*Official* - Road to India in England 2011

[ponting28]

Thanks...
Really good.

 

[Shri]

I'd respect your opinion more if you stuck to your guns about your view on UDRS and didn't change your view because it helped India out in a semi-final of the World Cup.

I find Sanz' view against the UDRS more legitimate than yours. Whether it helps or hindered India in the World Cup, he finds the system bad. I find it good, but at least I know what his view is. What is your view? I used to be slightly against it but it helped my team so yay, I'm for the UDRS now?

It compromises the credibility of your view on this issue. How can you not see that?

I never said I now support it since it saved us from the WC, I said I started supporting it after the WC semifinal. You are the one who assumed something I never meant. I would have still supported it if someone from Pakistan benefitted from those 2 decisions since it was the first time I saw a marginal decision overturned in a big game and it affecting the result in the end. So, you are the one who is prejudiced here thinking I only support it because India won the WC semifinal. Think before you post big statements about others' opinions eh?

After seeing the umpires' complete lack of common sense at times while holding their on field decisions even when someone is obviously lbw, I was skeptical and wanted competent umpires first and I was 50/50 on the udrs issue. I now almost fully support udrs but want better umpires as well as the udrs. Find it funny that you value the opinion of someone who blindly rejects the system without considering the pros and cons of the system instead of someone who is open to consider all things about the system before reaching a conclusion.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Any UK based readers see Cricket Writers on Television today?

Derek Pringle said he'd spoken to someone who's very high up in the ICC and asked him why India objected to the UDRS system. He replied "Because they can."

Initially the ICC had proposed a rule where it could be introduced at the behest of the hosts if the technology was available. India proposed an amendment whereby both teams would need to agree. Initially they were the only supporters, but after a brief recess it was carried on a 6-4 overturn "lead by Zimbabwe".

He who pays the piper, etc.

 

[Jono]

I never said I now support it since it saved us from the WC, I said I started supporting it after the WC semifinal. You are the one who assumed something I never meant. I would have still supported it if someone from Pakistan benefitted from those 2 decisions since it was the first time I saw a marginal decision overturned in a big game and it affecting the result in the end. So, you are the one who is prejudiced here thinking I only support it because India won the WC semifinal. Think before you post big statements about others' opinions eh?

You've made a post (at the time I thought jokingly) suggesting that the Sachin LBW decision had you change your mind. This was explicitly stated.

Why would that change your mind but Ishant being given out LBW incorrectly in the first test vs. Australia last year not change your mind, since hawkeye would have shown it was going well down legside. That almost cost India the match.

 

[GIMH]

Any UK based readers see Cricket Writers on Television today?

Derek Pringle said he'd spoken to someone who's very high up in the ICC and asked him why India objected to the UDRS system. He replied "Because they can."

Initially the ICC had proposed a rule where it could be introduced at the behest of the hosts if the technology was available. India proposed an amendment whereby both teams would need to agree. Initially they were the only supporters, but after a brief recess it was carried on a 6-4 overturn "lead by Zimbabwe".

He who pays the piper, etc.

Didn't see it but I can't say I'm surprised.

BCCI and their voting bloc are a cancer on the international game. True story.

 

[Shri]

@joni
People change from experiences in case you don't know.

 

[Jono]

Fair enough.

 

[Austerlitz]

Its sad that indian cricket gets a bad name because of bcci manipulation all over the world.

 

[Cevno]

Didn't see it but I can't say I'm surprised.

BCCI and their voting bloc are a cancer on the international game. True story.

Doubt there is a regular voting bloc of six.

PCB and BCCI are in a great relationship right now with BCCI banning their players from IPL and generally India Pak relations deteriorating after 26/11.

Also it is no different to Aus/Eng ruling the game for so long. In fact that was even worse as all the aspects including Media were in their hand and there was no real objection either.

 

[GIMH]

Look, I'm not going to get into an argument about whether the past was worse or not.

However, I'm sure you'll agree that two wrongs don't make a right. There is no excuse for the way the BCCI routinely behave.

 

[Daemon]

Look, I'm not going to get into an argument about whether the past was worse or not.

However, I'm sure you'll agree that two wrongs don't make a right. There is no excuse for the way the BCCI routinely behave.

AWTA. Sucks that it also creates unnecessary animosity between countries.

 

[Shri]

Lol the rich ones in any sport try and get maximum advantages to themselves. They just succeed more when they try in cricket. Just the way things work, you can bitch about it however much you want but it isn't going to change soon. The change if at all there is a change will be gradual and take years.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah good point Shri, as an example just look at how England get their own way in Football all the time.

 

[Bun]

Look, I'm not going to get into an argument about whether the past was worse or not.

However, I'm sure you'll agree that two wrongs don't make a right. There is no excuse for the way the BCCI routinely behave.

Look mate, I can understand you getting angry at them not agreeing to UDRS. But I am curious as to how their functioning in the last few years have had a "cancerous" effect on the way cricket is being played.

