**Official** Pakistan in Australia Thread

[FaaipDeOiad]

4-71 now. Lehmann looked okay before that too.

Clarke and Langer have a real test ahead of them now. If they fail from here Australia could find themselves falling short of 200.

 

[Mister Wright]

Lehmann is a goose. Bowled around his legs by a fast bowler.

Funny ****!

 

[Slow Love™]

Stand up all those people who said Pakistan will get crushed in 3 days.

Not me.

 

[Mr Casson]

Clarke did not see that first ball AT ALL.

 

[Mister Wright]

You're building a bit of a straw man here. Many people advocating further use of technology (myself included) are concentrating on bat-pad and edged behind decisions. LBWs are being pretty much left alone - time reasons are part of that, but also, there's the fact that most people aren't willing to vouch for Hawkeye's predictive powers.

There's no point mounting a slippery-slope argument, because on that basis, we never should have gone to replays for run-out decisions (which IMO, have been a great plus for the game, rather than a minus).

If we introduce any more technology it will be a matter of time before it is introduced for L.B.W. so I am not clutching at any straws.

 

[Mister Wright]

Clarke did not see that first ball AT ALL.

Where's the bat pad!?

 

[nookie_lk]

what a ball by AKTHAR and what a stupid shot by the great australian....PAKISTAN ROCKING !!!!

 

[andyc]

You're building a bit of a straw man here. Many people advocating further use of technology (myself included) are concentrating on bat-pad and edged behind decisions. LBWs are being pretty much left alone - time reasons are part of that, but also, there's the fact that most people aren't willing to vouch for Hawkeye's predictive powers.

There's no point mounting a slippery-slope argument, because on that basis, we never should have gone to replays for run-out decisions (which IMO, have been a great plus for the game, rather than a minus).

well said. amit varma wrote extensively on this topic on his blog on cricinfo. one paragraph that really got me thinking was this (taken from http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2004/DEC/124527_23YARDS_09DEC2004.html) :

Neil Gordon wrote in that my arguments reminded him of "a question a professor of mine used to pose when arguing against sundry Luddites – would you like to be operated on by a brain surgeon who didn't want to use the latest technology?"

 

[cricket player]

Where's the bat pad!?

yes yessssssssssss pakistan is winning hehehe another wicket

 

[Slow Love™]

If we introduce any more technology it will be a matter of time before it is introduced for L.B.W. so I am not clutching at any straws.

Building a straw man doesn't have the same meaning as clutching at straws. It means defining an argument that virtually nobody else is making (on the other side from where you stand) and then dismissing it as absurd.

If you don't believe we can strike a balance between use of technology to improve the accuracy of decisions and using time efficiently, you would be ignoring the fact that we have been using technology for quite some time at this point for run-out decisions, and it hasn't hurt the game in the slightest (and many would argue that it's made the game better).

By all means, argue that technology shouldn't be used for LBW decisions (I don't think they should, either), but don't dismiss the technology for ALL other uses on that basis.

 

[cricket player]

Building a straw man doesn't have the same meaning as clutching at straws. It means defining an argument that virtually nobody else is making (on the other side from where you stand) and then dismissing it as absurd.

If you don't believe we can strike a balance between use of technology to improve the accuracy of decisions and using time efficiently, you would be ignoring the fact that we have been using technology for quite some time at this point for run-out decisions, and it hasn't hurt the game in the slightest (and many would argue that it's made the game better).

By all means, argue that technology shouldn't be used for LBW decisions (I don't think they should, either), but don't dismiss the technology for ALL other uses on that basis.

some one please provide me with the link sehwag please give me a link to watch this bloody cricket match i dont have dish or any thing please bro thanky u

 

[Mister Wright]

Fair enough.

 

[Mister Wright]

This is great.

Australia in a scrap on home soil.

 

[Slow Love™]

well said. amit varma wrote extensively on this topic on his blog on cricinfo. one paragraph that really got me thinking was this (taken from http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2004/DEC/124527_23YARDS_09DEC2004.html) :

Neil Gordon wrote in that my arguments reminded him of "a question a professor of mine used to pose when arguing against sundry Luddites – would you like to be operated on by a brain surgeon who didn't want to use the latest technology?"

Yeah, I read the article on varma's blog. Needless to say I agree. Another straw man is the argument that the technology isn't perfect. This doesn't matter as much as is it better. If that is judged not to be the case, or we don't know (like Hawkeye, for instance), then we should leave it out, but we ALL use replays to judge an umpire's performance, which tells us everything we need to know about what we ALL (just about every last one of us) consider to be more accurate and fair.

 

[mattyc]

Good test for Clarke coming up.

 

[cricket player]

Yeah, I read the article on varma's blog. Needless to say I agree. Another straw man is the argument that the technology isn't perfect. This doesn't matter as much as is it better. If that is judged not to be the case, or we don't know (like Hawkeye, for instance), then we should leave it out, but we ALL use replays to judge an umpire's performance, which tells us everything we need to know about what we ALL (just about every last one of us) consider to be more accurate and fair.

sehwag can you please provid me with the link here is my email qayyumi4@aol.com

 

[Slow Love™]

Sami's an enigma, that's for sure. Shocking test average considering how much he's hyped (hell, it's a rotten average whichever way you look at it), and he's sprayed the ball down leg countless times. But he can certainly swing the ball quite late. Both bowlers have done so pretty much from the get go, and it's amazing how many times the Aussie batsmen have been rapped on the pads.

 

[Slow Love™]

sehwag can you please provid me with the link here is my email qayyumi4@aol.com

If you hit the "QR" button (you'll see the form become available at the bottom of the thread when you click it) next to the "Quote" button, you can reply to the thread without quoting posts that have nothing to do with your question.

 

[cricket player]

Sami's an enigma, that's for sure. Shocking test average considering how much he's hyped (hell, it's a rotten average whichever way you look at it), and he's sprayed the ball down leg countless times. But he can certainly swing the ball quite late. Both bowlers have done so pretty much from the get go, and it's amazing how many times the Aussie batsmen have been rapped on the pads.

sehwag can you provide me with the link please thank you

 

[Beleg]

I cannot quite fathom how the Oz's were able to squander four wickets on the bowling they were getting. The shot Lehmann played was downright laughable. You do not shuffle and go back to ball pitched at 150 K's however good a batsman you are. Hayden got a good ball, fair enough. Ponting lost his cool and Martyn fished outside off needlessly. Of all the four dismisal's, only the first was a potential wicket-taking ball.

Infact more deserving balls got unlucky. The one Sami balled to Langer earlier on in the innings which missed his off-stump by a hair after swinging in pitching at off were an absolutely beauty.

Our third seamer needs to either increase his pace by more then a notch, or do some serious experimenting with his line, length and morale. All in all, Pakistan bowled and Aussie's batted worse then the stat's tell.