***Official*** India in Australia

[tooextracool]

Clark can get the odd one to come in like lee.

Clark and Lee bowl inswingers? I certainly have never seen them do so in test cricket. Lee swings the white ball away but in tests hes been incapable of doing that thus far.

 

[Evermind]

I don't agree with that.
I think for once as stated in my above post Indians should not be graceful in defeat like the aren't.
If the aussies can make spinning pitches an excuse why cannot Indians make under preparation in first test and then disgraceful umpiring as an excuse.This will atleast put pressure on umpires to not be homies.

I don't think it was bias - it was just complete incompetence. Boycott's mum heard that Symonds nick, I'm sure. He looked back, and was pretty much ready to walk.

The under-preparation is a big THANK YOU to BCCI, who are absolutely disgraceful in how they squeeze money out of the players and the public. Pathetic, worthless organisation.

A couple of points:

1) Harsha Bogle is a terrible host of the post-match analysis. He keeps interrupting the experts and barely gives them a chance to talk. It reminds me of that Bill Maher show Politically Incorrect or smth, where everyone's talking all at the same time and it's so ****ing annoying you have to change the channel. Along with his incessant blinking and jerky facial movements, Bogle is fast becoming a prime candidate for my "least favourite video commentator ever".

2) Ian Chappell says snicko is rubbish? What? It's perfectly reliable from what I can see.

 

[Cevno]

Yes, we agree on that. But don't you think that once the decision does go against you, you should try just as hard to get back into the game and not drop your shoulders and give up on it? That's what separates Australia from the other teams.

I probably agree but you have to consider the fact that india were playing with two spinners on a first day track and with two inexperienced bowlers with their first three(or atleast two) choice seamers out.In this situation every wicket is crucial.Ishant sharma even twisted his ankle.Though the Indian's became impatient too early when wickets stopped falling and after bad decisions thus giving away loose balls.

Another thing like ponting i would have liked kumble fighting with the umpires(or atleast talking to them) like ponting rather than walking away with dropped shoulders and falling head.

 

[Prince EWS]

Clark and Lee bowl inswingers? I certainly have never seen them do so in test cricket. Lee swings the white ball away but in tests hes been incapable of doing that thus far.

I repeatedly suggested Clark would struggle a bit this summer having more responsibility in the attack, mainly due to the fact that he couldn't move the ball in - but he can bowl a mean offcutter as we've now seen and I'm sure I saw three balls he bowled in one spell actually move in before pitching in the first innings against India in Melbourne. The seam suggested it was conventional as well.

Lee can't bowl inswingers though, no.

 

[Cevno]

Clark and Lee bowl inswingers? I certainly have never seen them do so in test cricket. Lee swings the white ball away but in tests hes been incapable of doing that thus far.

for clark-
Did you see dhoni dismissal in first innings of the first match at M.C.G?He got two three wickets at m.c.g swinging it in.

Lee swings it both ways but more usually away than Inwards like sreesanth who can reverse it in.

 

[sideshowtim]

Oh shut the god damn hell up.

Australia get as many bad decisions and have as much 'bad luck' as everyone else. The difference? Regardless of poor decisions against us, we keep our heads high, put it behind us and keep trying to get the batsman out, and more often than not, it works. There has been so, so many times during our 15 match streak that a poor umpiring decision has cost us a wicket, yet our attack is good enough to keep persisting and getting the wickets eventually. Ganguly was out God knows how many times to Hogg in the first Test....Did we let it affect us? No, we kept the pressure on with some tight bowling and aggressive captaincy. Same with the Yuvraj 'wicket'. Didn't let that affect us. Nor Dravid's numerous chances during his innings of 5. India have no one to blame but themselves. Hogg and Symonds aren't invincible batsmen by any means. Constant good bolwing and good field placings would've got them.

Magnificent come back by Australia. Showing why we've won the last 15.

 

[tooextracool]

Yeah, but what if it's inconclusive a lot of the time, like with LBW decisions and catches? Do we still delay the game by referring it to the third umpire every time?

I know it's easy to call for technology to be used, but think about the last test for instance and the myriad of rejected LBW shouts by Hogg and Kumble respectively. How many of those, had they been referred, would have been conclusively out on replay? I'd hazard a guess at 0. And how much time would it have taken for every one of those shouts to be referred to the third umpire, all for no reason?

You cannot honestly believe that lbws would not benefit from replays and technology than without. Let me remind you that nothing is conclusive. If you honestly believe that any umpire can be CERTAIN about any decision that he makes based on something that happens within a split second then you are deceiving yourself. Decisions are made based on percentages. If you are fairly certain something is out you give it out. If not you dont. As far as I am concerned, with the exception of catches, technology makes the decision making process far more effective. In terms of lbws in particular, this difference is significant.

