. these days we hardly see umpires give desicions on run outs on their own.
    it can be assumed that they will call for replays for most of the lbw appeals too.
    couple of questions on hawk eye
    does it detect inside edges
    also u still need human judgement when the ball pitches on or near the leg stump
    does this mean that the third ump has to decide on the inside edge and where the ball pitches

    By Blogger JD, at 11:02  

  • jd - people pay money to go see the players, not the umpires! Who cares if they are redundant as long as we get 100% correct decisions. A game should be decided on the basis of a player's skills and abilities and not on the whims and fancies of an umpire. Would u rather that the umpires NOT refer run out decisions to the 3rd umpire?

    By Blogger Tiger, at 11:31  

  • Well said Worma. I think there is an element of bias within the ICC.

    But unfortunately, our boards do not make it any easier by conductng themselves in a totally unprofessional manner, as they have demonstrated again and again.

    Would love to be a fly on the wall and see how these matters are communicated in the ICC meetings.

    By Blogger Saurabh Wahi, at 11:31  

  • sachin - thats an interesting story from Mid-Day.. dont know how much of its actually true..
    Isnt Murali the only "record breaking Lankan spinner" ? Poor Tannu - lost her money on a bogus promise!

    By Blogger Tiger, at 11:39  

  • toney
    all i meant was that i cant make up my mind on the use of technology for LBW

    all i hope is that the players know what they are asking for coz more often than not they have got the benifit of doubt from the umpire. sure there have been horribily bad decisions by the ump but i feel these are far lesser than the number of times they have been out and have been saved by the ump's decision.
    but thats the way the game is

    By Blogger JD, at 11:40  

  • Agree JD, more often then not the batsmen get the benefit of the doubt. In my opinion, use of technnology to assist in lbw decisions in Test matches will lead to more 3-day Tests.

    I think the ICC is aware of this fact and has been hesitent to use Technology for lbw decisions.

    By Blogger Saurabh Wahi, at 11:48  

  • saurabh somehow I have a feeling that more often than not, in those benefit of doubt cases, the batsmen really is not-out. The other way round if more often true (although, in some of those benefit of doubt cases, hawk-eye is not referred). But anyway, we'll soon get to see. Since its being experimented in the super series (ironically that test match is 6 days :)

    By Blogger worma, at 11:54  

  • I agree with toney's comments. I would like to go one step further. What is preventing India from taking a leadership role in devising rule changes? Why not be innovative and try out HawkEye or other equivalent in first-class matches such as the Ranji Trophy? This way we can provide valuable input (what worked and what didn't) and I would be surprised if this doesn't draw ICC's attention. You can't really blame ICC if you can't make a persuasive case in effecting rule changes.

    Having said that, games (particularly the complex ones such cricket) need to evolve to maximize viewing pleasure. It is important to get decisions right (especially if the technology is there and provided decisions can be made almost instantaneously) so the focus is on how well the two teams compete and not on umpiring.

    By Blogger ishii, at 11:56  

  • Ishii, you kidding right? Invest money in domestic cricket and make it more interesting? Surely, that can't be what the BCCI want...

    By Blogger Saurabh Wahi, at 12:10  

  • Hi Guys

    Just my 2 cents....Agreed that the hawkeye may not be 100% accurate in detecting the degree of spin in the ball during LBW decisions, but then neither is the umpire (and definitely not Bucknor).
    Infact the problem would arise only in those deliveries that r pitched right up to the batsmans feet, the ones that pitch on good length would have travelled enough after pitching for the software to calculate its projected path.
    As far as I am concerned I would take a machine error anyday over a human error, atleast the machine error will be uniform fr both teams and NOT biased.
    Great decision by the ICC!!! Better late than never.

    By Blogger tintinsingh, at 12:14  

  • unless someone can make them see money coming out of it as well. I think BCCI can do a lot of things right even if they hone their skills related to the pursuit of money ! E.g. the whole tv right thing...so much money there....so much better coverage possible for us (compare our cricket covg to that of ashes and ull know what I mean!)....and this whole domestics leage...make it interesting..invest in it...make people watch it (like in UK) bring in ideas like 20-20...make people watch it...get in sponsors...corporates etc

    By Blogger worma, at 12:14  

  • saurabh wahi - no I was not kidding, although I am fully aware of the seemingly preposterous nature of the suggestion I made. The reality is if you do not take a leadership role regarding issues that you care most deeply about (e.g. innovative and constructive suggestions about rule changes - the topic of the thread here), you will be ignored.

    By Blogger ishii, at 12:19  

  • talking of technology, can you guys think of a sport that uses technology more than cricket?

