***Official*** Super Series

[parttimer]

Have you heard confirmation of that? As much as Inzy deserves to be there, I'd love to see Vaughan playing, for the pure comedy factor of the Aussies oce again having to face the Pommie captain who just beat them.

The more Englishmen in there the better for the aussies i would say. Could be an excellent opportunity to create a few doubts and possible scars

 

[Scaly piscine]

The more Englishmen in there the better for the aussies i would say. Could be an excellent opportunity to create a few doubts and possible scars

Remind me again which dubya lookalike gained a cut on his cheek in the series?

 

[howardj]

Isn't Inzy throwing a major wobbly over the fact that he wasn't selected in the first place (justifiably so, IMO)?

I think he said something along the lines of the fact that he wasn't going to be 12th man for anyone - unless that involved getting 12 dinners.

If the World Selectors have a sense of humour, they'll pick Yousef Youhana or another Pakistani chap, as the replacement for SRT. Or an Indian. Big Inzy would totally lose the plot.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

If the World Selectors have a sense of humour, they'll pick Yousef Youhana or another Pakistani chap, as the replacement for SRT. Or an Indian. Big Inzy would totally lose the plot.

Mohammad Yousuf. Not Yousuf Youhana anymore.

 

[howardj]

Mohammad Yousuf. Not Yousuf Youhana anymore.

You can't just change your name, when you're a household name.

It'll send statisticians' databases into meltdown

 

[shaka]

people will still call him yousuf youhana

 

[aussie]

well to me in the test Tendulakar should be replaced by Vaughan & in the ODI's by Dravid everyone seems to underrate the Wall has an ODI batsman when he's proven over the last few years to be the top ODI batsman. He has practically taken over that Bevan like role in world cricket.

 

[aussie]

also going back to my Australian ODI team for the super-series & beyond:

Gilchrist
Clarke
Ponting
Martyn
Symonds
Hussey
Watson
Hopes
Hogg
Lee
McGrath
Tait or Gillespie

Looking at the bowling attack it has good options now with the 3 front main pacers & Hogg spinnig it, from what i saw of Hopes in NZ earlier this year he looks like he can make a good ODI bowler & if his batting comes along at the international level Australia have a solid ODI player in the making.

Plus their Watson & Symonds as all-rounders so the bowlig attack is kicking it now. Hopefully that poweful looking top 6 cash in & bat sensibly & not bat too wildly because the batting is so long. But the good thing about this super-sub rule is that if they do lose wickets they could sub the 3 strike bowler & bring in a batsman & still the bowling attack wont be too bad , i'm liking this.....

 

[age_master]

You can't just change your name, when you're a household name.

It'll send statisticians' databases into meltdown

lol its his name i think he can do with it what he wants.

 

[Slow Love™]

Mohammad Yousuf. Not Yousuf Youhana anymore.

I hadn't heard this - has he converted?

 

[Adamc]

I hadn't heard this - has he converted?

He has. Apparently he has been trying to do so for a number of years now, but it had been opposed by several family members, who have now accepted his choice.

 

[Slow Love™]

BTW, I meant to raise this earlier and forgot (and apologies if somebody has already brought it up), but has anybody heard about this?

Umpires to get video help on lbw decisions in Super Series

Sounds like they are going to use technology (in the sense of replays, at least) to help resolve LBW decisions during the Super Series - it'll be refererred to by the umpires when there's some doubt as to where the ball has pitched, and whether it was hit (as in, edged onto the pad).

I've never been sure about replays being used for LBWs in general, largely because of the time equation - even though I think it would lead to better accuracy (I'm dead against Hawkeye being used because I'm not convinced it's more accurate). The biggest problem with it is that some of the most shocking decisions occur when an umpire has little hesitation - and this of course won't fix those, 'cause they won't be referred. And if they're ALL referred, there's a very significant time trade-off to be had - player conditions would need to be changed.

I'm generally more absolutely in favor of using it for contentious edges (as in, was it the glove, the shirt, the bat hitting the pad, etc), and actual bat-pad catch appeals that umpires aren't completely certain on.

Either way, it'll be interesting to see what happens...

 

[greg]

BTW, I meant to raise this earlier and forgot (and apologies if somebody has already brought it up), but has anybody heard about this?

Umpires to get video help on lbw decisions in Super Series

Sounds like they are going to use technology (in the sense of replays, at least) to help resolve LBW decisions during the Super Series - it'll be refererred to by the umpires when there's some doubt as to where the ball has pitched, and whether it was hit (as in, edged onto the pad).

I've never been sure about replays being used for LBWs in general, largely because of the time equation - even though I think it would lead to better accuracy (I'm dead against Hawkeye being used because I'm not convinced it's more accurate). The biggest problem with it is that some of the most shocking decisions occur when an umpire has little hesitation - and this of course won't fix those, 'cause they won't be referred. And if they're ALL referred, there's a very significant time trade-off to be had - player conditions would need to be changed.

I'm generally more absolutely in favor of using it for contentious edges (as in, was it the glove, the shirt, the bat hitting the pad, etc), and actual bat-pad catch appeals that umpires aren't completely certain on.

Either way, it'll be interesting to see what happens...

I think it's a gimmick. They've used technology for LBWs, noballs, catches before - in the Champions Trophy and we've heard nothing else about it.

BTW some interesting points raised in this article, particularly the use of the "Red Zone", which is not at all reliable (except obviously for shockers like Katich' decision)

http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cricket/comment/0,10070,1575529,00.html

 

[howardj]

I think it's a gimmick. They've used technology for LBWs, noballs, catches before - in the Champions Trophy and we've heard nothing else about it.

