1st Test, Edgbaston, Birmingham

[OverratedSanity]

Low-key excellent partnership here

 

[fredfertang]

What you got to say about Lancy's finest throwing in an injury on Yorkshire Day?

Should've picked Archer - the Burnley Express has hit the buffers

 

[trundler]

Both Kohli and Smith are outstanding, but Smith just seems on another level in tests. In similar conditions last year, I always thought we had a chance to get Kohli out but Smith (and I know this is based on only one innings) looks invincible. His record is also ridiculous (not to say Kohli's isn't outstanding) and if he maintains it until he retires (i.e, if he averages 60 or just under with 11,000+ runs he will surely go down as not only an atg (both will be) but possibly the atg no.4

He'll probably end up better than Chappell. Maybe Tendy too, possible.

Siddle wag

 

[91Jmay]

Siddell is such an irritating cricketer. Will own us all game

 

[trundler]

Let it be known that TJB bet his avatar on Smith averaging less than 40 for the rest of his career post-ban

 

[mr_mister]

Get a climate etc

 

[Spark]

That was a creepily long laugh

 

[NUFAN]

1100 Test runs for Siddle and into 505th all time. Bye WG Grace.

 

[Spark]

Think we might struggle to get a lot more in today based on the radar

 

[mr_mister]

Lol smith sprinting off for a piss

 

[cnerd123]

Actually, that's unfair, because they are often paragraphs of writing. Perhaps defensive?


IMO your defences of poor umpiring tend to have a sort-of feeling to them rather similar to the, "Who are you?! When did you play international cricket?!"-type response, where everything becomes are sort of hidden thing only known to the elect ("You don't know what I have to deal with") whereas the results are really more interpretable to outsider with knowledge of the game than one may want to admit.

That's the vibe I often get from them anyway.


Also, your much-parodied mentioning of paperwork also showed a tendency to try multiply the number of jobs at any one time: if one was thinking of that out in the field (with everything happening normally) it shows a lack of organisation in more than one way.

write too little, and people just reply back going 'explain yourself'. write back more details and get accused of being verbose. no way to win on the internet, and i'd rather cover my bases.

the results really aren't 'more interpretable to outsider with knowledge of the game' because the sport of cricket isn't designed around consuming the work the umpires do. The multiple camera angles, statistics and expert analysis are all for the work the players do on the field. Not the umpires. You don't have that same access to information about the umpires that you do for the players on the field, and so any effort to evaluate the quality of the umpires based purely on what's show on television broadcasts and scorecards is going to be ****. Guaranteed. The ICC have actual tools on hand to evaluate umpires, and unless we have access to that information, you and I have literally no basis on which to judge umpires, outside of the bare minimum that we can see on our screes (ie, decision making)

Not only that, but everyone has a much higher base of knowledge about playing cricket than they do about umpiring it. That's a fact. I guarantee you that you, and most other people on this forum, have never actually read through the laws of cricket, let alone the ICC playing conditions. Not to mention very few of you have actually umpired a game, and those who have are not the ones posting **** about the umpires.

The vibe you get is just you being the type of person you are. Don't project this onto me. Your line of posting has always been around aggressive and inflammatory questions, and never being satisfied by the answers you get. You've got this chip on your shoulder that people are keeping information form you and get aggressive when you feel the information you get isn't adequate enough. Just because you can't wrap your head around it, or can't find it cited in some study, doesn't mean it's not true. All I can say is that if you think I'm so full of ****, then go become an actual umpire. Get your ICC or CA qualifications (they should be cheap, if not free), study the Laws and PCs, talk to some professional umpires, and then come back and tell me that I am wrong. Go do it. Why do you think I started umpiring myself? I grew up watching Steve Bucknor ffs.

BTW - it's called the 'protected area', not the 'danger area'. I wonder if you picked up on that when I pointed it out to you earlier (or starfighter - same thing). I can show you the section in the MCC Laws where it says that if you would like, in case you think i'm 'hiding' information from you.

Umpires at the Associate level bitch about the amount of bureaucracy the job carries all the time. The ICC really shouldn't be making umpires do paperwork. And apparently it's worse at the higher levels, and it's especially hard for the match referees. In theory, stuff that goes on off the field shouldn't affect people on the field. In theory, cricketers should be able to focus on the cricket, and not the off-field consequences of their onfield actions. But that's not reality. And that's not reality for umpires either. As much as they're focusing on the game, they know they need to file in reports and different bits and pieces after the game. They have a notebook/card on the field to keep notes on the field, and the third umpire job is really quite clerical in nature, with lots of record keeping and calculations. It's a very real aspect of the role and a very important one. Now you can choose to accept this little insight, or dismiss this, up to you. It's not on me if you think i'm full of ****. I'm just sharing information and if you think there is better information out there, be my guest to find it and share it with us too.

Meanwhile Siddle is playing a blinder WAG.