    By Blogger Saurabh Wahi, at 12:20  

  • well saurabh i cannot think of another sport complicated enough where even the most ardent fan(and sometimes the umpires also) needs to refer to a rule book...and most of them dont know 'it all' :)

    By Blogger worma, at 12:21  

  • if it turns out that the use of hawk eye results in more batsmen being given out, i'd be in favor of using it in ranji coz that would mean our players would have to have better tecnique to survive and eventually i hope they adapt and thus when they come to the international level they would be better prepared

    By Blogger JD, at 12:23  

  • You people have come to know about the news today?

    I read about it 2 days back, in Guardian:

    http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cricket/story/0,10069,1561256,00.html?gusrc=rss

    By Blogger Chandan, at 12:23  

  • Ishii, i was being sarcastic as well :-)

    Actually, I agree with you 100%.

    Sadly, the BCCI is not professional enough to think on those lines so no point in wishful thinking...

    By Blogger Saurabh Wahi, at 12:23  

  • Football; off side and line calls and fouls especially Penalties - NO TECHNOLOGY IS USED

    Baseball; Strikes and Run outs-NO TECHNOLOGY IS USED

    These are two sports which could benefit from Technology. But for some reason they don't and the world just accepts it. You know why? Because the admintrators have not crossed the line and been firm on NOT using technology. FULL-STOP.

    With cricket, the ICC have crossed that line that divides TECHNOLOGY and NO-TECHNOLOGY and hence the players and fans want more. There is no stopping after that...

    Once you start messing around, there is no end to how much is enough.

    Same problem I have with Powerplay and Supersubs....

    By Blogger Saurabh Wahi, at 12:32  

  • worma - I agree with you totally. Can't see why the same ideas that transformed ICC financially can't be applied at the domestic level. The structure of professional sports (NFL, MLB, NBA) in the USA can provide added inspiration.

    By Blogger ishii, at 12:42  

  • saurabh, the pressures on referees is not that high...umpires have to decide so many things on every delivery...its humanly impossible...and then u have this 'benefit of doubt' thing....

    By Blogger worma, at 12:42  

  • Trust me, the pressure of a wrong penalty in a World-cup game is much higher then any lbw decision an umpire will give in any Test match or Cricket world-cup.

    I am not saying cricket is poorer by use of Technology. All I am saying is that having embraced it, the ICC have no option but go all the way. It's a question of when, not if, technology will be used in LBW's...

    England were knocked out of the European Football cup couple of years ago when the refree disallowed an English goal in the 90th minute. The video suggested that the goal should have counted. A lot of English fans went up in arms but not many people suggested that football should use technology. Reason; It's not an option as far as the game is concerned.

    On the other hand, if FIFA had been using Technology, for say off-sides, then the demand for extending Technology in other aspects of the game would have gathered pace...

    By Blogger Saurabh Wahi, at 12:55  

  • saurabh wahi - I see your point but I beg to differ on details and cite examples where technology is being/will be used:
    1. Football is currently experimenting with technology (balls embedded with sensors) that would indicate to the referee if the ball has crossed the goal line. One referee and two linesmen but the game is pretty simple.
    2. Baseball - you are totally correct in your assessments. Mistakes are made by umpires, but it's amazing how they get it right for most of the time. Note however, it's a far simpler game than cricket and there are four umps.
    3. Tennis - line and 'let' calls for serves uses technology. One umpire but eight linesmen.
    4. American football - instant replays for questionable calls. About half a dozen umpires.

    By Blogger ishii, at 12:57  

  • Ishii, call me a old-f@rt, but I am not in favour of building domestic cricket strutures on the lines of professional sporting bodies like NFL, NBA, or English Premiership. They have a very different agenda (of the individual club over the country) which would not work in cricket.

    Does not mean they don't have to be professional though :-)

    In my opinion, cricketing bodies do not have to look beyond Cricket to set up good strcutures.

    Australia and English cricket provide very good examples of a structure that works at all levels...

    By Blogger Saurabh Wahi, at 13:03  

  • Ishii, I cannot agrue Technology though I would prefer to see the game without it being used (but that is a personal choice);

    All i am saying is if you embrace it, go all the way.

    If football do embrace this sensors, etc that they will have to go all the way.

    And all this talk about Cricket being a difficult game, etc is rubbish. A wrong decision is a wrong decision; easy or diffcult...

    By Blogger Saurabh Wahi, at 13:06  

  • use of tech:

    The on-field umpiring decisions that are not allowed to be reviewd should not be show on TV for the watching public.
    It can be part of telecasting agreement between the board and the broadcasters.

    NBA/NFL/MLB they don't dwell on decisions that can't be reviewed -no point making the public aware of questionable decisions which does not help positively in any way.

    By Blogger Yacrik, at 13:09  

  • yacrik, good point but again, cricket has gone beyond that point.

    Try telling the TV companies that they will not be able to use Hawk-eye now. Too late...

