Indian influence good or bad for cricket?

[Furball]

I can't understand how people have such strong views on UDRS either way. Yeah, I think it is a good addition to the game overall, but I can't get too excited over something that improves the accuracy of decision making by a whopping 3% or so (the umpires were getting it right about 95% of the time anyway).

Anything which aids umpires in getting 100% of decisions correct is a good thing surely?

Yes, umpires by and large do a fantastic job but at the end of the day games shouldn't be won and lost on the back of an umpiring error.

 

[silentstriker]

And as to why people have strong views...to an Indian fan, ask "Did you watch Sydney by any chance?"

 

[navinanand]

A simplistic title, indeed, but one that does have some currency, at least judging by the byline of the James article that appeared in the Telegraph yesterday --

Steve James: India primed for a fall after reaching the heights of success - Telegraph

Would be interested in knowing what the members on here think about the role of India in cricket:

Unequivocally good
Mostly good
Mostly bad
Unequivocally bad

No fence-sitting (hence no undecided or average option above), please, and explanations for the choice made most welcome, even if not obligatory! Please propose a solution, if you can, assuming your choice is one of the last two options. Better for constructive dialogue, I would imagine.

Mods, could you please create a poll with the following choices? Thanks.

The article in the Telegraph of 16th April 2011, links a prediction of the India England Test series of summer 2011, to the eminent fall of Indian cricket. Don't agree with either. Reasons, read part one

 

[Sanz]

And as to why people have strong views...to an Indian fan, ask "Did you watch Sydney by any chance?"

Yes I did watch the Sydney Test and I still don't like UDRS in its present form.

 

[Furball]

You'd think cricket hasn't existed for a century and a half without UDRS. Bad decisions have been made, people have moaned about it when they were affected and turned a hypocritical blind eye when they went in their favour. Everybody's been there and done it, that's life.

Apologies mate, because I think you're a gun poster, but that's a pretty crazy line of argument, by that logic there's no need for any technological advancement because we've coped fine without it for thousands of years.

 

[abmk]

You'd think cricket hasn't existed for a century and a half without UDRS. Bad decisions have been made, people have moaned about it when they were affected and turned a hypocritical blind eye when they went in their favour. Everybody's been there and done it, that's life.

Except now we have a solution

People survived many years without air-conditioning. But hey, they still use it now anyway!

Apologies mate, because I think you're a gun poster, but that's a pretty crazy line of argument, by that logic there's no need for any technological advancement because we've coped fine without it for thousands of years.

yeah, agree with Jono and GingerFurball here .

 

[abmk]

I suppose I'm going to be thoroughly unpopular on this board; but the truth is that I for one am delighted with the BCCI stand on UDRS. In fact I think it is one of the best things for test cricket that the BCCI have ever done.

To me, UDRS as it is proposed to be implemented today is an abomination. A system which forces a batsman who has faintly nicked a ball and which has been well-caught, and who knows it very well, into thinking: "Now will this technology be able to show that I had nicked it?". One which rewards a batsman who would decide to challenge the correct decision of the umpire even when he knows it is correct; one which punishes a batsman who would just walk away when he is declared out and knows that he is out. One which places a premium on the totally anti-cricketing (to me) skill of disputing the decision of the umpire.

One that which induces an umpire to think: "I am not one hundred percent certain that the ball pitched in line with the stumps. Now let me see, the fielding team still has the right to question the umpires decision, and if i give it not out I may be made to look foolish. The batting team has no reviews left; at least I won't be subject to immediate embarrassment if I call it out."

One which believes that the fielding captain standing at mid-wicket should be given the right to challenge the decision of an umpire who has seen it from the best possible position in the field.

One which shows a nice manufactured graphic on the screen showing the ball hitting the stumps, and the commentators and the viewers - the more people are ignorant about projectile tracking technology, the more is their child-like belief in its infallibility - say: "it MUST BE INCONTROVERTIBLY TRUE that the umpire made a horrible decision there."

The problem is not fundamentally with using technology to assist decision making; it is with the obscene way it is proposed to be implemented.

While I don't agree fully with this, I agree that the way UDRS is implemented at present, it needs a lot of tweaking to make it better .....

 

[mono]

BCCI seems to have flexed their muscle against the SLC as well, and not in a good way.

 

[hang on]

regarding the lankan players, is part of the logic, if such a courtesy can be extended to the bcci, underpinning the bcci's stance:

"we have the same standards for our players too; our players will also be heading off to a series right after the ipl and hence yours can do the same, if they are willing to take the gobs of money on offer"?

i think i read somewhere (pardon my ignorance, because i don't follow the ipl, and so might be completely off track here) that the lankan players were only bought by the various franchises because a guarantee that they would be available for the major chunk of the ipl was essentially proferred by the powers that be at the lankan cricket board.