 

[tooextracool]

Anyone else find it funny that amid all the clamouring here for the use of technology in umpiring decisions, a decision is referred to the third umpire that is totally inconclusive and a batsman is given not out because you couldn't tell?

This is why technology is not used more than it is. Every time it is experimented with for anything other than black and white, behind or in front of the line decisions, it is generally inconclusive and simply serves to complicate things. For LBW decisions it is impractical because many of the things used in determining an LBW decision are either abritrary (was the batsman playing a shot?) or difficult to tell on replay a lot of the time (was the ball going to hit the stumps?). That leaves pitching in line, where it may have a purpose. For catches it isn't used because camera angles make viewing the position of a ball relative to the ground very difficult, and catches low to the ground viewed on replay are very, very often inconclusive. For reference, see the hundreds of arguments on this forum about whether or not X catch by X fielder was genuine. If nothing else, that should indicate you can't use replays to determine those decisions much of the time.

That leaves run outs, where it is already used, and no ball decisions, where I would support the introduction of technology. For LBWs and catches, technology is nowhere near 100% reliable in improving the umpire's ability to make a decision, and would simply delay the game and undermine the umpires for no valid reason much of the time, especially if one assumes that technology like Hawkeye wouldn't be used because it is predictive and therefore not verifiably accurate.

Why on earth does it need to be 100% reliable? The fact that it improves reliability from 95%-97% is more than enough reason to use it. I dont care what it is, but even 1 decision can affect the course of a series. One possibility is to limit the referrals to 3 decisions per game for each team. That way it does not take up much more time than the game already does. I myself am a big fan of third umpires being able to overule on-field umpiring decisions. I dont care how often it makes the on field umpire look like a fool, i think the bottom line is improving the effectiveness of the game itself and if that means that the umpiring decision is not THE BE ALL AND END ALL then so be it. If there is conclusive proof that a batsman is out/not out, that is you can determine within the 2 minutes that it takes for the new batsmen to come in, then it should be overruled immediately. At least it takes out decisions that are absolute howlers from the game.

 

[Cevno]

Oh shut the god damn hell up.

Australia get as many bad decisions and have as much 'bad luck' as everyone else. The difference? Regardless of poor decisions against us, we keep our heads high, put it behind us and keep trying to get the batsman out, and more often than not, it works. There has been so, so many times during our 15 match streak that a poor umpiring decision has cost us a wicket, yet our attack is good enough to keep persisting and getting the wickets eventually. Ganguly was out God knows how many times to Hogg in the first Test....Did we let it affect us? No, we kept the pressure on with some tight bowling and aggressive captaincy. Same with the Yuvraj 'wicket'. Didn't let that affect us. Nor Dravid's numerous chances during his innings of 5. India have no one to blame but themselves. Hogg and Symonds aren't invincible batsmen by any means. Constant good bolwing and good field placings would've got them.

Magnificent come back by Australia. Showing why we've won the last 15.

If those were out then kumble should have gotten double the wickets in his career.umpires don't tend to give it out to spinners when the batsmen has a stride forward.
I agree Indians were too impatient and let their intensity drop but that was partly due to umpiring.I agree you aussies are better then indians at mantaining intensity because you are more fitter and more athletic,so Indians have to make most when things are working for them and their intensity is up(specially when there is swing) which the umpires did not let happen.
As for equal decisions going against aussies that is untrue and you remember them because your team is aggressive against them and your captain and media create a fuss about it.while i cannot remember any of our captains except ganguly doing it and our media just needs to find a chance to turn our team and crticize it's own team.

 

[Laurrz]

There hasnt been much seam movement, theres been swing and plenty of bounce. From my knowledge the only bowler who is supposedly capable of swinging the ball in the Australian side is Mitchell Johnson (unless Clark has added a new dimension to his bowling recently).

not really, Lee and Clark are good swingers of the ball too... they arent out and out swing bowlers (your RP's Hoggards Vaas etc.) but they can swing it...and quite effectively
Lee swings it more than Clark.. he bowls with a terrific seam position and gets excellent outswing..
but Clark swings it subtlely which is very dangerous

but the pitch is a bit greenish.. i just get the feeling it's that type of wicket you know
perhaps exaggerating movement.. coz of the extra bounce.. we saw that at the SCG in last years test actually..

Symo wil be a handful....he can definately swing the ball... like Ganguly did but he is quicker and hits the pitch much harder..

 

[Craig]

I would be amazed if a 3rd umpire couldn't have told us that Symonds nicked the ball behind of Sharma.

 

[tooextracool]

2) Ian Chappell says snicko is rubbish? What? It's perfectly reliable from what I can see.