    By Blogger Saurabh Wahi, at 13:11  

  • it's wrong for the TV guys to keep showing every LBW decisions using hawk-eyes.
    does not add value at all. If the players can't have the benefit of slow motion replays to adjust the shots - why should the umpires..
    it should happen in real time.
    The umpires can use the tv replays after the match is over to analyze how they are doing. But the general public don't need to see.

    yacrik

    By Blogger Yacrik, at 13:13  

  • What will the TV companies do if use of hawk-eye is part of the bidding process. As part of the bid condition, outlaw hawk-eye. it's possible. The board and ICC control what should be shown.

    By Blogger Yacrik, at 13:14  

  • wahi: I was reading about SG debate with worma.
    worma has some agenda or a blind SG fan.

    SCG claimed he had a good world cup.

    SCG's score:

    Holland- 8
    Aus - 9
    Zim - 24
    Nam - 112
    Eng - 19
    Pak - 0
    Ken - 107
    SL - 48
    NZ - 3
    Ken - 111
    Aus - 24

    Look at that - all scores against Nam and Ken.
    Failed against everyone else - including Pak,Aus,Eng,NZ!

    By Blogger Yacrik, at 13:16  

  • Doesn't matter why it will be implemented. Anyway the importance and power that India has should be a little curtailed, or else will have mass misuse of power in world cricket in 10 years. Now we have one Dalmiya, in ten years we will have Laloo Parshad and Jayalalitha as ICC chiefs.Better some of the power stays with these countries and also with countries who are number one and two in the world....err not 7th.I support the ICC decision.

    By Blogger mau tor, at 13:24  

  • yacrik - good suggestion. But I disagree with your assertion about NBA/NFL/MLB commentators not discussing decisions that can't be reviewed. They do, and in fact, this was the main reason why NFL brought back instant replay to review questionable calls. It is true that the commentators don't harp on wrong decisions and players and coaches are professional enough not to whine about them either. The commentators commend the good job the umpires do in calling the difficult ones correctly - now how's that for positive reinforcement and confidence-building for the umps?

    By Blogger ishii, at 13:30  

  • I know my comments might be a little hard to digest Prem, but I have had enough of Indian power or rather dadagiri. Fine, its a commercial power, but we DO NOT have right people to take the game forward. Look at BCCI, look at our teams scheduling, look at our selction process, look at our ranking, look at SG's performances and still in team.
    Even Gavaskar, who is usually a big supporter of Indian cricket said yerterday on being asked about Rao's future if he scored a hundred....he said...nothing will change, the 'untouchables' in the side will stay on till once in 6/7 games they perform. Whereas the fringe players will keep rotating. The 'untouchables' in the side are safe.
    No matter who you are...I think we should all feel that all the big countries should have power.Not just India.

    By Blogger mau tor, at 13:31  

  • As per the cricket laws - MCC is the custodian. ICC borrows it from them officially.
    Is MCC going to act based on matches between Ind-Pak or Aus-Eng. I have a feeling worma shoots off without much fact or any basis for most part.

    By Blogger Yacrik, at 13:32  

  • ishi - ok let us agree to disagree. it's very rare in my opinion for tv guys to criticize on-field calls in american prof sport. they may
    analyze them once the game is over for feedback and training.

    By Blogger Yacrik, at 13:35  

  • Just a couple of clarifications:

    1. Abt HawkEye predicting what would have happened if the ball had not hit the batsman's pads (whether it would have swung, turned etc): This does not matter in any case. Say the ball hits a batsman full on the pads. Now, the ball may have swung or it may not have. Butall that the umpire has to and should look at is the path of the ball and whether it would have hit the stumps, if it CONTINUED in that path. Same thing for hawkEye.

    2. Somebody said that the umpire would have to make judgements for judging where the ball pitched even if technology were used. That is NOT RIGHT. HawkEye clearly shows where the ball pitches. The umpire does not have to make a judgement on that.

    3. Inside Edges: HE does not show that. But technologies like "Snickometer" are becoming increasingly reliable. If technology can be used for net-calls, then why not for this? If video shows this clearly one way or the other, then thats one less headache.

    4. Accuracy: HawkEye is 100% accurate. The guys who brought forward this technology stand by this statement. If HE comes to a decision (whether the ball would or would not hit the stumps), it has always been correct, never wrong. There are cases in which HE cannot come to a decision at all. In this case, just give the benefit of doubt to the batsman.

    5. Slowng down the game: Dont think so. How long does it take to refer to the 3rd umpire to confrm something that technology clearly shows/ Its not like a bumped catch or a very close run-out where there aren't enough frames for the video and the 3rd umpire has to review the pictures several times without any great use.

    6. Other sports using it: Not an excuse in any case, but somebody gave a few great uses of technology in other sports. Football (soccer i.e.) is a continuous game. It would seem out of place to stop the game and refer to technology. Even then, say an offside occurs during a game. The ref can easily know this through communication systems. In contrast, football is not a contnuous game. We can easily wait for a decision after each ball.

