[Closed] A Summer of Cricket - SPOILERS

..just another thought on DRS - I reckon that the on field umpire ought to get more say in the final decision. He does after all have the big screen to watch the replays on, and should be allowed to make his own decision again with the advantage of better information than he had originally. That way he gets to choose how stupid to make himself look rather than leave it to somebody else.

Of course, the ICC could demand higher quality umpiring... and retrain those who have shown poor judgement consistently throughout a series.

..just another thought on DRS - I reckon that the on field umpire ought to get more say in the final decision. He does after all have the big screen to watch the replays on, and should be allowed to make his own decision again with the advantage of better information than he had originally. That way he gets to choose how stupid to make himself look rather than leave it to somebody else.

Which, as I understand it, is what currently happens. Third umpire tells him the facts, and he makes the final disposition, within the bounds of standing guidelines.

people are only complaining about them being close calls where the batsman should have got the benefit of the doubt having seen the Hawkeye predictions.

That way he gets to choose how stupid to make himself look rather than leave it to somebody else.

Before DRS, I suspect he would be considered unlucky to have been judged LBW to that particular ball, especially by an umpire who's had such an inconsistent series.

Both the marginal Broad LBW wickets looked very much out on first view - I suspect most umpires would've given them in the pre-DRS era.

Except you might not get another such chance for a long time - see Rogers' "LBW" on 20 odd in the first innings.

I disagree. The very next ball is another opportunity for the bowler to create a chance. Whether they have the skill to create another chance is a different matter. If they don't - then maybe the next one, or the next one. But they certainly aren't told to go and sit in the shed for the next day or so, and only allowed to bowl again in the second innings.

In fact: If they bowl a slow half tracker and get hit into the road, someone else goes to get it for them so they can have another go (they should at least be made to go to the rope to get it back, so they can endure the silence a batsman gets when he walks off after having been sawn off for a duck)

(Can you tell I used to be an opening batsman 😉 )

Can you tell I used to be an opening batsman

That would certainly explain it! The fact the bowler has another opportunity straight away is irrelevant - on average they only manage a wicket taking ball every 9 or 10 overs in which time any decent batsman ought to be able to put together a good score, so it's not at all reasonable to make a wrong decision in favour of the batsman.

Which, as I understand it, is what currently happens. Third umpire tells him the facts, and he makes the final disposition, within the bounds of standing guidelines.

In theory. In practice the third umpire tells him what decision to make. The on field umpire doesn't get to take much part in the actual review process. What I'm suggesting is that the on field umpire takes a far more active part - this applies in particular to LBW calls where he could look at the Hawkeye and decide whether in light of the evidence his original decision was wrong (which ought at least get rid of the anomaly over the DRS decision depending on the original decision). I can see the argument for umpire's call from the point of view that the on field umpire shouldn't be over-ruled if it was close - if the on field umpire gets to make his own decision again that issue no longer applies.

Surely the point of DRS is to get the decision right so the extra info makes it a better decision and it is not doing this it is adding confusion- he did look out to be fair and I would have given it as well at full speed.

Indeed - and the DRS for the Watson and Haddin LBWs showed that the original decision was right.

BTW did anybody else see this edit of Watson's wiki page last night (sadly since reverted by boring spoilsports). Check out the nicknames

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shane_Watson&oldid=568251620

That wiki page is excellent. I'm liking particularly:

He announced his retirement due to injury after the 4th 2013 Ashes Test Match citing deep vein thrombosis, caused by being repeatedly hit in the same spot on his front leg.

😀

Never seemed that way when I played. 'Phew, that was a good ball, lucky not to nick that one. On the plus side, that means there won't be another one for about 9 overs, so time to buckle my swash'

Every ball was a golden opportunity for me to end my participation for the day, and had to be treated as such, just as the bowlers get 100-150 odd chances to make their mark on proceedings.

The wider picture is that test cricket only works if there is an even contest between bat and ball. Umpiring has a huge role to play in that.

