Shri
Mr. Glass
Je ne sais pas.is he back??!
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Improvements that need to be made in cricket
- Thread starter dhillon28
- Start date
Rather than focusing on these fine aspects of Technology, the ICC should be focusing more on the following aspects
1. The Revival of Test cricket. Thinking of alternate ways, maybe a 2 Tier Test system or any other suggestion to provide a boost for it
2. Future Tours Program:- providing more relevance for it and ensuring the top teams also play matches against teams who have been given ODI status like Afghanistan.
3. Development of game across more nations and ensure more test nations in few years.Having cricket popular nations like Afghanistan, Ireland, Nepal, PNG, Kenya, Uganda strengthen their teams and enter into Test League asap
4. Picking the Test Standards of Test Nations like NZ, WI, Zim and BD
Dhillon you can ignore many people and their comments. They may look like have 5000 Posts out here but I am sure 4990 of them would be same crap like this
1. The Revival of Test cricket. Thinking of alternate ways, maybe a 2 Tier Test system or any other suggestion to provide a boost for it
2. Future Tours Program:- providing more relevance for it and ensuring the top teams also play matches against teams who have been given ODI status like Afghanistan.
3. Development of game across more nations and ensure more test nations in few years.Having cricket popular nations like Afghanistan, Ireland, Nepal, PNG, Kenya, Uganda strengthen their teams and enter into Test League asap
4. Picking the Test Standards of Test Nations like NZ, WI, Zim and BD
Dhillon you can ignore many people and their comments. They may look like have 5000 Posts out here but I am sure 4990 of them would be same crap like this
Daemon
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Not the best example but here goes anyways, plot a scatter graph in excel with 100 data points from a range on the x axis of 1-10 in a pattern that looks like a log graph (kinda like what a cricket ball does after it pitches). Add a trendline.
Go do that and then come tell me that people with access to technology and software that makes microsoft office look like what paint does in front of photoshop can't even predict the path of a goddamn ball after it pitches for a couple of feet.
And like TumTum mentioned earlier, it's not like hawk eye predicts where the ball will go before the ball even pitches, it uses data points up till the point of impact which takes into account spin, swing and bounce.
slugger
State Vice-Captain
the idea for 2 tier test system does have merit, the problem is a tier system has to have a promotion religation mechanism for it to be accepted by the lower ranked teams, otherwise they wont want a bar of it. dont think your team might be in the top 4 now and never drop below that, it is entirely possible example west indies.
Gitchi gitchi ya ya da da
No, lets just keep cricket restricted to 8 teams and let the bottom two of those 8 teams (NZ and Windies) fall away that just leaves us with 6 competitive teams. And then lets devote 12 complete months to just watching matches between 6 competitive teams......because that wouldnt be boring would it? Lets do nothing at all to spread interest in the game around the world! Lets not follow the model of the english premier league and spread the game to all four corners of the world.
IPL brings people who have no interest in cricket at all, to sit down and watch cricket. ICC world cups have never managed to do this but IPL has. In my university, about ppl who never even mentioned the word cricket in the first 3 years of uni, ended up watching two ipl games per day, even at the expense of their studies. When he had our exams, everyone was saying that they were dying to watch IPL instead of revise. It quite truly has a magic about it that seems to transcend not only all other types of cricket, but in fact all other sports. If we let the IPL model grow, it really can spread cricket all over the world, for this it needs participation of all nationalities.
And there will still be time for your 6 decent test nations to play each other.
you didnt read my post carefully. If 2/3 umpires spot an obvious mistake and they both independently notice it, they simply just inform the onfield umpire obviously. Face it, if two people sitting in two different rooms with out any contact with each other feel that a decision is clearly wrong.....then it most likely will be and thus nearly all howlers will be removed from cricket. No need for referrals and decision will simply be overturned and time will be saved as they wont deliberate, theyll just flag and let you know that its wrong.
Research this point for yourself. I'll point you in the right direction: Federer vs Nadal 2008 Wimbledon final. Same technology in use in tennis.
No. You're not. You can go back go sleep.
I can give you other instances of hawk eye being inaccurate. In the 2nd test 4th innings 2010 RSA vs India at Durban. Boucher was judged lbw from Zaheer but hawk eye showed it to completely miss the off stump and so a lot of south africans unjustifiably felt hard done by. A sky sports commentator picked this up, the ball had in fact reversed in and was most probably going to hit off stump but hawk eye carried the ball along its original trajectory. The south african media being selectively analytical jumped all over this and blamed the umpire when in fact it was hawk eye's fault.