    By Blogger Toney, at 13:35  

  • yacrik, did you chance to click on the link in the post ?

    By Blogger worma, at 13:38  

  • Rao is a not suitable fit for ODIs - he is a cricketer of the old age. but worma (the guy who has been writing most of the posts on this blog) seems to think he is good.

    By Blogger Yacrik, at 13:38  

  • something to add in point 1:
    If a spinner was bowling and hit the batsman on the full, it is not required to (and should not be) consider whether the might have spun, bounced or done anything, had it hit the ground. All that the umpire should see, is the same thing as before, whether th ball travelling in that path would have gone on to hit the stumps.

    By Blogger Toney, at 13:38  

  • yacrik, I seem to think that he should be given enough chance before being thrown out for good. It is Saurav Ganguly who seems to think he is good. Again, read that post.

    By Blogger worma, at 13:41  

  • worma - you mean the ICC initiative on TV umpire? yes , I read it. what else do you expect, BBC will run story based on Ashes at this time.

    By Blogger Yacrik, at 13:43  

  • so is that story true ?

    By Blogger worma, at 13:44  

  • obvisouly SCG will praise any quesionable guy at this time. If you have Laxman or Gambhir breathing down your neck, SG is in trouble. so, he will do everything is his power to make sure people like Rao, Raina are in the fringe than other good guys. the strategy will only make SG look good.
    btw - you did not say anything about SG's claims on 2003 wc. did you check what he did there. .

    By Blogger Yacrik, at 13:46  

  • This is what the report says So much so the International Cricket Council (ICC) will embark on a technological experiment in next month's Super Series, when a World Select XI takes on Australia in three one-day matches and a six-day Test.

    and this is what you say As per the cricket laws - MCC is the custodian. ICC borrows it from them officially.
    Is MCC going to act based on matches between Ind-Pak or Aus-Eng. I have a feeling worma shoots off without much fact or any basis for most part.

    By Blogger worma, at 13:47  

  • what was SG's claim on world cup ?

    By Blogger worma, at 13:48  

  • worma - don't if the story is true or not.
    it did not come from official ICC newfeed - that's what I would like to rely on.

    By Blogger Yacrik, at 13:48  

  • and lets deal with this ICC, MCC thing first. Dude if you have an agenda, tell me. I say "you win"....game over ?

    By Blogger worma, at 13:49  

  • yacrik - if you dont want to see replays and such, you are free to switch ur TV off! I love to see replays. Kids can watch replays and see what mistake the batsman made and learn to play better by watching - I am not saying watching TV replaces coaching. Whats wrong with TV viewers watching replays and Hawkeye simulations??

    By Blogger Tiger, at 13:50  

  • SG has many times claimed he had a great world cup - you can google it. Many people believe it too -
    I like to show what he did in the wc 2003 in terms of runs.

    By Blogger Yacrik, at 13:52  

  • worma- i suspet you have an agenda as I mentioned earlier :) - though I like your writing skills, got issues with what you have to say !

    By Blogger Yacrik, at 13:54  

  • tiger: replay is fine; but not to harp on every LBW decisions - it does not add value in my opinion.

    By Blogger Yacrik, at 13:55  

  • what about ICC and MCC?

    By Blogger Yacrik, at 13:55  

  • Sturt Clark has indian parents? he does not look indian to me. may be just one parent is Indian...

    By Blogger Yacrik, at 13:57  

  • yacrik : (a)What can I do about what ganguly said. If you want to make a statement, google it and give us the link

    (b) I dont have any agenda, I write what I feel, nothing hidden. I openly say I back ganguly, and I try to give reasons why. In fact, I've also said that I am not a die-hard ganguly fan, I would have supported any other player in his position. I am not a die-hard fan of any indian player per se.

    (c) Related to world cup, I do remember in the last match thread someone said that ganguly made centuries against weak countries in the WC, and my response was that India could have lost one or more of those matches. Kenya had beaten a few countries, so could they have done it against India.

    (d) About this ICC, MCC thing, you said something which you did not back up with any proof or argument. And then you made reference to my statement with a tangential implication ????

    lastly, thanks for liking my writing style. But dude, if you really dont have an agenda (I believe you) then believe me, neither do I. Lets keep this as healthy and open discussion, with no hidden implications. Right ?

    By Blogger worma, at 14:02  

  • worma

    Ganguly claims:

    "I've batted pretty well in the World Cup," said Ganguly.


    Note that:
    Chasing India's imposing 270 for four, Kenya never looked likely to threaten an upset and eventually succumbed for 179 in a desperately one-sided match.

