As I understand it, the structure of the ICC is such that for DRS to be mandatory, there needs to be unanimous support for it among member Boards.
Hmm, sort of. I quite often look at comparison threads and think that a lot of their batsmen have become overrated, but their lineup as a whole is pretty scary- having Prior, Broad and Bresnan coming in at 7, 8 and 9 is just obscene. And fwiw, not many people were calling either the Aussie or Indian attack piss-poor before their respective series against England. They're far from immune to good bowling but the thing about their lineup is, if the bowling isn't good enough to get them out, they won't get out to it. Of all the other test sides that's only really true of India, and even they aren't as inclined as England to really rub it in and rack up 200+ scores.
I'm not saying they're ********. I'm saying they've cashed in against very moderate bowling of late (as they should, btw).
England are just lucky that almost all their players are in-form. It won't last long.
The BCCI are the board that kicks up a fuss whenever UDRS comes up. The ICC are happy to use the system in their events; Pakistan and Sri Lanka have had no issues with using the system when they've toured England; likewise the West Indies, Pakistan, England and New Zealand have been more than happy to use the system when they've toured Australia and the West Indies, South Africa and Sri Lanka have used the system in their home Tests, with Pakistan using it for their "home" Tests against England. The only time we get any problems with DRS is when India play, when a system which 7 other boards are happy to use all of a sudden isn't good enough.
Only lasted 3 years where we are unbeaten in all series, such a poor team.
That's a silly comment mate. They have some good to very good players who have backed up thier bowlers really well.
Exactly this. As fond as I am for Cowan, I felt particularly bad for Hussey. The guy has a career riding on the line here
Their recent averages don't reflect good to very good though, but rather great. I don't think you can select any ATG players from their side who can continue to perform once they hit a bad patch.
You're just seeing what you want to see.
I feel bad for the umpires as well. Most people would kill for a system in their job that effectively said "ok, you've made a mistake. Don't worry about it, we can change the outcome and pretend the error didn't happen." There were plenty of rubbish decisions made in the last Ashes series. None of them were a bone of contention because we had UDRS to help rectify them.
Yeah, there's absolutely no way Cook would be capable of cracking 1,500 runs in a 12 month period when he couldn't score a Test century in 2008 or averaged about 20 in the 2010 season. No way at all that could happen.
You are only emphasizing my point. ICC is happy to use it for their events. India has no objections there. SO why not make it mandatory like wise. Also we have to agree that the system is not 100% accurate, I'm not saying we cannot use it because it's not 100% that's BS. But some one should explain why BCCI thinks it's not 100% and work on a system that is going to give us 100%. Clearly we can say that the predictive path is just a waste of time.
It's pretty hard to debate this point sensibly when rubbish like this is posted, and for that reason, I'm out.
India whinged about HotSpot 2 months after insisting that they wouldn't accept a DRS system where HotSpot wasn't mandatory.
So... You're saying it's stupid to not use it just because it's not 100% accurate, but at the same time that the BCCI are valid in refusing it because it's not 100%? Just a touch contradictory imo.
Without appearing pretentious, Why don't you debate the issue? Simple question for you to ponder.. Yes predictive path is just a waste of time.It's pretty hard to debate this point sensibly when rubbish like this is posted, and for that reason, I'm out.