***Official*** India in Australia

[Anil]

Still missing the point. Australia would not have given India the opportunity to win so they would have shifted their game plan around. You're assuming a change won't affect other areas of the game. Ponting, as illustrated by his post-match speech, was not ever going to put India in a position to win the match. Hussey was more than settled, and if Symonds had gone early you would have not seen Gilchrist and Hogg play rashly. In fact, the only reason they did that was because Symonds ended up making runs they may have had to. Australia had most batsmen left and could have made a score similar, if not more, than what already was and would have given India less time to bat.

so the match would've been a draw...surely you can see the difference between a morale-shattering defeat like what happened just now and an honourable draw with the world's best team, india would then have gone into perth 0-1 down and with some positive energy instead of 0-2 and significantly down in the dumps....

 

[shankar]

Butterfly effect. If Aus only got 200, then maybe India starts batting on a pitch with more juice in it, and only ended up with 290. Or maybe they could have made 700 again.

Oh I agree. I'm not saying India would have definitely won it or anything like that. I was refuting Kazo who was saying that Australia would have atleast drawn the match and would have definitely not lost if the correct decisions had been made.

 

[Dexter]

Not relevant at all. Their efforts were woefully sub-standard. If a player puts in a performance like they did they'll be widely criticised and dropped. Nothing is going to happen to these guys. Bucknor is standing in the very next match and expect to see Benson umpiring somewhere soon.

They need to be held accountable for what's gone on, otherwise nothing changes and we'll see more fraud results like this one. All you're doing is defending incompetency.

and im saying that mistakes have always been made, and not just in cricket, in all areas of sport. I dont think its as scandalus and some of the people here are trying to make it out to be. Get over it. From my point of view it wasn't woefully sub-standard.

 

[sideshowtim]

Ponting's captaincy was brilliant.

Clarke proved to be a masterstroke and the declaration was timed perfectly.

 

[silentstriker]

and im saying that mistakes have always been made, and not just in cricket, in all areas of sport. I dont think its as scandalus and some of the people here are trying to make it out to be. Get over it. From my point of view it wasn't woefully sub-standard.

I'd love to know what your standard is then. Cricket is a funny game - I think it might be too funny for me. NFL is so much better. I'm off - great job to the Aussies again, and to the Indians for playing really well. Probably will last about 30 mins, but I'm done with cricket.

 

[pup11]

Symonds calling Clarke lucky literally made me punch the wall. Just thought I'd mention it.

Yeah that was a very dire comment to make, nonetheless it was nothing more Pup magic today that won us the game today, having said that India have nothing to ashamed about they could hold their chins high because the umpires ****ed them big time, but they fought hard till the last movement and that's all what matters.

 

[Ikki]

so the match would've been a draw...surely you can see the difference between a morale-shattering defeat like what happened just now and an honourable draw with the world's best team, india would then have gone into perth 0-1 down and with some positive energy instead of 0-2 and significantly down in the dumps....

Sure. I just think with that mindset India is going to lose. It's the wrong mindset. They were still in a position to win or at the least draw the game at the start of their 2nd innings. I reckon repeating the last 10-15 overs again, few teams would have ended up winning that game against India. But Australia won it and it was a performance needed because of that situation. It wasn't an outcome that came about because of earlier umpiring mistakes. Although, actually, it ultimately was, but the end it was India's failing and not the umpires for closing out the match to a draw.

I hope I am making sense. I am saying, even despite all that went against them, they still should have drawn and it was the Australians that made that last effort to win.

 

[Ikki]

Oh I agree. I'm not saying India would have definitely won it or anything like that. I was refuting Kazo who was saying that Australia would have atleast drawn the match and would have definitely not lost if the correct decisions had been made.

That's exactly what I am not saying. I am saying if those same decisions were correct, then Australia would have changed their plan accordingly. Australia could have played to draw the game by giving India less time to bat. Something that was very possible and would have been on the cards if Australia didn't have a small window to win. I say this having heard Ponting's speech that they were only going to declare in a position where only Australia would win.

 

[Slow Love™]

I totally agree. I am amazed at the illogical arguments offered against using more technology AS AN AID . I highlight those words very intentionally. It is an aid. It does not do any damage to the umpires or to their credibility. It helps them. But so many idiots have been arguing for not having technology since it is not perfect - whatever that may mean.

