***Official*** DRS discussion thread

[Jono]

I'd like to know which country's media doesn't give the impression of oversimplification and hyperbole.

Only British media apparently.

The Indian cricket media is constantly panned by Indian fans here. And rightfully so, as it is pathetic. But its pretty irrelevant since an article from the Indian media wasn't linked or being discussed here.

 

[silentstriker]

Also, just picked up this nugget:

England and Wales Cricket Board meekly succumbed on this issue because it is negotiating with children. For the past decade, the Indian authorities have packed them off to obscure grounds during England tours, rather than the massive grounds in big cities that England fans crave. They say this is because of a rotation policy among their 30 international venues; in fact, it is to ensure their fan base is as well looked after as possible.

Oh the horror! A board looked after their fan base. DOWN WITH THE BCCI! The evil conniving bastards - how DARE they?


So hilarious because that wasn't the actual reason why they put England in small cities - the actual reason would have been grounds for a legitimate complaint, but thankfully he decided not to look up facts - it allows him to better keep his article consistent full of whining conspiracies.

You know an article has to be bad for me of all people to defend the BCCI when it comes to UDRS...I must have made like 500 posts criticising the BCCI on this issue, especially their hypocrisy with it post-Sydneygate.

 

[GIMH]

Then the article should make that point resonably, or at least in not a provocative way.

The minute you make a thread on this forum to link everyone to an article with such an outrageous claim you have to expect people to respond rubbishing it.

Except the article implied they don't want UDRS because of Swann, not merely that Swann gets a benefit from UDRS.

Let's play Devil's advocate here. How are we to assume Swann played no role in India's decision to maintain the pigheaded stance? The ECB are believed to have puished hard for this, I imagine harder than WICB for example.

If they come out and use UDRS in Australia, what are we to assume then?

Until last week, the general thought was that UDRS was a no-no because Lord Sachin disliked it (which the article also alludes to). Now he's come out and kinda disputed that. Does that mean we now just assume BCCI are being ****s?

I mean I think that's why but unless you were privy to the discussions they had about whether to use it for this series, then what gives anyone the right to dismiss possible reasoning?

I personally am in line with the Brumby line if thought; they are just arses because they can be. But is it possible they considered it this time out? Well Tendulkar seems to have eased on it. So maybe it is? Who knows?

The fact is, Swann might well be less of a threat minus UDRS (cbf to check but pretty sure his average has dropped by about 3 since we started using it) and India will benefit from this. It's not as offensive a leap as you seem to think to assume that theirs hidden motivation there.

 

[Howe_zat]

The Indian cricket media is constantly panned by Indian fans here. And rightfully so, as it is pathetic. But its pretty irrelevant since an article from the Indian media wasn't linked or being discussed here.

My post was in response to SS, who said:

I love it. English media are such great value both when England are ****e and when they're even remotely not.

He then claimed

It's merely the best at it. It takes skill to do that while still hiding behind a veneer of impartial professionalism. In india, you could just tell it's trash.

Which I don't intend to argue, but can assure you is nonsense. British newspapers gave rise to the terms "hacks" and "gutter press". They are not well respected.

 

[silentstriker]

Let's play Devil's advocate here. How are we to assume Swann played no role in India's decision to maintain the pigheaded stance? The ECB are believed to have puished hard for this, I imagine harder than WICB for example.

Well we already admitted it's a two year running conspiracy just so they can give off the impression of being consistent when they have to eventually play Swann. It's very clearly a logical line of thinking.

 

[Bun]

Also, just picked up this nugget:




Oh the horror! A board looked after their fan base. DOWN WITH THE BCCI! The evil conniving bastards - how DARE they?


So hilarious because that wasn't the actual reason why they put England in small cities - the actual reason would have been grounds for a legitimate complaint, but thankfully he decided not to look up facts - it allows him to better keep his article consistent full of whining conspiracies.

You know an article has to be bad for me of all people to defend the BCCI when it comes to UDRS...I must have made like 500 posts criticising the BCCI on this issue, especially their hypocrisy with it post-Sydneygate.