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/cricket/2003/world_cup/news/2003/03/20/india_kenya/

    By Blogger Yacrik, at 14:15  

  • After scores of 8, 9, 24, 19, 0, 48, 3, 24 (excepy Ken and Namibia)

    "I've batted pretty well in the World Cup," said Ganguly.

    How does one react if he makes such outrageous claims?

    By Blogger Yacrik, at 14:19  

  • so, what is the point ?

    By Blogger worma, at 14:22  

  • do you drop players for making supposedly outrageous claims ?

    By Blogger worma, at 14:23  

  • ..and two years 'after' making the claims ?

    By Blogger worma, at 14:23  

  • The point is his skills has eroded since at least the wc 2003 - 2 years . The team can't afford such a long lean trot which runs 2-3 years!
    that's the point - i thought it was obvious.

    The outrageous comment part: he does not acknowledge that he has a
    problem (I wonder he knows at all, unless he knows and works on it
    he is not going to improve)
    did you look at the numbers article on CI today?

    By Blogger Yacrik, at 14:27  

  • Worma..A quick note on the game tomorrow...I do not think in all four games that India has played..that it has batted first...While I think New Zealand has batted first in all the 4 games that they have played...If Saurav can win the toss tomorrow I think he should bat first...New Zealand have not faced the pressures of chasing and I think we have an advantage there (even if we have a mediocre score)..What do you feel?

    By Blogger ilovecricket, at 14:28  

  • I won't be surprised one but if SG withdrew from tomorrow's match on injury grounds..

    By Blogger Yacrik, at 14:34  

  • ilovecricket, yes actually I feel that even India would do well with batting first...the tentativeness of their batting lineup can be covered by the less pressure of batting first. And then, as you said, that would also put Nz on pressure (if we get a decent total) since they themselves have not batted well in any game after their first match against Zim in Bulawayo.

    yacrik, as far as I know, there are 10s of articles recently where Ganguly has agreed that he has a problem with his batting and he is sorting out. So that takes care of the worry you have (of his not acknowledging). Whether he had a problem at the time of WC or now it not important now, since what he says now supersedes it.

    And if you talk of lean trot, the I dont want to do the exercise of digging out stats again to prove that he has been better than many (check out his avg etc compared to Sehwag, Kaif, Yuv etc before the start of this season in SL) in past 2 years or so. I think many people have also done similar exercise of digging out statistics. But since statistics is not giving out the full story, let me remind all you that our last ODI win against a strong country outside the subcontinent(before this current tour) came because of Saurav Ganguly. Do you remember the three match ODI series we played against England before the ICC trophy ?

    By Blogger worma, at 14:36  

  • ok Natwest challenge in Eng:
    scores: 24, 7, 90
    He had a score of 90- you know how useless it was.
    90 came in the match after Eng had already won the series and rested
    Flintoff in the match. that too came in 120 odd balls.
    Last 2-3 years he has not score more than 2-3 good innings when
    the opposition had something in it.
    His scores have come in when the series already won or the opposition
    had qualified for the next round and rested key players.
    It's also about lack of intensity by the other team in such matches.

    By Blogger Yacrik, at 14:47  

  • For others you can come up with several substantial innings when the series is live or the opposition had to win for advancing in the series/tournment.

    By Blogger Yacrik, at 14:53  

  • India won that match against Eng because of his 90 and Eng attack had Harmison, Gough still at the opening. he scored an 87 against Aus in the VB series 2nd game, scored 45, 39, 45 in pak series (series wasnt lost, as that went to last game)...i can't do any more compilation...why dont you find out his average against test playing nations in the past 2 years and compare that with some other players of our team ?

    By Blogger worma, at 14:55  

  • prior to that in the Asian cup he made one good score - 79 against SL.
    that was after SL had qualified for the final and rested key bowlers: Vaas, and Murali for the match.

    By Blogger Yacrik, at 14:59  

  • dead-rubber matches don't count- for example, Aus consistently loses them - just check out; against WI, Eng, Ind - once the series is won, the intensity is lost.

    By Blogger Yacrik, at 15:06  

  • 82 against Aus in VB series counts - it's one of other 2-3 good scores he has in the last 2-3 years as I mentioned earlier.

    By Blogger Yacrik, at 15:08  

  • ok boss...dead rubbers dont count, rested bowlers dont count, less than 3 good innings in a series dont count, and obviously weak opposition dont count - because, presumably, we can afford to loose that match. Why don't you do a compilation of his average in the matches you want to 'count' along with that of some of his team-mates to prove us the point you want to come to.