I can see the argument for umpire's call from the point of view that the on field umpire shouldn't be over-ruled if it was close - if the on field umpire gets to make his own decision again that issue no longer applies.

and the DRS for the Watson and Haddin LBWs showed that the original decision was right.

yeah whatevers.
3-0 to the Engeerrland.

😆

Never seemed that way when I played.

Maybe you should have been a bowler instead if you wanted more chances?

The wider picture is that test cricket only works if there is an even contest between bat and ball.

I reckon tests between two sides with world class bowlers and fragile batting line ups on a helpful pitch going to extra time on the 4th day suggests it's not too much in favour of the bowlers!

Problem is had he given them both not out and then been reviewed then that would have been right as well.

Ah well there I disagree - as I discussed above, clipping the stumps should be out, so giving them not out would have been the wrong decision (as Bresnan and Rogers' ones were). I agree that consistency is needed here. I'm particularly thinking about the Rogers first innings review here - the umpire had given him not out LBW because he though it had hit the bat, had he had all information available and known that it actually hit the leg would his decision have been different? I can imagine a more blatant situation where the fielding team appeals for LBW, the umpire thinks it pitches hits and is going on to hit in all the right places but that the batsman got an edge - the replays show the ball hit pad first but that slightly less than half the ball is hitting and the decision stays not out when it should really be overturned given the umpire didn't give not out on the basis of the ball missing the stumps. Yet the current rules don't allow that flexibility.

I reckon tests between two sides with world class bowlers and fragile batting line ups on a helpful pitch going to extra time on the 4th day suggests it's not too much in favour of the bowlers!

Actually, I think there's a dearth of truly exceptional talent at the moment. Just think back to the great bowlers and batsmen of 15-20 years ago...

Actually, I think there's a dearth of truly exceptional talent at the moment. Just think back to the great bowlers and batsmen of 15-20 years ago...

And then look at England's test rankings for our current batsmen (Cook, KP, and Bell not too far behind) and bowlers (Jimmy and Swann).

clipping the stumps should be out, so giving them not out would have been the wrong decision

Either way you need to decide that someones decision trumps someone elses

I agree th ebest scenario is to let th eumps trump their own decision though via replay.

That said , if STW is anything to go by, ,many will not back down, however compelling the evidence is , and admit that they are wrong 😉

As the rules stand had he given them not out then they would have remained not out as it was umpires call for both decision. So he was "right" whatever he said

Under the current DRS rules, which are clearly flawed. I'm suggesting that given all the information available it is clear that the ball would have clipped the stumps, so those should have been out. "umpires call" appears to be to appease those who reckon there is significant margin of error in the system, when the error margin is actually far smaller than the "umpires call" margin.

It does sound like we are generally in agreement on this though - I'm pleased my suggestion to hand more power back to the on field umpires has met with such approval.

That said , if STW is anything to go by, ,many will not back down, however compelling the evidence is , and admit that they are wrong

<imagines umpire TJ> 🙂

And then look at England's test rankings for our current batsmen (Cook, KP, and Bell not too far behind) and bowlers (Jimmy and Swann).

Yes, it means that they're better than their contemporaries.

Or, in your example suppose the umpire thought it had pitched in line but was going on to miss, but in review it pitched 'umpire's call' but went on to hit. On field would be not out, on review would also be not out even though the actual umpire's call on where it pitched wasn't originally in doubt on the field.

No, far better that they go with the technology decision full stop, but with a margin of error built in.

(PS, I could bowl occasional off spin but mainly had the gloves on. So I do see both sides really, bloody frustrating to wait ages for a chance only to pouch it cleanly, or take a good stumping, and then for the umpire to say he wasn't sure so benefit of the doubt to the batter)

Yes, it means that they're better than their contemporaries.

And Cowdrey, and Hammond for the batters.

And Trueman, and Underwood for Jimmy.

And Cowdrey, and Hammond for the batters.

And Trueman, and Underwood for Jimmy.

None of the current mob get close to the batting and bowling averages of the players you list. Statistics fail.

I was referring to players of 15-20 years ago, none of the players you list were playing then. Comprehension fail.

Just think back to the great bowlers and batsmen of 15-20 years ago...