Haha, that's atrociously terrible.. absolutely bottom of the barrel..

 

[Bun]

Let's play Devil's advocate here. How are we to assume Swann played no role in India's decision to maintain the pigheaded stance? The ECB are believed to have puished hard for this, I imagine harder than WICB for example.

.

Dear GIMH, BCCI has been opposed to UDRS since 2008. And they've consistently avoided it's usage in tests ever since. You're worryingly suggesting two things that are completely at odds with conventional logic:

a. BCCI somehow "foresaw" Graeme Swann becoming a threat in 2011, although in the intervening period has been treated like a mediocre spinner by the Indian lineup. This has led them to cling on to their anti UDRS thingy well before Swann debuted in test cricket.

b. That Swann somehow becomes unplayable when UDRS is on, and is easily tackleable when he is stripped of his source of mojo. Cruelly unfair on Swann there really.

 

[GIMH]

Well we already admitted it's a two year running conspiracy just so they can give off the impression of being consistent when they have to eventually play Swann. It's very clearly a logical line of thinking.

Yeah that is EXACTLY what I was getting at

 

[silentstriker]

You can't "disprove" something like that. I'm going to start believing that it's actually the ECB who doesn't want UDRS because they like being traditional but don't want to come out against it so that when a series came where they could get away with not using it, they convinced BCCI to oppose it while publicly supporting it themselves. Disprove that - clearly a hidden motivation there.

It's the type of logic that keeps conspiracy theories going for decades.

 

[GIMH]

Dear GIMH, BCCI has been opposed to UDRS since 2008. And they've consistently avoided it's usage in tests ever since. You're worryingly suggesting two things that are completely at odds with conventional logic:

a. BCCI somehow "foresaw" Graeme Swann becoming a threat in 2011, although in the intervening period has been treated like a mediocre spinner by the Indian lineup. This has led them to cling on to their anti UDRS thingy well before Swann debuted in test cricket.

b. That Swann somehow becomes unplayable when UDRS is on, and is easily tackleable when he is stripped of his source of mojo. Cruelly unfair on Swann there really.

Dear Bun,

I acknowledged that BCCI has consistently been opposed to UDRS in my post.

I also referenced the fact that I personally do not agree with the writer.

What I also said which yourself and SS have chosen to ignore is, what happens if you use it in Australia? What then?

Of course, it might not happen. And the writer is probably barking up the tree. But let's not pretend that motives can't change.

 

[Bun]

Yeah that is EXACTLY what I was getting at

Swann averages 28 in International cricket with UDRS. A lineup that has destroyed the likes of Murali and Warne at their prime, and Swann himself whenever they got to play against him, has no reason to worry about him.

Tendulkar's and majority of the players' stand is pro UDRS. Only BCCI is against it. Funny the players don't share the same about Swann but BCCI does.

In other news, earth is flat because I don't slip down while walking and Osama is plotting the next 911 with the mermans of the Atlantic.

 

[Bun]

BTW has ECB stated in public their disapproval of BCCI's decision anywhere??

Seems like ECB wanted to avoid facing a UDRS propelled Ishant and Harby, not to mention Zak?

 

[GIMH]

You can't "disprove" something like that. I'm going to start believing that it's actually the ECB who doesn't want UDRS because they like being traditional but don't want to come out against it so that when a series came where they could get away with not using it, they convinced BCCI to oppose it while publicly supporting it themselves. Disprove that - clearly a hidden motivation there.

It's the type of logic that keeps conspiracy theories going for decades.

Erm, I didn't try and disprove anything. I made some points, you ignored them and replied with a nonsense post. It's all good.

 

[silentstriker]

. But let's not pretend that motives can't change.

Except that for it to be true you'd actually need some evidence or it's just crazy convoluted logic that makes no sense considering the history of the issue. Anyone can make up conspiracy theories and attribute it to a last minute change in motive.

"Your honor initially I meant to kill that man but right before my knife hit his abdomen, I decided to help him remove his tumor.".

