***Official*** Super Series

[greg]

I thought it might have been going over the top myself, but I agree that Hair should have referrred it - if not for any other reason, then for diplomacy's sake, considering the protagonists.

People are completely misinterpreting how the technology is being used. The third umpire is not being used to MAKE decisions, they are being used to ASSIST the umpires, where the umpire has mentally made the decision to give the batsman out (eg. on where the ball has pitched). I don't think the third umpire is being used to decide if the ball will hit the stumps (quite sensibly since they're not using hawkeye). Essentially the effect is to ensure that batsmen are made more secure. Needless to say bowlers won't like it.

To operate it any other way, however, would destroy the flow of the game (think Flintoff's over against Langer and Ponting at Edbaston), and would lead to 50 over days on the subcontinent.

 

[Pratters]

what are you talking about? 27-28 is disgraceful for a top order player no matter what the SR.

I would say its quite useful.

 

[Slow Love™]

At least Kallis didn't soak up as many balls this time.

Honestly, we can defend this concept as much as we like (and I will), but it can't be denied that this contest has been pretty lousy.

 

[Top_Cat]

i cant? i certainly have no problem with giving him credit for his innings with the bat today, but i never give credit to someone who bowls rubbish and and gets away with it, simply because his figures look better than what he actually bowled.

He may not yet be bowling like a demon but you have to admit he has improved quite a bit. A couple of years ago he was ordinary but he looks competant now at least. Still, his lack of movement must be a worry; on any flat pitches, he could well be fodder.

 

[Tim]

I think its also safe to say, that sometimes the most outstanding individuals aren't always best suited to a world team.

 

[Slow Love™]

People are completely misinterpreting how the technology is being used. The third umpire is not being used to MAKE decisions, they are being used to ASSIST the umpires, where the umpire has mentally made the decision to give the batsman out (eg. on where the ball has pitched). I don't think the third umpire is being used to decide if the ball will hit the stumps (quite sensibly since they're not using hawkeye). Essentially the effect is to ensure that batsmen are made more secure. Needless to say bowlers won't like it.

Yes - my understanding was that they refer to the third umpire to ask specific questions, such as "was it in line?" or "was it going over the top?". They can't simply ask "was it out?".

I'm not sure how that leads to me completely misinterpreting how the technology is being used though. What have I got wrong?

 

[greg]

I would say its quite useful.

I made this point before - his strike rate is very misleading due to him spending very little time batting outside the first 15 overs

 

[Adamc]

I haven't actually seen Lara face a ball in any of these three matches, even though on each occasion I've rushed to the nearest TV as soon as I heard he was in. Hopefully he'll be a bit more generous with his time during the Test matches...

 

[Top_Cat]

Honestly, we can defend this concept as much as we like (and I will), but it can't be denied that this contest has been pretty lousy.

I've only really seen guys like Malcolm Speed i.e. from the ICC actually defend it.

 

[Eclipse]

that was an amazing shot by Sehwag..

two great follow up balls by McGrath though.. I can't believe Sehwag hasn't developed a hook..

 

[greg]

Yes - my understanding was that they refer to the third umpire to ask specific questions, such as "was it in line?" or "was it going over the top?". They can't simply ask "was it out?".

I'm not sure how that leads to me completely misinterpreting how the technology is being used though. What have I got wrong?

My point is that they are ONLY referring if they would have given it out (with no technology). People are suggesting that they should have referred other decisions eg. Ponting LBW, you mentioned a (?)Watson(?) one. The point is they didn't think it was out so they didn't refer it.

 

[Slats4ever]

does anyone think lara is on a quick down-hill trend to the end of his career. I reckon he's well and truly past his best.

 

[Slow Love™]

I've only really seen guys like Malcolm Speed i.e. from the ICC actually defend it.

Oh well, must just be Malcolm Speed and me then.

 

[cameeel]

I haven't actually seen Lara face a ball in any of these three matches, even though on each occasion I've rushed to the nearest TV as soon as I heard he was in. Hopefully he'll be a bit more generous with his time during the Test matches...

I went to the second match, and it was a bit of a let-down in terms of Lara, he's averaged 1 this series hasnt he

 

[tooextracool]

does anyone think lara is on a quick down-hill trend to the end of his career. I reckon he's well and truly past his best.

good god, how long will people realise the different between tests and ODI cricket?
when was the last time brian lara performed well for a consistent period in ODI cricket?

 

[PY]

Goooooo Freddie.

 

[tooextracool]

I would say its quite useful.

so how many quality players have there been that have averaged 27 at the top of the order? let alone one that apparently merits a place in the ROW XI

 

[Adamc]

good god, how long will people realise the different between tests and ODI cricket?
when was the last time brian lara performed well for a consistent period in ODI cricket?

Agreed - even though Lara's my favourite player I realise that he hasn't been particularly special in ODIs for some time now, and isn't really in the top echelon of ODI batsmen at the moment. There's nothing to suggest he's in decline in Test matches though - he's scored four centuries in his last five Tests.

 

[greg]

good god, how long will people realise the different between tests and ODI cricket?
when was the last time brian lara performed well for a consistent period in ODI cricket?

It drives me mad. It doesn't help my attitude that One day performances got Collingwood into the postion of first reserve batsman for the England team

 

[Slow Love™]

My point is that they are ONLY referring if they would have given it out (with no technology). People are suggesting that they should have referred other decisions eg. Ponting LBW, you mentioned a (?)Watson(?) one. The point is they didn't think it was out so they didn't refer it.

Well, the comment I made on that decision was not entirely out of the realm of facetiousness - "if for no other reason then for diplomacy's sake". It was just an acknowledgement of Hair and Murali's history.

But is this orientation on the part of the umpires "in your judgement", or is there some documentation on this (in which case I'll be perfectly happy to cede the point)? For it to be true, it would have to mean that every single LBW given has been referred to the third umpire for "doublechecking". Is this the case?