Sachin Tendulkar?
14 matches, 9 dismissals, average 30.22

Ricky Ponting?
12 matches, 4 dismissals, average 6.00

Jaques Kallis?
15 matches, 7 dismissals, average 33.00

clearly the bowler involved in those stats isn't a great though

None of the current mob get close to the batting and bowling averages of the players you list.

As of 12th August, KP had scored 7,775 test runs and 23 test hundreds, and Cook had scored 7,742 test runs and 25 test hundreds. Both have scored more test centuries than [i]any[/i] other English batsman and are five and six respectively in the all time list for English test batsmen.

Bowling wise, Jimmy is third in the all time list for England with 324 test wickets, and only Underwood is above Swann in terms of spinners. Jimmy is only one wicket behind Willis, which leaves only Beefy to catch, whist both batsmen have got to where they are having completed considerably fewer innings so far in their careers than the retired greats they stand equal or better than.

But as you said, statistics fail. 😉

clearly the bowler involved in those stats isn't a great though

Not sure what your point is?

All I'm suggesting is the best players of that era were better than the best players of today. Just look at the bowling - Walsh, Ambrose, Wasim, Waqar, Donald, Pollock, McGrath, Warne and Muralitharan. Then there's Lara, Border, Waugh...

None of the current mob get close to the batting and bowling averages of the players you list. Statistics fail.

Are you thinking of some Cowdrey other than Colin, batting average 44.06?

Or some Underwood other than Derek, bowling average 25.83 (I'd suggest an average 2.5 runs higher is quite close given conditions nowadays are doubtless generally less favourable for spinners - Underwood was renowned for his returns in condition modern bowlers don't experience)?

As of 12th August, KP had scored 7,775 test runs and 23 test hundreds

That's more runs than Bradman. Does that make KP a better player? Or is it just possible that the total number of runs scored isn't the only indicator of a player's quality?

Bowling wise, Jimmy is third in the all time list for England with 324 test wickets

At an average of over 30. Trueman averaged under 22, as did Glenn McGrath.

Back to class, Zokes.

Are you thinking of some Cowdrey other than Colin, batting average 44.06?

Or some Underwood other than Derek, bowling average 25.83 (I'd suggest an average 2.5 runs higher is quite close given conditions nowadays are doubtless generally less favourable for spinners - Underwood was renowned for his returns in condition modern bowlers don't experience)?

Sorry, was thinking of Barrington.

I'm not convinced conditions for spinners are worse these days - Warne and Muralitharan didn't do too badly...

That's more runs than Bradman.

Bugger me, was he playing 10-15 years ago?

Or is it just possible that the total number of runs scored isn't the only indicator of a player's quality?

In the same way as batting average isn't, you mean? And seeing as they've played fewer innings than the other English batsmen ahead of them, I'd assume they have a higher average. They do.

At an average of over 30. Trueman averaged under 22

So he was more economical, but won fewer games? (On the assumption that a team needs to take 20 wickets to win a game, and therefore taking more of them would help somewhat - c/f Broad about 24 hours ago)

Bugger me, was he playing 10-15 years ago?

Were Cowdrey, Underwood, Hammond or Trueman?

In the same way as batting average isn't, you mean?

And seeing as they've played fewer innings than the other English batsmen ahead of them, I'd assume they have a higher average. They do.

Sutcliffe, Barrington, Hobbs, Hutton and Hammond must all be worse because they scored fewer runs in total? Hmmm...strokes chin.

So he was more economical, but won fewer games? (On the assumption that a team needs to take 20 wickets to win a game, and therefore taking more of them would help somewhat - c/f Broad about 24 hours ago)

Or, just possibly, the answer is he played fewer matches. (307 wickets in 67 matches at 21.57.)

In which case, you'd be correct about Trueman, but still wrong re: the batters. Only Hammond has a higher average for England.

In which case, you'd be correct about Trueman, but still wrong re: the batters. Only Hammond has a higher average for England.

1. You are the one who keeps talking about England and referring to players of 50+ years ago. I referred to the greatest players from any team of 15-20 years ago.