Why are we looking for perfection? We are NEVER going to get 100 percent correct decisions irrespective of where technology goes. All we can do is improve the percentage of correct decisions. Surely that will happen. If we could have got 8 out of about ten bad decisions correct in this match would it not have been better for the game ? You dont need to be a rocket scientist to answer that. Of course you can be a mule and be as illogical as you have decided to be.

These stupid ICC bosses have decided to use technology in an area like whether the bowler is chucking and redefined chucking to allow justifying use of technology. No one is concerned that the technology in this case is SO incapable of providing an aid to the adjudicators of the game, right there and then on the ground, when there is a doubt that the law may (or may not) be contravened. Yet we use technology in this dubious manner in the case of chucking. Why? What made ICC use technology in this case. Many people have very strong opinions why so much change was made to the games laws and definitions just to take away the power of the umpires to call a bowler for chucking. For thats what this did.

Okay fair enough.

But then why are you so reluctant to allow the umpires to use some technology themselves as an aid. We are not talking of a computer over ruling the field umpires but a third umpire being an active part of the three man team which officiates in a test. Once they decide to do that they wil find a way to do it without causing as much damage as we hacve seen in this game.

Haven't better decisions on run outs become such an integral part of the game. In fact we take them for granted. Does any one have a clue as to how many we were getting wrong before these were refered 'upstairs' ? Ha s this made the umpires status worse. I dont think so but I dont care if it has. The question to ask is, Has this made umpiring and decision making in the case of run outs better ? and the answer would be an unequivocal YES. Why cant the same thinking go into other areas where we can use some more technology as an aid. THe umpiring team can still be the final arbitrator and decide whether the batsman is out, whether he is not out or whether the evidence presented is inconclusive in which case batsman gets the benefit of doubt as provided for in the laws of the game.

Whats wrong with that.

Mr Sunil Gavaskar who is screaming his head off today because India seem to be at the receiving end has been one of the strongest opponents of technology in the past and its people like him who are in the strongest position to advise ICC on such matters.

I dont even say we more need technology. I am shocked that some people have any argument why it shouldn't be used as an aid to the umpiring team.

Obviously I've been a longtime advocate of using technology more effectively as an aid to umpires' decision making, so I agree with much of what you've said. When it comes to a third umpire using replays, I do believe that any argument against that revolves around accuracy has no validity whatsoever. We have already conceded this in that we ALL use replays to form the basis of our opinion of whether a call was good or bad in the first place. Although I don't really think instruments like Hawkeye and Snicko (particularly Snicko) are as questionable as some suggest, I definitely think that use of replays/close-ups is nothing but an aid to the game, and I think it's nonsensical for us to question their "accuracy" by comparison to split-second decisions made from 22 yards away, in conditions not always conducive to top-level concentration.

There are though, a few reasonable objections. One is that people simply like that "human" aspect of the game. I may disagree with that, but it's hard to find logical fault in it - someone with this argument simply enjoys the game in a different way to what I do, and they can live with the mistakes. Another is the time factor (particularly when it comes to LBW decisions).

Something that is often brought up to counter these arguments is that we are talking about professional sportsmen, and their livelihood is at risk when it comes to bad decisions that directly and instantly impact on their ability to continue their employment / receive their income, etc, etc. I've often raised this myself.

However -- one problem with this seems to be the question of how popular the idea is with the players. We are but viewers who obviously feel passionately about these things, but THEY are the guys whose futures/careers we're discussing. And it seems to me that in general, the suggestion of increasing technology for this purpose seems to be unpopular with the players. Do we actually know of a large groundswell of support from the players when it comes to this? I must admit, I struggle to recall many positive comments on this subject much at all - maybe Jason Gillespie might have said something in it's favor at one stage, but I just can't see a lot of support mobilized in the various player unions/organizations.

 

[LJMJ]

I hope I am making sense. I am saying, even despite all that went against them, they still should have drawn and it was the Australians that made that last effort to win.