For me, BCCI is doing their job, they have become no.1 in financial power, as well as sporting prowess. There are criticisms but from overall it appears to me that the board is reasonably well managed as well.

 

[Bun]

Yeah good point Shri, as an example just look at how England get their own way in Football all the time.

Never knew England accounted for 80% of global football revenue

 

[GIMH]

Look mate, I can understand you getting angry at them not agreeing to UDRS. But I am curious as to how their functioning in the last few years have had a "cancerous" effect on the way cricket is being played.

For me, BCCI is doing their job, they have become no.1 in financial power, as well as sporting prowess. There are criticisms but from overall it appears to me that the board is reasonably well managed as well.

Well off the top of my head, how about the BCCI's voting bloc keeping Zimbabwe in through the dark years purely to keep up the balance of power? How about them leaning on New Zealand's board very hard and ensuring Bond received a 'ban" from representing his country?

Never knew England accounted for 80% of global football revenue

I didn't say they did. But they are one of the richest nations in football.

Recent events have showed us there is plenty of corruption about in world football, but being a rich board doesn't give you your own way. Hence why we haven't hosted a World Cup for 50 years and counting and goal-line technology is nowhere to be seen.

Saying that BCCI act the way they do because they are the richest doesn't make it understandable or okay.

You seem to take it personally when people attack the BCCI. You shouldn't. It's not an attack on the Indian team or fans. Its an attack on a self-serving piece of **** that has no interest in the world outside its room.

 

[Bun]

Keeping Zim in was in line with BCCI's policy of not wanting to interfere in the politics of the nation. Besides I'd love to knwo the reaoning how keeping out Zimbabwe would've furthered cricket's interests. The english govt and ecb are free to impose sanctions on zim for alleged human rights violations or whatever, but it cant be binding on remaining icc members including bcci to toe that line.

if that had been the case, bcci would.ve pressed for pakistan's exclusion from the icc or ecb's exclusion for their involvement in the invasion of iraq.

 

[Spark]

Zimbabwe's cricket board has a level of corruption IIRC that makes the PCB look squeaky clean by comparison. I'm pretty sure they don't have cricket's best interest at heart at all.

 

[Bun]

bcci didn't ban bond as far as I know. it was nzc which did it. as to bcci indirectly pressurising nzc to do so, they are within their rights, as icl as a rebel league would've been a cancer unchecked, as the promoters of that league had no vision, or any idea to expand the league into fc nature. bcci with ipl assimilated t20 cricket into the calendar, while at the same time without compromising on regular season cricket including first class. ICL, had left unchecked, would.ve easily robbed players left, right and center into playing only t20 cricket, whcih, within years would've spelt doom for the game as we know it.

so look at the big picture, bond's banning was in the greater good of cricket.

I am no soldier for BCCI, but they get sometimes more than their share of curses here.

I feel there are bigger dangers for cricket in the form of Ireland's players used at will by english cricket, whcih potentially can damage irish cricket in the long run, and the question of minnows not getting a shot at next world cup. there is the case of NZC facing shortage of funds and player attrition (hamish marshall and ian o brien migrated to england, and play in county cricket, people talk abt ipl stealing talent from countries, but this goes under discussed), West Indies crippled by shortage of leadership and Pakistan in turmoil owing to controllable and un controllable factors. These for me are critical issues that require immediate and urgent actioining upon than global implementation of udrs or moaning abt someone's ban for playing in rebel leagues.

 

[Borges]

It's not an attack on the Indian team or fans. Its an attack on a self-serving piece of **** that has no interest in the world outside its room.

In this instance, the attack on BCCI is completely misplaced. If you do desperately want to attack someone on the UDRS issue, the logical target should be the Indian team. And the section of the Indian fans who believe that the misgivings about UDRS that some of their players have are not entirely without foundation.

In this entire controversy, the BCCI is blameless IMHO; they have done nothing more than act as the voice of the Indian players at the ICC. It would have been an utter disgrace had they decided that they would rather curry favour with some other national boards (not to forget assorted posters on CW with their blinkers firmly in place) and ride roughshod over the concerns that the Indian players have expressed. That the more expedient course of action, one which would have been politically beneficial to the mandarins at BCCI, would be the one that they opt for.

When an absolute impasse is reached, and the weaker side is so completely mule-headed that they refuse to explore possibilities of accommodation and adjustment, inevitably the views of the stronger side will prevail altogether.

The bone of contention is about the vagaries of the predictive part of hawk-eye (or its immaculate accuracy, depending on ones point of view) - which by now has become far removed from the realm of empirical scientific validation and moved to that of metaphysical religious belief. The sensible course of action would have been to propose starting off UDRS with hawk-eye minus its predictive part, hot-spot, slo-mo and snicko; and agree to use the experience to reassess the accuracy of the predictive element, over some reasonabe period of time.