 

[GIMH]

BTW has ECB stated in public their disapproval of BCCI's decision anywhere??

Seems like ECB wanted to avoid facing a UDRS propelled Ishant and Harby, not to mention Zak?

They are sending the following email out to anyone who asks:

Hi Martyn.
Many thanks for your email.
There is not much we can say really. England wanted to use DRS but the BCCI did not. As you know, for the system to be used both sides must be in agreement.
Still, it should be a brilliant series.
I hope you enjoy it.
Regards,
ECB Feedback

Pretty sure I read some quotes in the media too

 

[silentstriker]

They are sending the following email out to anyone who asks:

Hi Martyn.
Many thanks for your email.
There is not much we can say really. England wanted to use DRS but the BCCI did not. As you know, for the system to be used both sides must be in agreement.
Still, it should be a brilliant series.
I hope you enjoy it.
Regards,
ECB Feedback

Pretty sure I read some quotes in the media too

That's exactly what you'd expect an organization that's hiding something to say.

Hmmmm...

 

[GIMH]

Except that for it to be true you'd actually need some evidence or it's just crazy convoluted logic that makes no sense considering the history of the issue. Anyone can make up conspiracy theories and attribute it to a last minute change in motive.

"Your honor initially I meant to kill that man but right before my knife hit his abdomen, I decided to help him remove his tumor.".

Did you actually read what I wrote or have you just decided to post bollocks for no reason?

I said none of us know what goes on in UDRS meetings that the BCCI wankers have. Do I think Swann gets mentioned? No, probably not. Would I be surprised if he was? Not really.

The point I was making is that the writer is perfectly justified to hold that opinion if it's what he thinks. Should he have articulated as a fact? Of course not.

Would it be interesting to revisit this if UDRS was used in the India-Aus series? Of course it would.

 

[silentstriker]

Would it be interesting to revisit this if UDRS was used in the India-Aus series? Of course it would.

Nah it wouldn't unless you had some other data. The more logical conclusion might be that the aussies took a harder line, BCCI wanted to avoid Sydney gate again, ICC decided to mandate it, the Indian players maybe became convinced or Martians staged a coup and took over the BCCI. All and any combination of that would be more likely.

 

[Bun]

They are sending the following email out to anyone who asks:

Hi Martyn.
Many thanks for your email.
There is not much we can say really. England wanted to use DRS but the BCCI did not. As you know, for the system to be used both sides must be in agreement.
Still, it should be a brilliant series.
I hope you enjoy it.
Regards,
ECB Feedback

Pretty sure I read some quotes in the media too

That's just washing their hands off the issue...

Am asking did they challenge BCCI on the issue??

As you know, for the system to be used both sides must be in agreement.

Well, if ECB was not in agreement with non usage of UDRS, they could've used the above clause to press their case as well right? Considering UDRS is used by every nation barring India, and even ICC advocating it's usage?

UDRS if implemented has same potential to work against england as it could've worked in it's favor.

 

[GIMH]

Nah it wouldn't unless you had some other data. The more logical conclusion might be that the aussies took a harder line, BCCI wanted to avoid Sydney gate again, ICC decided to mandate it, the Indian players maybe became convinced or Martians staged a coup and took over the BCCI. All and any combination of that would be more likely.

This isn't science, SS. Believe it or not, in real life people are allowed to hold an opinion without 'data'.

If it's used in Australia it will be worth revisiting, IMO. Of course, the other reasons you mentioned would be relevant too. But it would be interesting.

That's just washing their hands off the issue...

Am asking did they challenge BCCI on the issue??



Well, if ECB was not in agreement with non usage of UDRS, they could've used the above clause to press their case as well right? Considering UDRS is used by every nation barring India, and even ICC advocating it's usage?

UDRS if implemented has same potential to work against england as it could've worked in it's favor.

What are you going on about? The rules state that both boards have to want to use it. ECB wanted to. How is what they said washing their hands of it? They said 'we wanted to use it'. I'm sure they did challenge the BCCI *****, bur BCCI showed more resistance on this than I expect from India's middle order this summer.