Snicko? Reliable? You have to be joking. I have seen snicko generate noises from absolutely nowhere, despite there being daylight between bat-pad-ball and almost everything else. Heck I've seen plenty of commentators try to manufacture reasons for the sound, despite the blatantly obvious fact that Snicko is just a pile of rubbish that offers absolutely nothing in terms of making things more accurate. I wouldnt go by Snicko on anything. Its perfectly possible that a seagull in Australia dropped a piece and it registered as a noise on Snicko.

 

[Davey]

LoL

i just saw the replay for that decision on Symonds, oh my... how could you not give that out? are the umpires scared or something????

Meanwhile is Ponting going to get in trouble for his dissent like Yuvraj did?? Ponting muttered something too.... to himself though

Personally i wouldnt have called up either for dissent like that honestly its just staring in disbelief... but now that theyve dubbed in Yuvraj... they have to be consistent so i expect Ponting will get similar treatment.

 

[Cevno]

Why on earth does it need to be 100% reliable? The fact that it improves reliability from 95%-97% is more than enough reason to use it. I dont care what it is, but even 1 decision can affect the course of a series. One possibility is to limit the referrals to 3 decisions per game for each team. That way it does not take up much more time than the game already does. I myself am a big fan of third umpires being able to overule on-field umpiring decisions. I dont care how often it makes the on field umpire look like a fool, i think the bottom line is improving the effectiveness of the game itself and if that means that the umpiring decision is not THE BE ALL AND END ALL then so be it. If there is conclusive proof that a batsman is out/not out, that is you can determine within the 2 minutes that it takes for the new batsmen to come in, then it should be overruled immediately. At least it takes out decisions that are absolute howlers from the game.

I absolutely agree with that.
The technology even if it is 95-97% accurate it is more accurate than the umpires.then why do not we use what is more accurate?
I do not know about other teams but when India are on tour we tend to get more decisions against us.even in england they went against India.I remember Harsha bhogle sitting with
Ian chappel after the last test match and Ian chappel said that These decisions have gone against India in this series but they will even out over the course of the next couple of series.
To which bhogle replied "perhaps in australia " but this has not happened.there also Dravid accepted it and now Kumble is acceping it as "it happens" .

 

[tooextracool]

I repeatedly suggested Clark would struggle a bit this summer having more responsibility in the attack, mainly due to the fact that he couldn't move the ball in - but he can bowl a mean offcutter as we've now seen and I'm sure I saw three balls he bowled in one spell actually move in before pitching in the first innings against India in Melbourne. The seam suggested it was conventional as well.

For mine anyone can get the odd ball to swing. Harmison has swung the ball on occasions before, even got the ball to reverse. The question is can he do it consistently? 3 balls in one spell are hardly going to affect too many batsmen. Clark from what i saw got the ball to reverse a bat at Melbourne but other than that he bowled mainly cutters and used it to good effect.

 

[Evermind]

Snicko? Reliable? You have to be joking. I have seen snicko generate noises from absolutely nowhere, despite there being daylight between bat-pad-ball and almost everything else. Heck I've seen plenty of commentators try to manufacture reasons for the sound, despite the blatantly obvious fact that Snicko is just a pile of rubbish that offers absolutely nothing in terms of making things more accurate. I wouldnt go by Snicko on anything. Its perfectly possible that a seagull in Australia dropped a piece and it registered as a noise on Snicko.

I see. I'm not familiar with the techology used for Snicko, anyone got a good article on the nitty-gritty details?

 

[tooextracool]

for clark-
Did you see dhoni dismissal in first innings of the first match at M.C.G?He got two three wickets at m.c.g swinging it in.

Lee swings it both ways but more usually away than Inwards like sreesanth who can reverse it in.

Both are capable of reverse. Lee never has bowled conventional swingers in test match cricket. The only time i ever remember him swinging the ball conventional was at Sydney in 03/04 but other than that hes been gun barrell straight with the new ball.

 

[Cevno]

For mine anyone can get the odd ball to swing. Harmison has swung the ball on occasions before, even got the ball to reverse. The question is can he do it consistently? 3 balls in one spell are hardly going to affect too many batsmen. Clark from what i saw got the ball to reverse a bat at Melbourne but other than that he bowled mainly cutters and used it to good effect.

Yes it does as the batsman becomes unsure whether to cover for inswing or for outswing and playing for inswing ends up nicking a straight ball.

 

[Prince EWS]

Both are capable of reverse. Lee never has bowled conventional swingers in test match cricket. The only time i ever remember him swinging the ball conventional was at Sydney in 03/04 but other than that hes been gun barrell straight with the new ball.

Well, his new slower ball swings away conventionally. Other than that though, I'd have to agree.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Excellent post in full Fullins. Thank you.

Uh, that's Fuller, not Fullins.

Rookie mistake.