• 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* New Zealand in India 2010

Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
zinzan12 said:
Has to be the last chance for McIntosh, such a poor mans Mark Richardson
Click to expand...
He hit 50s in three consecutive Tests before his pair, did he not?

He's not very good but he's the best available IMO. You can't just keep going through opener after opener - eventually the penny has to drop that you don't really have any particularly good ones.
 
BeeGee

BeeGee

International Captain
Prince EWS said:
He hit 50s in three consecutive Tests before his pair, did he not?

He's not very good but he's the best available IMO. You can't just keep going through opener after opener - eventually the penny has to drop that you don't really have any particularly good ones.
Click to expand...
AWTA. They need to stick with this pair for a while. They're a kind of good cop, bad cop opening pair.
 
TT Boy

TT Boy

Hall of Fame Member
Gavaskar changes tune after 1 over. :laugh: "Lovely sound of bat hitting the ball. Lovely sound. No movement for the bowlers; very little if any."
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Marcuss said:
Dunno, just think it's wrong to argue against improving the overall quality of umpires.
UDRS doesn't improve the quality of umpiring, it just gives teams a chance to overturn a bad decision.
Improve the quality of umpires and then the number of bad decisions go down, regardless of UDRS.
Click to expand...
That's like saying 'eliminate poverty.' Yea, of course. There is no argument against eliminating poverty. But the statement is meaningless without actual actionable solutions. Considering there is already 95% accuracy in decisions unaided by technology, it seems that we're well into the diminishing returns category in terms of significantly improving performance. Considering it's done by humans, realistically you can't expect much more than that in terms of overall accuracy without technology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top