 

[trundler]

you didn't even watch how bad they were, **** off

 

[cnerd123]

This has been a great Day 1 and I'm sad I have to sleep. Anderson injured, Australia lollapse, a ton of umpiring mistakes, and now Siddle's making everyone taste it. Maximum waaahs acheived, and a great day of Test Cricket in the books

Hope I wake up to a Siddle 50 and England opening the batting with Stuart Broad as nightwatchman.

 

[Daemon]

write too little, and people just reply back going 'explain yourself'. write back more details and get accused of being verbose. no way to win on the internet, and i'd rather cover my bases.

the results really aren't 'more interpretable to outsider with knowledge of the game' because the sport of cricket isn't designed around consuming the work the umpires do. The multiple camera angles, statistics and expert analysis are all for the work the players do on the field. Not the umpires. You don't have that same access to information about the umpires that you do for the players on the field, and so any effort to evaluate the quality of the umpires based purely on what's show on television broadcasts and scorecards is going to be ****. Guaranteed. The ICC have actual tools on hand to evaluate umpires, and unless we have access to that information, you and I have literally no basis on which to judge umpires, outside of the bare minimum that we can see on our screes (ie, decision making)

Not only that, but everyone has a much higher base of knowledge about playing cricket than they do about umpiring it. That's a fact. I guarantee you that you, and most other people on this forum, have never actually read through the laws of cricket, let alone the ICC playing conditions. Not to mention very few of you have actually umpired a game, and those who have are not the ones posting **** about the umpires.

The vibe you get is just you being the type of person you are. Don't project this onto me. Your line of posting has always been around aggressive and inflammatory questions, and never being satisfied by the answers you get. You've got this chip on your shoulder that people are keeping information form you and get aggressive when you feel the information you get isn't adequate enough. Just because you can't wrap your head around it, or can't find it cited in some study, doesn't mean it's not true. All I can say is that if you think I'm so full of ****, then go become an actual umpire. Get your ICC or CA qualifications (they should be cheap, if not free), study the Laws and PCs, talk to some professional umpires, and then come back and tell me that I am wrong. Go do it. Why do you think I started umpiring myself? I grew up watching Steve Bucknor ffs.

BTW - it's called the 'protected area', not the 'danger area'. I wonder if you picked up on that when I pointed it out to you earlier (or starfighter - same thing). I can show you the section in the MCC Laws where it says that if you would like, in case you think i'm 'hiding' information from you.

Umpires at the Associate level bitch about the amount of bureaucracy the job carries all the time. The ICC really shouldn't be making umpires do paperwork. And apparently it's worse at the higher levels, and it's especially hard for the match referees. In theory, stuff that goes on off the field shouldn't affect people on the field. In theory, cricketers should be able to focus on the cricket, and not the off-field consequences of their onfield actions. But that's not reality. And that's not reality for umpires either. As much as they're focusing on the game, they know they need to file in reports and different bits and pieces after the game. They have a notebook/card on the field to keep notes on the field, and the third umpire job is really quite clerical in nature, with lots of record keeping and calculations. It's a very real aspect of the role and a very important one. Now you can choose to accept this little insight, or dismiss this, up to you. It's not on me if you think i'm full of ****. I'm just sharing information and if you think there is better information out there, be my guest to find it and share it with us too.

Meanwhile Siddle is playing a blinder WAG.

ok

 

[Spark]

I mean umpires can have a bad day, that's fair enough, and ultimately DRS does ameliorate a lot of the problem. But the issue is that with only two reviews, so much onus is placed on the players themselves to become shadow umpires lest they waste a review, and if we're going to be understanding of bad umpiring days/games/series, then we have to actually account for that and lift or remove the limitation on the number of reviews.

Today has been notably bad though. Probably as bad as I've ever seen.

 

[Burner]

Kohli's ruthlessness and Smith's ruthlessness are different IMO. Kohli is like a lot of other great batsmen, only just a little more, whereas Smith is kind of uncanny.

Adding to this, I feel that Kohli in his usual self likes to be more free flowing and hence is at default, less ruthless. Obviously he is capable of producing series' like the one in England when he really wants to make a point. For instance, I felt that if he played in Aus with the determination he showed in the Eng series, he'd have scored a lot more. You'd never catch Smith getting out to boredom like Kohli was a few times in that series. Smith is naturally this ruthless. He has his game figured out, where as I feel that for Kohli everyday his batting changes depending on his mentality that day.

 

[cnerd123]

you didn't even watch how bad they were, **** off

never said they made good decision tho

7 wrong decisions in a day is appalling. Saw a few of Joels blunders during the mid innings breaks and they were absolute shockers. Woakes had Head plumb and both the Broad going down legside looked not out live.

But I was never defending the quality of the decision they made. The most I did was offer sympathy to Joel Wilson for having a shocker, and asked people to remember they are humans and it's a very different thing watching home on TV to being out there on the field.

gdnight

 

[trundler]

Warne is making me uncomfortable.

 

[Spark]

Warne and Bumble on together: just say no

 

[trundler]

Get to 100 ****.