2. Trott, Pietersen and Cook are 14, 15 & 16th on the all time list. There are 7 players ahead of them who have played 20 or more matches.
http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Records/England/Test/Batting/Highest_Career_Batting_Average.html

I'm not convinced conditions for spinners are worse these days

You do realise how Deadly Derek got his nickname? Doubtless some spinners nowadays get to play in better conditions than others, but I doubt anybody who knows anything would suggest Swann gets the help Underwood sometimes did.

Not sure what your point is?

I'd have thought it obvious, and notably the stats of some of your greats against the same players are rather worse.

You do realise how Deadly Derek got his nickname? Doubtless some spinners nowadays get to play in better conditions than others, but I doubt anybody who knows anything would suggest Swann gets the help Underwood sometimes did.

Yes I do, but I've heard it suggested that the number of occasions that actually happened are rather overstated. It's before my time so I really don't know.

On the other hand, Underwood didn't have DRS, which has been of huge benefit to Swann. We'll never know...

As I say, the test records of Warne and Muralitharan show conditions for spinners haven't been too bad over the last 20 years.

I'd have thought it obvious, and notably the stats of some of your greats against the same players are rather worse.

"In the same way as batting average isn't, you mean?"
I didn't say it was. Do try and keep up.

So what exactly was your point when you wrote:

None of the current mob get close to the batting and bowling averages of the players you list.

...which was the first mention of averages, in reply to a post suggesting some current players were better than some older ones?

It would appear your answer is actually a variation of the Edinburgh defence when you start off trying to prove your point using stats...

So what exactly was your point when you wrote:

None of the current mob get close to the batting and bowling averages of the players you list.

...which was the first mention of averages, in reply to a post suggesting some current players were better than some older ones?

Zokes suggested that some current players are better because they have scored more runs and taken more wickets. I pointed out that the reverse is true is we look at batting and bowling averages. Whilst I think averages are a more useful statistic, nowhere did I claim that it should be the sole measure of a player's quality.

It would appear your answer is actually a variation of the Edinburgh defence when you start off trying to prove your point using stats...

I had thought this was going to be an interesting discussion about great cricketers past and present, but apparently not.

unless you think a player with a top-ranking test average getting out quite often towards the end of their career to a particular player is a great indicator of something?

I think them getting out quite often to a particular bowler when clearly still at their peak (Sachin got out quite a lot to Jimmy before 2008) has a certain amount of significance, yes. It's at least as good a piece of evidence of the relative quality of players as anything you've presented. Exactly what other means do you suggest to meaningfully compare players of different generations?

In absolute terms I suspect that batsmen of 15-20 years ago would find Jimmy as hard to face as any of those you mention and vice versa for Cook/Pieterson. Ultimately it's a fairly pointless discussion, but it's one you started, so really you need to come up with something to try and prove your point.

In absolute terms I suspect that batsmen of 15-20 years ago would find Jimmy as hard to face as any of those you mention and vice versa for Cook/Pieterson.

Cook and Pietersen would've filled their boots against a mid 1990s England side, but I'm not so sure about some of the others.

I think them getting out quite often to a particular bowler when clearly still at their peak (Sachin got out quite a lot to Jimmy before 2008) has a certain amount of significance, yes.

It tells us that he has trouble against Jimmy. It'd be interesting to see if he has trouble against other swing bowlers - any ideas?

I had thought this was going to be an interesting discussion about great cricketers past and present, but apparently not.

No, your condescending tone saw to that quite early on in the proceedings, unfortunately.

Can we get back to slating the Aussies please? 😀

When yossarian and I agree, you just [b]KNOW [/b]it's right!

Can we get back to slating the Aussies please?

No need, they're quite capable of self-flagellation without our help 😀

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/oval-the-last-stand-for-some-coach-20130813-2rugr.html

No, your condescending tone saw to that quite early on in the proceedings, unfortunately.

I offered the following opinion:

Actually, I think there's a dearth of truly exceptional talent at the moment. Just think back to the great bowlers and batsmen of 15-20 years ago...

You then went on to tangle yourself up with stats about England players from 50 years ago. Why you persist with not responding to what is written, I've no idea, but it precludes sensible discussion. A pity.