*Official* New Zealand in India 2010

[sachin200]

Ever since we got owned by SA in 2008 they've made it ridiculously flat.

The Martin spell seriously flatters this pitch. If the curator is justifying himself because of yesterday's wickets someone better ****ing slap him.

The pitch vs SA was exactly same as SL 2009 only difference being they manged to get the lower middle order as well. That pitch (SA one) was also flat baring first session which had some moisture. Ahmedabad pitch users red soil which looses pace as the game goes on and hence the draws. Unless they prepare a green track all the test matches there will be draws. They need to change the soil ASAP

 

[kingpin]

Na laxman and Bhajji to get a ton.....

well almost perfect prediction.... thanx to Davis....

 

[honestbharani]

People seem to forget that both times when we came from behind to tie the series against SA, they got the opportunity to bat first. Hardly like they were batting last on a wearing wicket and hence got run through.

facts and logic don't matter when dissing BCCI though..

 

[G.I.Joe]

If I was Sanz and GI Hoe and supported India's refusal to use the UDRS, that'd be fair enough. But I don't so

For every decision that goes against the Indians, there's one that goes against the opposition. Besides, 0-2 results have a way of shutting up the (not quite) smart alecs on the forum.

 

[G.I.Joe]

no team can collapse in a session unless your name is Pakistan.

I take it you didn't watch yesterday's play?

 

[Jono]

For every decision that goes against the Indians, there's one that goes against the opposition.

Lol @ liking bad decisions.

 

[andyc]

Lol @ liking bad decisions.

Haha yeah, baffles the mind.

 

[weldone]

For every decision that goes against the Indians, there's one that goes against the opposition.

Firstly, that can't be a reason to justify bad decisions.

Secondly, according to the science of probability that's only the case for an infinite number of decisions (can't be true for a 3 match test series). Generally one random team gets the benefit.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I don't like bad decisions. I do get why the Indians are opposed to UDRS in its current form though.

Indian (Tendulkar and co) opposition to UDRS has to do with them not trusting its predictiveness enough, rather than an opposition to all technology. They don't trust it to accurately project the path of the ball on Indian pitches where the ball can do strange things off the pitch towards the end. They're fine with hot spot, which doesn't involve having to make predictions. So why doesn't the ICC meet the BCCI halfway and allow a Hot spot specific UDRS here? Something is better than nothing, which coincidentally seems to be premise of the current UDRS system of limited reviews.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Firstly, that can't be a reason to justify bad decisions.

Secondly, according to the science of probability that's only the case for an infinite number of decisions (can't be true for a 3 match test series). Generally one random team gets the benefit.

It was a response to the "Refer it" calls that seem to crop up whenever the Indians get the bad end of a decision. Not a justification for putting up with bad umpiring.

 

[weldone]

Indian (Tendulkar and co) opposition to UDRS has to do with them not trusting its predictiveness enough, rather than an opposition to all technology. They don't trust it to accurately project the path of the ball on Indian pitches where the ball can do strange things off the pitch towards the end. They're fine with hot spot, which doesn't involve having to make predictions.

Now, that's a much much better point than 'both teams are going to get same number of bad decisions' theory

 

[G.I.Joe]

Now, that's a much much better point than 'both teams are going to get same number of bad decisions' theory

You've misinterpreted me.

 

[vcs]

Calculating the ball's trajectory is a straightforward exercise mathematically if you have enough sample points after it has bounced, I don't see how the track has anything to do with it.

 

[Prince EWS]

Calculating the ball's trajectory is a straightforward exercise mathematically if you have enough sample points after it has bounced, I don't see how the track has anything to do with it.

I certainly think it'd get it right a lot more times than the human eye, anyway.

Whether or not HawkEye is perfect or even close to perfect is not the question - it's whether or not it's more likely to be correct that the umpires which really shouldn't be in dispute.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Then why not apply hawkeye to every delivery in a match and be done with it? Do you like bad decisions?

 

[Prince EWS]

Then why not apply hawkeye to every delivery in a match and be done with it?

I am in favour of this!

 

[G.I.Joe]

I am in favour of this!

That'd eliminate the current lottery system, and I'm in favour of that

 

[Sanz]

I don't like bad decisions. I do get why the Indians are opposed to UDRS in its current form though.

Indian (Tendulkar and co) opposition to UDRS has to do with them not trusting its predictiveness enough, rather than an opposition to all technology. They don't trust it to accurately project the path of the ball on Indian pitches where the ball can do strange things off the pitch towards the end. They're fine with hot spot, which doesn't involve having to make predictions. So why doesn't the ICC meet the BCCI halfway and allow a Hot spot specific UDRS here? Something is better than nothing, which coincidentally seems to be premise of the current UDRS system of limited reviews.

Well said.

 

[silentstriker]

I don't like bad decisions. I do get why the Indians are opposed to UDRS in its current form though.

Indian (Tendulkar and co) opposition to UDRS has to do with them not trusting its predictiveness enough, rather than an opposition to all technology. They don't trust it to accurately project the path of the ball on Indian pitches where the ball can do strange things off the pitch towards the end. They're fine with hot spot, which doesn't involve having to make predictions. So why doesn't the ICC meet the BCCI halfway and allow a Hot spot specific UDRS here? Something is better than nothing, which coincidentally seems to be premise of the current UDRS system of limited reviews.

Uh, no. Their opposition to it is they got burned in Sydney by bad decisions so they threw a hissy fit and brought in the technology. Which was great except the limiting factor in its effectiveness was that the Indian team was too damn stupid to use it right and so promptly threw a second hissy fit.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Uh, no. Their opposition to it is they got burned in Sydney by bad decisions so they threw a hissy fit and brought in the technology. Which was great except the limiting factor in its effectiveness was that the Indian team was too damn stupid to use it right and so promptly threw a second hissy fit.

Yes, the limiting factor in its effectiveness was indeed that it has an element of lottery to it. Either get it right or don't bring it in.