England v Australia, 4th Test, Trent Bridge, 06-10 August 2015

Brass Monkey wrote:

Lindsay no.2 wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:I find it strange that people think that their sight from a 2 dimensional picture is better than high performance cameras calculating a triangulated trajectory of a ball in 3 dimensions.

The funny thing is that they don't mention the 50 they 'agree' with, they just mention the one that they don't. Maybe it was wrong - oh well.... suffice to say that it's better than all the guesswork we were going through before.

I take your point.

Don't get me wrong, there're 1 billion people who are the same. I think it's wrong at times... and it probably is. But the amount of times it keeps in line with what I was thinking certainly outweighs the opposite. The problem with slating it (as many Australians do) is that there's no mathematical explanation behind their criticism - just that it doesn't 'feel' right.

Would those 1 billion people be living in India per chance, as I've heard they're not overly keen on it? ;-)

I guess it is 99.99% accurate or something very high - but perhaps it's just that one's expectation is that technology should provide incontrovertible evidence. I don't think I've ever sat at home and queried a hotspot blob or a snicko waveform so Hawkeye maybe suffers from being put up against those 2 bits of kit even though the comparison with those is unfair as it is certainly not an apples v apples comparison.

PeterCS wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:Cook is quiche. Quiche. Not even good quiche like quiche Lorraine... maybe a spinach quiche.

"keich" ("key" + Scottish loCH) is a good old Scottish word. More of a grimacing squeeze than "cack" (which is what it means).

I meant he was savoury, open-faced pastry crust with a filling of savoury custard

Dan

I gave a mathematical explanation of a shit hawkeye decision against Rogers in the last Ashes series in pomgolia ...Cant be bothered looking it up ...but hawkeye was out 9 inches wrong

We do stringline angles as part our training ...some of the shit that hawkeye puts up is near impossible ...its mainly correct ...but so are elite umpires

Bairstow looks so shit he is bound to get a double ...FFS

Lindsay no.2 wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:

Lindsay no.2 wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:I find it strange that people think that their sight from a 2 dimensional picture is better than high performance cameras calculating a triangulated trajectory of a ball in 3 dimensions.

The funny thing is that they don't mention the 50 they 'agree' with, they just mention the one that they don't. Maybe it was wrong - oh well.... suffice to say that it's better than all the guesswork we were going through before.

I take your point.

Don't get me wrong, there're 1 billion people who are the same. I think it's wrong at times... and it probably is. But the amount of times it keeps in line with what I was thinking certainly outweighs the opposite. The problem with slating it (as many Australians do) is that there's no mathematical explanation behind their criticism - just that it doesn't 'feel' right.

Would those 1 billion people be living in India per chance, as I've heard they're not overly keen on it? ;-)

I guess it is 99.99% accurate or something very high - but perhaps it's just that one's expectation is that technology should provide incontrovertible evidence. I don't think I've ever sat at home and queried a hotspot blob or a snicko waveform so Hawkeye maybe suffers from being put up against those 2 bits of kit even though the comparison with those is unfair as it is certainly not an apples v apples comparison.

Yeah, the problem with it is that it's completely computer generated rather than something physical like Hotspot or 'RTS'. No-one is going to ever be completely trusting of technology. I'm not wholly trusting of it, but it's much better to have that guideline, rather than going back to full and complete guesswork. The fact that it's based on technology originally used for brain surgery and missile tracking goes some way to validating its reliability. Some numbers being thrown around are that it's 95% accurate - which is about 4% better than the elite umpiring panel - which is a better than nothing improvement.

embee wrote:Dan

I gave a mathematical explanation of a shit hawkeye decision against Rogers in the last Ashes series in pomgolia ...Cant be bothered looking it up ...but hawkeye was out 9 inches wrong

We do stringline angles as part our training ...some of the shit that hawkeye puts up is near impossible ...its mainly correct ...but so are elite umpires

Phooey

Brass Monkey wrote:

PeterCS wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:Cook is quiche. Quiche. Not even good quiche like quiche Lorraine... maybe a spinach quiche.

"keich" ("key" + Scottish loCH) is a good old Scottish word. More of a grimacing squeeze than "cack" (which is what it means).

I meant he was savoury, open-faced pastry crust with a filling of savoury custard

At least he's not a sweetie pie, then.

Bairstow has been devastatingly poor. Meanwhile, at the other end, Root goes quietly to a score again. It's crazy how he just seems to drift there with little fuss.

embee wrote:Bairstow looks so shit he is bound to get a double ...FFS

No need to woof him out - he will play round a straight one soon enough. He also looks to react to the short ball very late. So far he's managed to evade them but he moves like a punch drunk heavyweight - and it may only be a matter of time before one hits him on glove/splice/head.

