• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

***Official*** England in India 2016/17

Blocky

Banned
It's not the same and you know it. Impact should not have that margin of error.

Still not a great review mind. India need to get better with it if they're actually going to use it going forward.
Impact absolutely has the same margin of error - again, they did endless testing on both pitching the ball and hitting the stumps, using specially designed mats that registered the actual location the ball pitched. If you want to dispute that fact, read the article I posted above where he actively spoke about where the ball pitched being different according to the tracker versus what could be seen with naked eye.

You've got three decision points, all of which have demonstrable margin of error

1. Where the ball pitched.
2. Where the ball struck the batsman
3. The path the ball would take to reach the distance of the stumps.

All of the above has error margin based on regression coefficients that mean when the call is too close to be definitive, it shows as amber/umpires call.

So much ignorance around the DRS, it astounds me - you don't even need to be a statistical modeler to understand this one.
 
Last edited:

Blocky

Banned
Probably not true. Main reason why I rate Dravid better in India is because he had to face Warne, Murali for his stats, among other spinners.
If India were serving these pitches up in those days, Dravid wouldn't have had that sort of success.

Harbhajan is a great case and point, actually had to beat batsmen with flight, drift and dip - not just waiting for the ball to do something odd.
 

Shri

Mr. Glass
If India were serving these pitches up in those days, Dravid wouldn't have had that sort of success.

Harbhajan is a great case and point, actually had to beat batsmen with flight, drift and dip - not just waiting for the ball to do something odd.
Those were way worse. These pitches are mild as far as minefields go. Maybe except for a few ones that we served up to RSA. So he's even more impressive considering all that.
 

superkingdave

Hall of Fame Member
Spurious comparisons aside, Cook has actually moved into second place for most runs by a visiting batsman in India in this innings - still 300 behind the great Clive Lloyd so unlikely to reach him unless he tours again .
 

Blocky

Banned
Those were way worse. These pitches are mild as far as minefields go. Maybe except for a few ones that we served up to RSA. So he's even more impressive considering all that.
Is that why India went from scoring repeated 500s in that era, versus finding ways to get themselves out to someone as bad as Adil Rashid in this one?
 

Blocky

Banned
Spurious comparisons aside, Cook has actually moved into second place for most runs by a visiting batsman in India in this innings - still 300 behind the great Clive Lloyd so unlikely to reach him unless he tours again .
Surely he'll tour India again, he's probably got another 5 or so years left at least in Test Cricket, he's only 31 (almost 32)
 

91Jmay

International Coach
Glad Shiva told Manjekar want nonsense he was talking. Yadav's figures are irrelevant he has bowled really badly
 

Shri

Mr. Glass
Is that why India went from scoring repeated 500s in that era, versus finding ways to get themselves out to someone as bad as Adil Rashid in this one?
What are you talking about? I am talking late 90s. Find me repeated 500+ scores from that time or run along now.
 

Top