No, you're not making sense. How is picking up 4 wickets in the last 15 overs a situation where "few could've won?". Stop tooting Australia's horn. There's nothing remarkable about getting the tail out in 15 overs. The very fact that it took them 14 overs to do it and the FACT that 2 of India's best batsmen were given out when they weren't means Australia did not deserve to win. Period. I'm glad the majority of the Australians across the net, while a little glad, have at least acknowledged this as a hollow victory at best and something their team didn't deserve to achieve.

 

[Doug Sob]

Sorry, I just saw an article at http://news.smh.com.au/australia-in-sensational-win-over-india/20080106-1kcw.html which says Symonds won the man of the match award. Is this for real? I've never known anyone to get out five times in one match and get an award for it. And by the way, I feel bad to be Australian. At least Ponting had the decency to not claim the suspect catch he took in the first innings though.

 

[duffer]

and im saying that mistakes have always been made, and not just in cricket, in all areas of sport. I dont think its as scandalus and some of the people here are trying to make it out to be. Get over it. From my point of view it wasn't woefully sub-standard.

You're living in La La Land if you didn't think it was terrible. Umpires mistakes shouldn't be artificially altering a result this much.

 

[shankar]

That's exactly what I am not saying. I am saying if those same decisions were correct, then Australia would have changed their plan accordingly. Australia could have played to draw the game by giving India less time to bat. Something that was very possible and would have been on the cards if Australia didn't have a small window to win. I say this having heard Ponting's speech that they were only going to declare in a position where only Australia would win.

I thought you were talking about the first innings decisions. If you were talking about the decisions in the Aus second innings (Hussey?) then yeah a draw would have been the most probable result.

 

[haroon510]

wow Aus win again.. i worked all day today and right now i just came from work..i wanted to come and change my siggy about the india's white wash i thought the match has been draw or something but Aus win that means i would change it to 2-0 for Aus..

i will predict that if india couldn't draw or win this match they can't win or draw any other match in this series.. simply because they got a good lead in the first innings and the least the could do was draw the match if not win considering that they didn't have to even bat a whole day...that means they were all out in half a day or less than that..

 

[sideshowtim]

Yeah that was a very dire comment to make, nonetheless it was nothing more Pup magic today that won us the game today, having said that India have nothing to ashamed about they could hold their chins high because the umpires ****ed them big time, but they fought hard till the last movement and that's all what matters.

Pretty sure Symo saying it was luck was tongue in cheek. Pup and Symo are best mates and rib each other all the time.

 

[sideshowtim]

No, you're not making sense. How is picking up 4 wickets in the last 15 overs a situation where "few could've won?". Stop tooting Australia's horn. There's nothing remarkable about getting the tail out in 15 overs. The very fact that it took them 14 overs to do it and the FACT that 2 of India's best batsmen were given out when they weren't means Australia did not deserve to win. Period. I'm glad the majority of the Australians across the net, while a little glad, have at least acknowledged this as a hollow victory at best and something their team didn't deserve to achieve.

Didn't deserve to achieve? What the hell?

We took 20 wickets. India took 17.

We bounced back from the poor decisions against us (I acknowledge there were far fewer) India didn't.

We scored 122 more runs than India.

Australia were the better team overall.

 

[Ikki]

No, you're not making sense. How is picking up 4 wickets in the last 15 overs a situation where "few could've won?". Stop tooting Australia's horn. There's nothing remarkable about getting the tail out in 15 overs. The very fact that it took them 14 overs to do it and the FACT that 2 of India's best batsmen were given out when they weren't means Australia did not deserve to win. Period. I'm glad the majority of the Australians across the net, while a little glad, have at least acknowledged this as a hollow victory at best and something their team didn't deserve to achieve.

Let's cut the bull****. Would South Africa broken through with the pressure of time needing those wickets in such little time? I doubt it. Would have England, no, big doubts. Would have Sri Lanka, certainly not IMO.

The last 3 wickets came in 1 over. India were sitting pretty to draw it with about 5 or so overs left to play.

Even Michael Clarke thought there was no hell of a chance that Australia could win. The real fact was that India had a very very strong rearguard performance. That's what you're neglecting to mention. Upto that point, it was still in their hands to draw the game. And that is my point. They can look and say shoulda woulda coulda, but they still had that opportunity to draw the match at the end. Is it still the umpire's fault then?

 

[Ikki]

Double.

 

[Ikki]

Triple.

 

[Ikki]

Quadruple.