Also in the Perth test Aus vs India 3rd test 2008, Kumble trapped Symonds plumb lbw but hawk eye said it was going over and so a lot of aussie fans claimed that this equated to the 8 obvious blunders that Bucknor made during the 2nd SCG test to hand the aussies the match. There have been many other instances when hawk eye has made an apparent blunder, I see it all the time. You may think im chatting a pile of crap? But Adam Gilchrist agrees with me...and so does Mark Taylor judging by how he's laughing.
YouTube - Adam Gilchrist Commentary on 20.20 1:35
The way hawk eye works is that it takes frames of video footage from multiple cameras and uses each frame to assess the flight pattern e.g. from frame 1 to frame to frame 2 its turned 2mm, from frame 2 to frame 3 its turned 1 mm etc and thus we can predict how much it will turn. Therein lies the problem with hawk eye. If we are using it to predict turn after pitching it is severely limited. For example if Harbhajan bowls a ball and it strikes a batsmen on the pad immediately after it pitches, it is almost impossible to assess the amount of turn because there will simply not be enough footage to take enough frames of footage and hence accurately depict the ball's later path. Same applies to bounce if the ball strikes the pad very soon after pitching. Hawk eye is even more inaccurate when the ball strikes the pad very soon after bouncing when bowlers bowl dooras, googlies, topspinners etc as it will probably not even be able to register the fact that the ball was doing something different to all the other balls in the over. Hawk eye only becomes accurate to predict turn bounce etc when there is considerable time between the ball pitching and striking the pad (which will only really applies to exaggerate back foot shots). In such instances the decision becomes so obvious, that even the naked eye will be able to make a judgement...to the point that if you sat a 100 ppl in a room and got them to watch the footage that at least 90 off them would reach a consensus of out/not out. Hence hawk eye is a redundant technology.
In such instances where there is little time between the ball pitching and striking the pad, I believe benefit of the doubt should be given to batsmen as the original lbw rule required that the ball be quite obviously striking the stumps. That is the whole point of lbw. It was not designed to give batsmen out based on a statistical calculation of probabilities based on limited data. If it was then all games back in the day would have been required issac newton to stand as umpire.
Another way of saying what I'm saying is: we should not make such definitive judgments on batsmen's wickets when using a predictive model.
Also another problem with the current UDRS is that the very same decision can be given out/not out based on the original umpires verdict. How is that fair? It removes fairness and equality from the decision making process and just further accentuates the subjectivity of umpires. If you are going to use a crap system at least let both teams benefit/suffer from it equally.
Finally I'd like to finish by saying that a peer reviewed journal did a study on hawk eye in 2008 and concluded that one of the biggest problems with its use is that followers of the sport seem to treat its judgment as the "unchallengeable truth" and do not understand its limitations. Are you listening south africans who feel that ab de villiers was given wrongly out to harbhajan (durban 2010) because hawk eye showed it going over the top and australians who feel symonds was given wrong out to kumble (perth 2009) ? Compare the strength of that evidence to when symonds was given not out by bucknor who blatantly edged ishant do dhoni and the whole stadium noticed it.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
None of your 'proof' of HawkEye being inaccurate is actually proof at all; you're assuming that your judgement, watching on TV, is superior to it automatically.
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
Oh my bad, it has an error of 2-3mm - clearly far inferior to the human eye there then.
Daemon
Request Your Custom Title Now!
And in the same situation, the naked eye is superior?
you obviously havent understood the what ive said otherwise you wouldnt have made this point
Goughy
Hall of Fame Member
Never got the issue with this. Of course 90 overs is the expected target but from a fans perspective 78 overs of intense cricket is far superior than 90 overs including a lot of low pressure dross bowled by parttimers. Quality of cricket is more important that quantity.
**** parttime spinners hurrying through overs to avoid sanctions devalues the game and takes away from the bat vs ball battle of Test cricket. Test cricket should be about taking wickets and scoring runs, not having to bowling quick overs as a priority.
I have some sympathy with the situation but I think the effects of an implemented cure lead to greater issues and a worse deal for the paying fan.
I am the biggest fan of Geoff Boycott but this is one area I disagree with him.
Last edited: