Improvements that need to be made in cricket

[benchmark00]

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.

Agree 100%.

Have said a number of times that slow over rates is the biggest non issue in cricket, especially considering the fact that the rules allow for making up overs.

The cynic in me says that the issue stems merely from the media, because having to use up the extra 30mins at the end of play means they have to work longer hours.

When I'm at the cricket I don't judge the value of play in terms of overs. I rate it in terms of quality cricket and time.

 

[dhillon28]

Oh my bad, it has an error of 2-3mm - clearly far inferior to the human eye there then.

yes it is your bad because, 2-3 mm inaccuracy is what it gives you upon simply pitching on the ground........imagie what kind of error it will then go on to give you with turn, bounce, swing, seam etc?

secondly error of 2-3mm being clearly far inferior to the human eye.... yes that is correct because in that wimbledon final the whole controversy started because the entire tennis viewing world clearly agreed that the ball was past the line and 'out' but hawk eye ruled it in.

Also real level of inaccuracy of hawk eye is 3.66mm but this margin for error only applies to witnessed trajectory of the ball. Let me spell that out clearly for ppl like Prince EWS etc: WHEN HAWK EYE GENERATES A COMPUTER IMAGE OF WHAT THE BALL ALREADY DID I.E. WHAT WE ALREADY SAW ON NORMAL TV, IT IS ALREADY 3.66mm INACCURATE! Now imaging what it's inaccuracy will be when estimating the future trajectory of the ball after striking a batsmen. It will be far greater than 3.66mm, especially like the literature says "especially in situations where the conditions of the turf would affect its future trajectory, i.e. where the ball is headed to the ground or has only a short hop before hitting the batsman". Considering each ground in the world has its own individual characteristics which can only be purely assessed on day 1 of a test match by eye witnesses , then how can we rely on a system that uses averages from multiple other cricket matches. i.e. how can you compare Delhi bounce and turn with WACA bounce and turn. What makes it even worse is that each wickets changes accross the five days of a test match and sometimes even from year to year i.e. WACA 2008 (RSA chasing down 416) was very different to WACA 2010 (AUS and ENG getting bundled out for low scores).

 

[dhillon28]

And in the same situation, the naked eye is superior?

as i said in my earlier post if you had cared to read it carefully, in such situations benefit of doubt should be given to the batsmen as the original lbw rule required the ball to "quite obviously be striking the stumps" and hence the term "benefit of doubt should be awarded to batsmen" was coined. Hence rather than making a positive decision and "hanging someone on minimal evidence", you simply say "not out".....innocent before proven guilty.....

so it doesnt matter if the naked eye is superior because we are not even using it in this instance to make a call!

 

[benchmark00]

Also real level of inaccuracy of hawk eye is 3.66mm but this margin for error only applies to witnessed trajectory of the ball. Let me spell that out clearly for ppl like Prince EWS etc: WHEN HAWK EYE GENERATES A COMPUTER IMAGE OF WHAT THE BALL ALREADY DID I.E. WHAT WE ALREADY SAW ON NORMAL TV, IT IS ALREADY 3.66mm INACCURATE! .

 

[Spark]

Oh no! Already 3.66mm!

That's like the width of a pencil lead, isn't it?

 

[dhillon28]

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.

yeh but over time it will lead to captains being more efficient with their over rates as deploying their part timers will cost captains momentum and eventually games and series and so part of captaincy will eventually be about keeping up the flow of the game. Just because bowlers have to be slightly more urgent with their bowling does not necessarily impact upon the quality of the performance. However if you strongly feel that way, then we can all agree to disregard all of sir Don Bradman's achievement as in his day over rates were 25 overs per hour.

 

[benchmark00]

Oh no! Already 3.66mm!

That's like the width of a pencil lead, isn't it?

Or Jono's penis.

 

[dhillon28]

Oh no! Already 3.66mm!

That's like the width of a pencil lead, isn't it?

"Already 3.66mm" does not underpin the significance of this point, as I dont really give a crap about the images hawk eye generates about what we already saw on a normal camera anyway (unless your playing tennis where it was essential, infact you can even argue its important for lbw decisions wrt if the ball pitches outside leg or in line). The real significance of the point was that if hawk eye cant even be accurate in showing us what we already saw, what chance does it stand in predicting the future path of a ball!

 

[benchmark00]

I think the most pressing concern in all this is the importance of getting a good camera angle when showing the highlights of an innings.

I blame the BCCI.

 

[dhillon28]

I think the most pressing concern in all this is the importance of getting a good camera angle when showing the highlights of an innings.

I blame the BCCI.

the whole sport is based upon viewership satisfaction, right from the players motivation for being players to tv company's incentive to invest. If they cant get that right, it is an important issue.

 

[Teja.]

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.

Er, no.

You're trying to pass of an extremely subjective perception based on nothing solid as an undeniable fact.

You, seeing the game on your tv/computer screen do not have the liberty of analyzing the subtle movements in the ball even close to the way slow-mo cameras do.

In other words,

Hawk-eye>You

Cheers.

 

[Goughy]

yeh but over time it will lead to captains being more efficient with their over rates as deploying their part timers will cost captains momentum and eventually games and series and so part of captaincy will eventually be about keeping up the flow of the game. Just because bowlers have to be slightly more urgent with their bowling does not necessarily impact upon the quality of the performance. However if you strongly feel that way, then we can all agree to disregard all of sir Don Bradman's achievement as in his day over rates were 25 overs per hour.

Not at all, playing on uncovered wickets made bowling all kinds of spinners more profitable. The best bowlers for the conditions were bowling and that just happened to produce quicker overrates. Given todays wickets, and other factors, most teams tend to employ more quicks than spinners and by nature overrates suffer. It just so happened, given the totality of the situation, that in Bradmans day the best bowlers and quick overrates went hand in hand.

The one thing I would say for speeding up overrates is to have the other bowler fielding close to the wicket to speed up the turn around time between overs rather than lumbering up from fine leg. This again, in Bradmans time, speeded up overrates as the other bowler was often close to the wicket fielding to the spinner.

More quicks, more sophisitcated and frequent field changes, referals and more 4s etc slows over rates down. Id rather see the best bowlers bowl 80 overs a day than 3rd rate bowlers forced to take the rate to 90.

As Benchy said, the current situation is a bonus to cricket fans as they get to see more cricket and the best bowlers bowling all the time as the time os made up.

 

[dhillon28]

Er, no.

You're trying to pass of an extremely subjective perception based on nothing solid as an undeniable fact.

You, seeing the game on your tv/computer screen do not have the liberty of analyzing the subtle movements in the ball even close to the way slow-mo cameras do.

In other words,

Hawk-eye>You

Cheers.

wow man, another person who hasn't understood the my previous post. I just put the Gilly video in their to satisfy our Australian brothers on this forum that even "their boy" thinks hawk eye is rubbish and it is not just merely the opinion of an over excited sub continental cricket fan.

secondly, a considerable amount of my previous post highlighting the inadequacies of hawk eye contains sufficient evidence for anyone who's learned enough to understand it, if you aren't, then that's not my fault. However if you are more learned, bring the PEER REVIEWED EVIDENCE that demonstrates the accuracy of hawk eye on predicting the future path of the ball.

I only care for the truth. The moment undeniable and unequivocal evidence is brought to prove the contrary, I'll happily change my views.

 

[sledger]

Troll dinner time @ this thread.

 

[dhillon28]

Not at all, playing on uncovered wickets made bowling all kinds of spinners more profitable. The best bowlers for the conditions were bowling and that just happened to produce quicker overrates. Given todays wickets, and other factors, most teams tend to employ more quicks than spinners and by nature overrates suffer. It just so happened, given the totality of the situation, that in Bradmans day the best bowlers and quick overrates went hand in hand.

The one thing I would say for speeding up overrates is to have the other bowler fielding close to the wicket to speed up the turn around time between overs rather than lumbering up from fine leg. This again, in Bradmans time, speeded up overrates as the other bowler was often close to the wicket fielding to the spinner.

More quicks, more sophisitcated and frequent field changes, referals and more 4s etc slows over rates down. Id rather see the best bowlers bowl 80 overs a day than 3rd rate bowlers forced to take the rate to 90.

As Benchy said, the current situation is a bonus to cricket fans as they get to see more cricket and the best bowlers bowling all the time as the time os made up.

No not really, of the ten best bowlers Bradman could have faced in his time (i.e. no Australians) eight of them were seam bowlers. So I dont think it is fair to say that quick over rates and the best bowlers went hand in hand. And if quicker over rates means poor quality cricket, then Bradman filled his boots against substandard bowling. However if you come to my side and accept that modern day over rates can be sped up with out negatively impacting on the quality of bowling, we can all happily accept that the quick over rates in bradman's time didnt necessarily show a lower standard of cricket.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[benchmark00]

No not really, of the ten best bowlers Bradman could have faced in his time (i.e. no Australians) eight of them were seam bowlers. So I dont think it is fair to say that quick over rates and the best bowlers went hand in hand. And if quicker over rates means poor quality cricket, then Bradman filled his boots against substandard bowling. However if you come to my side and accept that modern day over rates can be sped up with out negatively impacting on the quality of bowling, we can all happily accept that the quick over rates in bradman's time didnt necessarily show a lower standard of cricket.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Wow, what a complete an utter twisting of words.

Goughy has put forward a number of valid reasons why over rates were quicker in Bradman's era, and has never said that fast over rates = poor quality cricket.

He has stated, however, that the changing nature of pitches (changing the effectiveness of certain bowling types and increasing the boundaries tally), coupled with more thought out and scientific field placings have resulted in the slowing down of over rates, and that is the natural evolution of the game. To try and rectify this perceived flaw in the game, captains put on ****ty part time spin bowlers to hurry through some overs, this results in a poorer standard of cricket than what could be achieved with no over rates pressure.

 

[Goughy]

I would also suggest that the over rates when England bowled in the Bodyline series were close to modern rates. This further showing that an attack stacked with fast blowers on heavily prepared wickets will bowl slow overrates and that fast overrates were not achieved by pixie dust in the 30s but by selecting bowlers that did well on tracks that favoured them, especially in England. Fast overrates were a product of the best bowlers selected to do the job on the pitches they played on. When the best bowlers were quicks (ie Bodyline) the overrates were comparable to now. None of this supposed 25 overs an hr bull****.

 

[cnerd123]

Troll dinner time @ this thread.

How is this thread still open? Is it an elaborate prank or are the mods enjoying Dhillon so much?

 

[dhillon28]

How is this thread still open? Is it an elaborate prank or are the mods enjoying Dhillon so much?

how are you still a member on this forum? And I dont know about you, but I dont even want think about anyone 'enjoying' me.

This is a very poor response to being faced with a few truths that are not to your liking. Consequently you've tried disguising your inadequacies to objectively dissect the arguments you dislike by pretending as if your above the thread.

 

[dhillon28]

I would also suggest that the over rates when England bowled in the Bodyline series were close to modern rates. This further showing that an attack stacked with fast blowers on heavily prepared wickets will bowl slow overrates and that fast overrates were not achieved by pixie dust in the 30s but by selecting bowlers that did well on tracks that favoured them, especially in England. Fast overrates were a product of the best bowlers selected to do the job on the pitches they played on. When the best bowlers were quicks (ie Bodyline) the overrates were comparable to now. None of this supposed 25 overs an hr bull****.

can you please bring any evidence of over rates being slower in the body line series as compared to other test matches series of that era. the way you continually refer to that era with such precision, one is under the impression that you are 97 years old and witnessed all the matches first hand sitting in the crowd with the stats sheet.