    By Blogger worma, at 15:10  

  • If India bats first, what sort of score would they be looking for to feel safe? NZ bats very deep and they arent afraid to play the big shots (unlike the Indian batsmen who still arent in the best of form and are likely to be more circumspect).. Does anyone else seem to feel that NZ batsmen are more carefree and hence likely to play more freely in a Final? India probably plays under more pressure with the history of flopped Finals and their huge fan following.. the Indians seem more concious of failing and it does seem to affect their batting, and indeed, bowling as well. NZ scored 278 against us in the last match - would they be able to score that many while chasing? Does that mean we need to score > 280 to be safe? Also, should Raina be the supersub - considering that in the last couple of games, the slower bowlers have been more difficult to score off? It is quite likely one or more of IP, AN, AA could go belly up in the Final. AA especially has an atrocious average for Finals. AN has done reasonably and so has HS. Also, would you rather AA finish his quota before the slog phase, considering he got mauled towards the end? Or would you rather continue to bowl AA at the end and see if he has improved -with an eye on the WC '07?

    By Blogger Tiger, at 15:10  

  • tiger, NZ are also supposedly not in prime form, haven't done well after the first game (I think allout in all three games?). I think their batsmen are in same kind of form. And despite batting deep, as Prem said, they apparently dont bat well. Their aggressive approach got them allout even against Zim. But agreed that we would have additional pressure of final (although NZ have also this 'final' pressure, they havent reachd many, and in their entire history have won only ICC knockout, Bond himeslf mentioned that they also have a 'finals' problem)
    If we are looking to bat first, then how can be have Raina supersub ?

    By Blogger worma, at 15:16  

  • 45,39 45 are not good scores for a specialst batsman.
    Anyway:
    1. 45 against Pak : 4th highest score in the Indian innigs!
    2. 39 in a losing cause
    3. 45 came in 64 balls - VVS scored a hundred !

    By Blogger Yacrik, at 15:16  

  • worma - raina as supersub as insurance against one of the pacemen misfiring badly.. get the pacer off totally after 4-5 overs if its apparent that he's having an off day and get raina to bowl the remaining 5-6 overs.. doesnt matter whether u bat or bowl first..

    By Blogger Tiger, at 15:28  

  • Tiger - I think India should go in with the following line-up -

    VS, SG, RD, MK, YS, MSD, JPY, IP, AA, HS, AN

    & Murali Kartik as the super-sub. They should bat first if they win the toss unless the conditions are suddenly highly overcast (unlikely!). If they lose the toss and have to field first, they should not hesitate to use Kartik in the first innings in place of teh bowler looking least effective. If they are fielding first, they simply cannot let NZ get away with a large total. Based on current form, you can forget about winning the game with the batting, especially batting second against Bond & Vettori. It has to be the bowling that will win the game more than the batting tomorrow. Ideally, India want to bat first, get 270 plus, bowl one of Pathan or Nehra out and then get Kartik in in their place to do a containing job.

    This is assuming that VS & SG will be given some magic potion to drink tonight that will make them Obelix & Asterix tomorrow morning.

    By Blogger Akshay, at 15:29  

  • worma - if you like U can check the stats when you get time.
    If you mention SG is good for a particular innings - i'll agree if
    the basic contest exists in the match. If you prove he is good u need
    to come with stats.
    Being a top order batsman, he should do well agaist seamers right?
    look at this- bottom of the heap.

    http://usa.cricinfo.com/videoconseries/content/story/218158.html

    By Blogger Yacrik, at 15:30  

  • yacrik, I cannot come up with stats for all the 'exclusion' criterias you have highlighted buddy ! And anyways, I dont need to, I dont have anything to prove. If you started this thread, then you must have a point. Do come up with the stats regarding that point, and then we discuss further.

    And I've seen that stat, its not about seamers, its about short ball. And I dont care how he plays the short balls if in the end he gets enough runs (which he does seem to, unless you come out with the stats of all those 'discounted' categories). We are all discussing Ganguly here not because he is getting out to short balls, but because he is not making enough runs.

    By Blogger worma, at 15:36  

  • tiger, you said we should bat first(which I agree) but then raina as supersub means if we have a batting crisis, we have to get him in, in place of a bowler, and thus be a bowler short.

    I agree with akshay, except the part that the Indians cannot bat well against Bond and Vettori. I dont think Bond bowls like that every day, and Vettori hasn't yet scared or scarrd us. He is a decent bowler, but I believe we can negotiate him also. If India bat second chasing a biggish total (270+) then it makes sense to attack Bond, maybe its not his best form day (on those days he would run through most sides).

    Also dont know if asterisk and obelisk can bat ;-)

    By Blogger worma, at 15:43  

  • Last 50 ODIs matches and top performing batsmen.

    avg 100s

    1 SRT 45.76 5
    2 Dravid 42.61 2
    3 Kaif 36.21 1
    4 Laxman 34.51 5
    5 Y Singh 30.37 3
    6 Ganguly 30.34 0 + 8 wickets @ 60 + 1 MoM performance
    7 Sehwag 27.89 2 + 23 wickets @ 41+ 4 MoM performance

    By Blogger Yacrik, at 15:53  

  • worma - You know what I mean, mate. If they are Asterix & Obelix they can do the bludgeoning act, especially Sehwag who seems to resemble Obelix day by day.