 

[Bun]

regarding the lankan players, is part of the logic, if such a courtesy can be extended to the bcci, of the bcci's stance:

"we have the same standards for our players too; our players will also be heading off to a series right after the ipl and hence yours can do the same, if they are willing to take the gobs of money on offer"?

i think i read somewhere (pardon my ignorance, because i don't follow the ipl, and so might be completely off track here) that the lankan players were only bought by the various franchises because a guarantee that they would be available for the major chunk of the ipl was essentially proferred by the powers that be at the lankan cricket board.

Yeah while there was no written agreement, there definitely was some sort of an agmt that these players would be around till May 15 or the whereabouts. In fact the sports minister has emphasised that this would be honored. Looks like SLC's bargain to get (yet another) series from India.

 

[Borges]

We've already had a million page thread on it. Feel free to regurgitate in there.

I appreciate that you preach what you practice. But the example that you provided - of regurgitation of some part of some other discussion somewhere else where where it is completely irrelevant - discourages me from heeding your advice.

And as to why people have strong views...to an Indian fan, ask "Did you watch Sydney by any chance?"

I am an India fan and I did watch Sydney 2008. However, I do not remain obsessed about it for ever; it does not colour my view of test cricket as a whole; it does not obscure my memories of all the other test matches that I have seen. To me, Sydney was just one test match - an unhappy one - among a large number of test matches that I remember very fondly.

For me, Sydney is a wound that has healed completely; perhaps because I did not keep scratching it at every available opportunity so that it remains festering for ever after.

 

[Top_Cat]

I can't understand how people have such strong views on UDRS either way. Yeah, I think it is a good addition to the game overall, but I can't get too excited over something that improves the accuracy of decision making by a whopping 3% or so (the umpires were getting it right about 95% of the time anyway).

Law of Diminishing Returns; the closer you get to perfection, it's that much harder to gain improvements. Gaining 3% when the success rate is in the 90's already is huge.

 

[Spark]

95% to 98% doesn't seem like much when you put it that way - but if you think about it, that's over half of all incorrect decisions overturned. A pretty good result.

 

[vcs]

Except now we have a solution

People survived many years without air-conditioning. But hey, they still use it now anyway!

Anything which aids umpires in getting 100% of decisions correct is a good thing surely?

Yes, umpires by and large do a fantastic job but at the end of the day games shouldn't be won and lost on the back of an umpiring error.

Apologies mate, because I think you're a gun poster, but that's a pretty crazy line of argument, by that logic there's no need for any technological advancement because we've coped fine without it for thousands of years.

yeah, agree with Jono and GingerFurball here .

Law of Diminishing Returns; the closer you get to perfection, it's that much harder to gain improvements. Gaining 3% when the success rate is in the 90's already is huge.

95% to 98% doesn't seem like much when you put it that way - but if you think about it, that's over half of all incorrect decisions overturned. A pretty good result.

I am open to changing my opinion. Like I said, I think it is a good addition to the sport overall, though not a panacea. But sometimes I feel the criticism for the BCCI not accepting it goes a bit overboard. Like Borges, a few bad decisions don't affect me that much as a viewer.. a good game of cricket is still a good game of cricket. Sydney was a pretty good game which is forgotten amidst all the controversies, and India with their batting lineup should not have collapsed inside two sessions against that attack, even with a few bad decisions. Who knows, if the tailenders had kept out Clarke and co. for a couple of overs, BCCI would not have thrown a big strop, ICC might not have pushed for UDRS and we might not even be debating any of this.

 

[Jono]

You just backed up our point. Sydney was a good match but isn't remembered for being it, because the umpiring decisions were so ****ed up.

Hence why the UDRS should be used. To prevent this from happening.

 

[Shri]

India with their batting lineup should not have collapsed inside two sessions against that attack, even with a few bad decisions.

This sort of reasoning grinds my gears. If there were no **** decisions in the first place, the others might not have even had to bat.

I was a little bit against UDRS previously but now I am willing to see the thing in action again. The UDRS won us the WC semi final, made me a believer..

 

[Sanz]

Except now we have a solution

People survived many years without air-conditioning. But hey, they still use it now anyway!

Yeah let me know when you decide to buy an Air Conditioning system which works inconsistently and heats up your room when you need it most in the 100 degree heat.

 

[Jono]

Lol @ heats up your room.

 

[Fusion]

Yeah let me know when you decide to buy an Air Conditioning system which works inconsistently and heats up your room when you need it most in the 100 degree heat.

I don’t think your analogy is fair, but even if all air conditioners malfunctioned that way once in a blue moon, are you saying you would stop using AC’s altogether? Try convincing my neighbors of that argument in the Texas summer. I can guarantee you they would still use the thing if it worked 98% of the time.

 

[Bun]

yeah hafta say am a convert. But mre than anythng wnt 2 c consistency. Cant b diff 4 dif series. Ind shud embrace it cmon they won a wc with it.