Brass Monkey wrote:

embee wrote:Dan

I gave a mathematical explanation of a shit hawkeye decision against Rogers in the last Ashes series in pomgolia ...Cant be bothered looking it up ...but hawkeye was out 9 inches wrong

We do stringline angles as part our training ...some of the shit that hawkeye puts up is near impossible ...its mainly correct ...but so are elite umpires

Phooey

More than a match for Batfink.

Brass Monkey wrote:Bairstow has been devastatingly poor. Meanwhile, at the other end, Root goes quietly to a score again. It's crazy how he just seems to drift there with little fuss.

He just accumulates, building momentum whenever he's at the crease. Always makes things happen, without having to go out there and slog it.

In his early days he seemed to go into his shell against good new ball bowling and his strike rate was down with the Cooks and Trotts of this world, and I thought he was just turning into a typically English, one-dimensional player. Couldn't have been more wrong, wince he dropped back down the order.

beamer wrote:He just accumulates, building momentum whenever he's at the crease. Always makes things happen, without having to go out there and slog it.

In his early days he seemed to go into his shell against good new ball bowling and his strike rate was down with the Cooks and Trotts of this world, and I thought he was just turning into a typically English, one-dimensional player. Couldn't have been more wrong, wince he dropped back down the order.

Considering how well he'd done in the middle order, only the most stupid thought it was a good idea to stick him in opening the batting. Such an obtuse decision nearly ruined him.

Brass Monkey wrote:

embee wrote:Dan

I gave a mathematical explanation of a shit hawkeye decision against Rogers in the last Ashes series in pomgolia ...Cant be bothered looking it up ...but hawkeye was out 9 inches wrong

We do stringline angles as part our training ...some of the shit that hawkeye puts up is near impossible ...its mainly correct ...but so are elite umpires

Phooey

" />

What's he got to do with it?

They seemed to earmark him as a future opener when he was brought into the side, before giving him his debut in the middle order.

Lindsay no.2 wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:

embee wrote:Dan

I gave a mathematical explanation of a shit hawkeye decision against Rogers in the last Ashes series in pomgolia ...Cant be bothered looking it up ...but hawkeye was out 9 inches wrong

We do stringline angles as part our training ...some of the shit that hawkeye puts up is near impossible ...its mainly correct ...but so are elite umpires

Phooey

" />

What's he got to do with it?

It's a saying. You old f*cks always bring up the Hong Kong variety.

I was simply saying that picking out 'some' of Hawk-Eye's dismissals is all well and good, but the extent it has allayed 'controversy' over results is good enough for me to trust in it. Because before it was all cry-baby opinion, rather than probable fact.

Brass Monkey wrote:

Lindsay no.2 wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:

embee wrote:Dan

I gave a mathematical explanation of a shit hawkeye decision against Rogers in the last Ashes series in pomgolia ...Cant be bothered looking it up ...but hawkeye was out 9 inches wrong

We do stringline angles as part our training ...some of the shit that hawkeye puts up is near impossible ...its mainly correct ...but so are elite umpires

Phooey

" />

What's he got to do with it?

It's a saying. You old f*cks always bring up the Hong Kong variety.

I was simply saying that picking out 'some' of Hawk-Eye's dismissals is all well and good, but the extent it has allayed 'controversy' over results is good enough for me to trust in it. Because before it was all cry-baby opinion, rather than probable fact.

Didn't realise that Hong Kong Phooey was an over-used response - I thought I was being terribly clever (I see Pete got in there first witha batfink reference). Won't use again (he wrote, wincing at the realisation that he has now reached the stage where he is referred to as an 'old f*ck').

Again, take your point on it being an improvement on the pre-Hawkeye world. And from my previous post I think I kind of indicated why it maybe unfairly suffers in terms of how it is viewed. We're agreeing here I think.

Yeah, better on average than the Elite Panel, even if the Bell one was a bit of a Russell Tiffin moment.

Barstow still doesn't have a clue against the short ball.

It's a flukey 39 runs he's got so far... We've had the luck

What time can they play until this evening?

From my reckoning there should be what another 20 overs to fit in - but they're not going to manage that I presume.

It's normally 6.30 cut-off if no rain delays, so perhaps 5 minutes or so beyond that.

The match situation couldn't be any better for the likes of Stokes, Buttler and Ali to come in, get in and then look to twat it.

If Buttler gets out to a soft prod or a weak bat/pad then he should be given a kicking.

To anyone who thought this pitch was dubious - Jonny Bairstow has just reached his fifty.

That's Jonny Bairstow. Fifty.

Lindsay no.2 wrote:To anyone who thought this pitch was dubious - Jonny Bairstow has just reached his fifty.

That's Jonny Bairstow. Fifty.

He's sucked off the pied piper in this innings

Bairstow's innings has been like a plucky number eight rather than a top six test batsman. Still, he's passed 50. Maybe he's one of those players who is better off just seeing the ball and hitting the ball rather than worrying about technique all the time. He's got a good eye.