    Anyway, I was thinking exactly about our batting skills against Bond & Vettori while I typing the earlier message. Yes, I agree Bond will not bowl like that everyday & I agree that Vettori should not really trouble us. However, think about (I am being the devil's advocate here) what could really make Bond repeat his performance. The poor forms of SG & VS against the good form of Bond plus good bowling conditions (especially if India bat forst) tips the balance into Bond's favour. Once a bowler like Bond gets a couple of early ones, he builds on it and the other batsmen, especially Indian go into a shell against such a bowler. They start seeing him off. You cannot have that in a final. It is a recipe for losing a game. It is what you do in a test match. In a one-day match, you take them on, not play them off.

    Also, remember Bond will be well-rested too.

    Anyway, I would like to fancy that the Indians wil turn the tables tomorrow against a full Kiwi team. But it will take some doing that. I would like to see SG duck. He is still in self-denial mode. Everyone knows he cannot play the short-pitched stuff. SRT would say, why do you bother. If the ball is going to be above your eye level, you should have nothing to do with it.

    So DUCK SG DUCK and hence perhaps get out of the ducks (ie zeroes).

    After all, only one such delivery is allowed in an over. Ther rest he should play to merit. Score the first 20 runs off 40 balls, no problem but carry on till after the 30th but keep bloody ducking, out of the way. After doing that for 20 overs, he can perhaps attempt a pull, maybe of Vettori. That is the magic potion for SG.

    By Blogger Akshay, at 16:01  

  • this article shows why I think buchanan is one of the biggest frauds in world cricket today.

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16492637%255E23212,00.html

    By Blogger jaki123, at 16:01  

  • worma - the point I was trying to make was - Who should our supersub be for tommorow's game.. irrespective of who that supersub is, if we have a batting collapse, then we are are condemned to be one bowler short anyways... so instead of Rao, lets get Raina.. he can atleast bowl.. Karthik didnt bowl well enough in the previous game to inspire confidence to pick him as supersub for the final, because he only brings his bowling skills to the table... unlike raina..

    By Blogger Tiger, at 16:03  

  • last 100 ODIs

    SRT 50.0 13
    Dravid 43.6 3
    Kaif 33.7 2 (in 95 games)
    Yuvraj 31.98 2 (in 95 games)
    Ganguly 35.5 5
    Sehwag 32.9 6

    So...depends what you want to 'prove' right ?

    By Blogger worma, at 16:06  

  • I think India batting first seems fine provided that they understand the conditions well. If the pitch remains as good through the day, it might still be worthwhile to think about chasing. Other than Bond, I dont think the Indians are actually losing sleep over the rest of the bowlers. I am not underestimating Vettori but if Indians dont lose a lot of wickets early on, he's not as big a threat.

    People talk about chasing in a finals being a high-pressure affair. But setting a score brings pressure too because there'll be a target score in mind. Plus, Indians ahve some high-profile chases in finals, dont they?

    By Blogger Toney, at 16:08  

  • akshay - you wrote - " Ideally, India want to bat first, get 270 plus, bowl one of Pathan or Nehra out and then get Kartik in in their place to do a containing job.
    "
    That doesnt make sense.. a supersub can only bowl the remaning overs of a 10 over quota of the player he substitutes - so if we are batting first, then Karthik would replace a batsman and not Pathan or Nehra.. and u dont need to bowl Pathan or Nehra out for Karthik to come in and bowl.

    By Blogger Tiger, at 16:08  

  • akshay, I agree that Bond would be all charged up, esp if he gets early wkts. I also agree, as you said, we should not be looking to see him off. I think they should attack him, except SG ducking the short ball on the body (not even that if its ill directed, outside off). I also hope he ducks :)...as he has been doing against Zim on friday.

    tiger I thought both rao and raina can bowl ? but anyways, I think supersub would be decided based on what we want to do. If we want to bat first, then get Karthik in. And batting first, if we do have a collapse, get him in place of Nehra maybe (if we have a disastrous collapse). Even Karthik can have a better day in bowling, he is a good bowler, it was his first match after a long time.

    By Blogger worma, at 16:12  

  • toney, true about the pitch. If the pitch has indeed helped us pull off these two chases relatively comfortably, then it means pitch is helpful early on. Although to me, in the Zim game, it looked pretty similar throughout. In the sense that even Agarkar and RP didn't move the ball that much, they were accurate, but so were Mahwire and Ireland early on.

    By Blogger worma, at 16:15  

  • Tiger - I would bowl out Pathan in the initial overs through the 3 power plays in the first 20 and bring Kartik in his place.

    Kartik bowling with Bhajji in tandem in the middle overs might well be the answer for the middle over blues (for future as well)that we seem to be suffering with at the moment. Keep Yadav, Agarkar & Nehra for the last 10. Agreed Kartik may not bowl all his 10 but I would definitely prefer a specialist bowler against inexperienced part-timers like Rao & Raina. I would not replace Kartik for a batsmen as they are all specialist fielders or bowling options -

    VS (Off-spinner likely to be used)
    SG (Could be subbed but happens to be the Captain)
    RD (Slips but generally good fielder)
    MK (Irreplaceable anywhere)
    YS (Irreplaceable anywhere)
    MSD (Keeper)

    There you are, so Pathan goes at the end of the 19th.

    By Blogger Akshay, at 16:24  

  • akshay....are you sure...Once Pathan has bowled his quota...I do not think Kartik can bowl ..??

    By Blogger ilovecricket, at 16:32  

  • Quite right, did'nt know of such a rule.

    Hmmm, guess it will have to be Sehwag off the field if Kartik kas to come in. Or maybe SG will have a bad "fall".

    Thanks guys for enlightening my uninitiated self.

    By Blogger Akshay, at 16:47  

  • akshay - Once Pathan bowls his 10 overs, his replacement CANT bowl a single ball, let alone a few overs.

    By Blogger Tiger, at 16:47  

  • worma - I dont get it! If there is a batting collapse, you replace Nehra with Karthik?? Karthik is no great shakes with the bat and you miss the one bowler who has been better than all others during this nascent season. I can understand you want to bring Karthik in for a batsman when we bowl in the second innings, but bringing in Karthik for Nehra is somehow not very appealing.

    By Blogger Tiger, at 16:51  

  • Right, time to crash for me now guys, it was nice blogging with you here.

    Hope we have good game tomorrow. Its a bugger I wont be watching it as I need to be at work first thing tomorrow.

    Hate it when they have these final games in the middle of the bloody week. Might see you here tomorrow, if get a chance.

    Dont know where you are but its Good Day, Good Evening & Good night as it may be applicable.

    By Blogger Akshay, at 16:53  

  • BTW, did you guys read Fleming's comment that he thought the super sub is a rubbish thing? And he likes the power plays though, because it involves some technical thinking... what! Choosing when to have power play is technical wizardry and choosing supersub and when to use one is rubbish? What crap!

    By Blogger Tiger, at 16:54  

  • tiger - I do see some merit in fleming's argument. The thought process required to decide on power plays is definetly more involved than selecting a super sub. With super sub you tend to react to situations. Every one uses a super sub when the situation really warrants and you have no other choice. The choice of power play could involve some kind of "lateral thinking". In my opinion its more of a proactive choice when implemented. It definetly involves lot of intangibles much more than just replacing a super sub.

    By Blogger sachin, at 17:14  

  • worma - why 100 odis? it's pure illogical isn't it? you have to start from 2001 for 100 odis.
    What someone did 4 years ago cannot determine what he is likely to do in the next few matches.
    I picked 50 because, it reflects performance in the last 1.5-2 years.
    once again your assertion are based on random thinking and irrelevant facts.

    By Blogger Yacrik, at 18:43  

  • An interesting article in today's midday.
    http://web.mid-day.com/news/city/2005/september/117930.htm

    Record breaking Lankan Spinner..So Murali is frequenting dance Bars in Mumbai these days? Interesting.

    By Blogger Vick, at 20:28  

  • vick

    and he just got married !!!

    By Blogger Amit, at 22:34  

  • About the super sub the safest and best use of super sub s if you get a utility player.

    The idea is a utility player (think sanjay Bangar) can be a better bat than last 3/4 of your bowlers or a better bowl than 3/4 or your part timers. So you have your 7 th batsmen or 5 th -6th bowler if need be

    By Blogger Amit, at 22:43  

  • Prem: This is Outlook's bid to give Iqbal the film a leg up.
    Regards
    Raj

    http://outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20050905&fname=Film+Iqbal+%28F%29&sid=1

    By Blogger Raj, at 23:06  

  • worma, a suggestion... if you could make the links in your blog open in a new window, that would help...

    By Blogger samc, at 01:28  

  • Worma
    what do you thik should happen to SG if he fails todayand we win. or if he flops and we lose or if he does well and we lose? i know your opinion will be biassed in a pro Sg manner but i still respect it and would love to know what you think even if i disagree with it !

    By Blogger K-Slice, at 01:40  

  • hey guys, how bout a separate thread for the final game? now is a good time for one. its only another one and a half hour away. prem's on vacation as usual.

    By Blogger puranjoy, at 02:20  

  • puranjoy, others, starting a new thread for the game now. 5 mins

    By Blogger worma, at 02:25  

Post a Comment

<< Home