BTW some interesting points raised in this article, particularly the use of the "Red Zone", which is not at all reliable (except obviously for shockers like Katich' decision)

http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cricket/comment/0,10070,1575529,00.html

With respect, that article doesn't - when you think about it - relate to the flaws with the technology, but human error (ie the director making a mistake by freezing the action in a frame before the balls pitches). In any case, just because there may be the odd mistake with technology, is not an argument not to employ it. Technology does not have to be 100% foolproof. Rather, you use it as an aid, as another tool, in the adjudicative armoury of the officials. If it is inconclusive, then it gets referred back to the onfield umpire.

 

[Slow Love™]

With respect, that article doesn't - when you think about it - relate to the flaws with the technology, but human error (ie the director making a mistake by freezing the action in a frame before the balls pitches). In any case, just because there may be the odd mistake with technology, is not an argument not to employ it. Technology does not have to be 100% foolproof. Rather, you use it as an aid, as another tool, in the adjudicative armoury of the officials. If it is inconclusive, then it gets referred back to the onfield umpire.

Yup - although if true (sometimes these stories have the look of old wives tales in that they rarely get corroborated) it could mean that the methods used for this particular aid need to be tightened up.

BTW, greg, I didn't know that technology was used for LBW decision-making in the Champions Trophy, but I only followed it on cricinfo. Out of curiosity, what was the response to it? And how often was it used? All I happened to read afterwards was concerned with the bowlers being measured in realtime with regards to the chucking tests...

 

[greg]

With respect, that article doesn't - when you think about it - relate to the flaws with the technology, but human error (ie the director making a mistake by freezing the action in a frame before the balls pitches). In any case, just because there may be the odd mistake with technology, is not an argument not to employ it. Technology does not have to be 100% foolproof. Rather, you use it as an aid, as another tool, in the adjudicative armoury of the officials. If it is inconclusive, then it gets referred back to the onfield umpire.

It does not matter where the flaw occurs, the point is that it isn't easily soluble. I personally disagree that it does not matter if technology makes a few mistakes. Because the umpire on the field is the ONLY person with the view that he has, that is always a barrier against people complaining against any contentious decisions that he makes. People, within reason, accept that human error is a part of the game.

However it is already well saying "if the technology raises doubts, or is inconclusive, then refer it back to the onfield umpires". The problem is that EVERYONE can see the same things that the TV umpire can see. And, as evidenced by few incidents in the Ashes series, where one person sees doubt another person sees none. I'm not sure it is a recipe for increasing public confidence in decision making.

 

[Scaly piscine]

As far as I'm concerned Boycott summed up the situation with technology perfectly. He basically said that if we'd have waited for technology to be 100% we'd have never got anywhere in life and that the technology will significantly improve the number of correct decisions so it has to be used.

 

[Slow Love™]

However it is already well saying "if the technology raises doubts, or is inconclusive, then refer it back to the onfield umpires". The problem is that EVERYONE can see the same things that the TV umpire can see. And, as evidenced by few incidents in the Ashes series, where one person sees doubt another person sees none. I'm not sure it is a recipe for increasing public confidence in decision making.

Well, everyone can see the same things that the replays show them now. The reason that public confidence is dropping is because the average viewer has much better tools at his disposal to evaluate the correctness of a decision than the umpire does.

So, somewhat unfairly, this results in the umpires frequently looking like (and being described as) buffoons. This is harsh (although I do believe that Bucknor is something of a buffoon ), because they only get one look, and generally it's a matter of seconds to evaluate their verdict.

One way in which confidence in decision-making could be ameliorated would be to discard much of the technology in the television coverage. But obviously, this is very unlikely to happen.

Another way is to incorporate the most reliable (so at this stage, Hawkeye is out) aids that we (and the ICC themselves) use to evaluate the umpire's performance, so that they have better tools with which to make their decisions - when you think about it, it's quite unfair on them that they be judged on this and don't have access to it themselves; I believe Rudi Koertzen may have actually said something along those lines himself at some stage.

I realise there will be debates as to what should be used, and how much time it might take, and there will be legitimate reservations. But I don't think there's much doubt (haha) that accuracy and confidence will be at the very least, improved.

 

[howardj]

It does not matter where the flaw occurs, the point is that it isn't easily soluble. I personally disagree that it does not matter if technology makes a few mistakes. Because the umpire on the field is the ONLY person with the view that he has, that is always a barrier against people complaining against any contentious decisions that he makes. People, within reason, accept that human error is a part of the game.

However it is already well saying "if the technology raises doubts, or is inconclusive, then refer it back to the onfield umpires". The problem is that EVERYONE can see the same things that the TV umpire can see. And, as evidenced by few incidents in the Ashes series, where one person sees doubt another person sees none. I'm not sure it is a recipe for increasing public confidence in decision making.

But again, you are using 'a few incidents' where technology didn't shead much light on the situation, to exclude its use altogether. To me, there were far more times in the Ashes where the use of technology would have resulted in the correct decision. I think that is the thing that increases public confidence in decision making (ie getting more decisions right). Yes, there will be a few 'clangers' along the way, but the goal (as with the elite umpiring panel) is not for things to be infallible, but for decision making to be better than it would otherwise be. Again, this is the thing, in my view, that increases public confidence in decision making.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

He has. Apparently he has been trying to do so for a number of years now, but it had been opposed by several family members, who have now accepted his choice.

Have they? Apparantly his mum hasn't let him in the house for two weeks .