Indian influence good or bad for cricket?

[Sanz]

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.

Not if it was replacing a system that already works 95% of the time.

 

[Fusion]

Not if it was replacing a system that already works 95% of the time.

So the old system causes it to malfunction and heat the room 5% of the time while the new AC malfunctions 2% of the time. Which one will you choose?

 

[vcs]

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.

No txt spk pls.

 

[Furball]

Not if it was replacing a system that already works 95% of the time.

The 98% system is more than twice as good as the 95% system. That's a huge margain of improvement.

 

[Uppercut]

You can blame the players for that. Let's suppose that backing the players is a bad move. That still doesn't make me characterise them as stupid. If they were '****ing stupid', as you put it, they would be a bunch of bumbling idiots and there should be no problems with India's power as it should be very easy to subvert.

FWIW what I actually said was "****ing stupid sometimes".

Their day-to-day running isn't that terrible but occasionally they forget to have brains. Being against the UDRS is just lolstupid.

 

[Sanz]

So the old system causes it to malfunction and heat the room 5% of the time while the new AC malfunctions 2% of the time. Which one will you choose?

I will choose the later if replaces the former but not if the first one is mandatory, which is what we have In this case i.e. UDRS isn't replacing the system that is right 95% of the time.

Will you buy an AC that works 98% of the time to complement one that works 95% of the time ? I know I won't.

 

[Sanz]

The 98% system is more than twice as good as the 95% system. That's a huge margain of improvement.

More than twice in what way ?

 

[Borges]

Will you buy an AC that works 98% of the time to complement one that works 95% of the time ? I know I won't.

If I have enough money to burn, I just might if it had no other serious flaws.

The fundamental problem with this brand new AC is not the related to 'it works 98% of the time', part of it. Though everyone here seems to love just going on an on about it. 98% >> 95%, Pythagorean theorem >>>> Ricky Ponting and so on and so forth.

The reasons why I would be extremely reluctant to buy this AC, even if I had all the money in the word, are:

a. This AC is not designed with the idea of achieving better cooling; it can be switched on just two times in a week.

b. Even for the two golden occasions on which it can actually be used, the person who decides when it should be turned on is not someone in the room, but one sitting far away making wild guesses about what the temperature in the room could be.

That it is also very garishly coloured so that it can titillate the senses of people who watch the room through a CCTV is a mere downer in comparison.

But I guess, on this board, I will have the 98% is greater than 95% argument repeated ad nauseam and nothing else; though why that is being so passionately argued about at all is a complete mystery to me.

I'm getting out of here; this is my last post on this board regarding the use of UDRS.

 

[GotSpin]

 

[Uppercut]

I will choose the later if replaces the former but not if the first one is mandatory, which is what we have In this case i.e. UDRS isn't replacing the system that is right 95% of the time.

Will you buy an AC that works 98% of the time to complement one that works 95% of the time ? I know I won't.

What

 

[honestbharani]

I am cool with UDRS but there is juz too much grey area there with the 2.5 feet rule and the whole % of ball hitting the stumps nonsense... You have limited people to juz 2 unsuccessful reviews to check misuse.. So just get the **** on and give out people LBW if the ball is hitting the stumps.. None of this % and distance nonsense... That is just confusing a simple system.

 

[marc71178]

But URDS is to eliminate the howlers, not the marginal calls (which is why the margin of error exists)

 

[Jono]

****ing well played

 

[Shri]

But URDS is to eliminate the howlers, not the marginal calls (which is why the margin of error exists)

Its there to eliminate as many incorrect decisions as possible - thats the official word. Phrases like 'eliminating howlers' are just things that the fans of the system use. If every one is given out even if the ball is just kissing leg stump and what not, it is going to be the same for everyone and fair. So, I don't understand this eliminating howlers part.

I am for UDRS btw after the SF decision of Tendulkar. I have come to realize that some UDRS > no UDRS but the system is not flawless.

 

[honestbharani]

But URDS is to eliminate the howlers, not the marginal calls (which is why the margin of error exists)

yeah.. eliminating howlers is fine but I feel it can be used even further...

 

[Blaze 18]

When the on-field call stays, it shouldn't count as a review used.

 

[Sanz]

But URDS is to eliminate the howlers, not the marginal calls (which is why the margin of error exists)

It is to eliminate Howlers with consistency and when you have restriction on no. of appeals or 3rd umpires making the decision after looking at the reviews it takes away that. Take the Appeals out of Captain's hands, let every LBW decision be reviewed, let the system determine the nicks (as opposed to the 3rd umpire) and things like that and it will be universally accepted.

 

[shankar]

FWIW what I actually said was "****ing stupid sometimes".

Their day-to-day running isn't that terrible but occasionally they forget to have brains. Being against the UDRS is just lolstupid.

Nah, what you said was this:

I love the fact that there exists a country so obsessed with the sport, but obviously I'd rather the people who ran cricket there weren't so ****ing stupid and corrupt.

Fair enough if what you meant to write was your latest post. If I think of the people in BCCI, bumbling idiots is hardly the image I get. Anyways, agree to disagree.

 

[Uppercut]

Haha balls, completely misread my initial post. My boob.

 

[Furball]

More than twice in what way ?

In a 95% system, the umpire is wrong 5 times out of 100, or the air conditioning breaks down, 5 days out of every hundred.

In the 98% system, the umpire only gets 2 out of 100 decisions wrong. That's reducing the number of mistakes by more than half.