Do the Australians appeal better than anyone else?

How else do you explain the massive amount of dodgy decisions that go the Aussie's way? Even one eyed's of the like seen on this forum would struggle to deny that Australia's opponents more often than not bare the brunt of the bad umpiring decisions throughout the course of a test series.

The only time in the last 5 years where I have seen Australia receive more bad decisions than their opponents in a test series was the 2005 ashes.

Yes Trev.

Deep down you know it's true.

When does the tuna trawler leave?

Henry wrote:How else do you explain the massive amount of dodgy decisions that go the Aussie's way? Even one eyed's of the like seen on this forum would struggle to deny that Australia's opponents more often than not bare the brunt of the bad umpiring decisions throughout the course of a test series.

The only time in the last 5 years where I have seen Australia receive more bad decisions than their opponents in a test series was the 2005 ashes.

Please refer to my signature.

Phurt. You had a shotgun in your mouth after the 05 ashes.

Henry wrote:How else do you explain the massive amount of dodgy decisions that go the Aussie's way? Even one eyed's of the like seen on this forum would struggle to deny that Australia's opponents more often than not bare the brunt of the bad umpiring decisions throughout the course of a test series.

The only time in the last 5 years where I have seen Australia receive more bad decisions than their opponents in a test series was the 2005 ashes.

I don't think that is right. People just remember the decisions that go Australia's way because they like to cling to the fact that their team was robbed when in actual fact they are just inferior.

I do it all the time in Rugby League.

Put another way, a better team is going to produce more close decisions and is therefore likely to get more of those decisions.

JGK wrote:

Henry wrote:How else do you explain the massive amount of dodgy decisions that go the Aussie's way? Even one eyed's of the like seen on this forum would struggle to deny that Australia's opponents more often than not bare the brunt of the bad umpiring decisions throughout the course of a test series.

The only time in the last 5 years where I have seen Australia receive more bad decisions than their opponents in a test series was the 2005 ashes.

I don't think that is right. People just remember the decisions that go Australia's way because they like to cling to the fact that their team was robbed when in actual fact they are just inferior.

I do it all the time in Rugby League.

Put another way, a better team is going to produce more close decisions and is therefore likely to get more of those decisions.

But 3 shockers in a row? That is game changing stuff.

Trev wouldn't be happy unless 10 dodgy decisions are given against Australia while batting, and Australia has to dismiss all teams three times per innings because of dodgy decisions in favour of who ever is playing Aus. And he'd still whinge.

One thing for certain is that, despite their reputation, the Aus players tend to have better relationships with the umpires . . . that might lead to some unintended bias . . .

tac wrote:One thing for certain is that, despite their reputation, the Aus players tend to have better relationships with the umpires . . . that might lead to some unintended bias . . .

Well it's hardly surprising that they get on so well with the umpires considering all the favours they receive from them.

Henry wrote:

tac wrote:One thing for certain is that, despite their reputation, the Aus players tend to have better relationships with the umpires . . . that might lead to some unintended bias . . .

Well it's hardly surprising that they get on so well with the umpires considering all the favours they receive from them.

I think it's the other way around, Trev . . . .

Henry wrote:

JGK wrote:

Henry wrote:How else do you explain the massive amount of dodgy decisions that go the Aussie's way? Even one eyed's of the like seen on this forum would struggle to deny that Australia's opponents more often than not bare the brunt of the bad umpiring decisions throughout the course of a test series.

The only time in the last 5 years where I have seen Australia receive more bad decisions than their opponents in a test series was the 2005 ashes.

I don't think that is right. People just remember the decisions that go Australia's way because they like to cling to the fact that their team was robbed when in actual fact they are just inferior.

I do it all the time in Rugby League.

Put another way, a better team is going to produce more close decisions and is therefore likely to get more of those decisions.

But 3 shockers in a row? That is game changing stuff.

Hardly. Bravo had scored 3 runs of the previous 43 balls and was looking nervous anyway. The other two aren't exactly Brian Lara either.


Game changing is Billy's decision to give Kaspa out.

I dont think a team will get a decision in their favour because they are "nice" to the umpire ...it is possible a team acting like a bunch of qunts will be viewed less favourably

I think Oz usually creates more chances and therefore seems to get the umpiring decisions favouring them ...the 05 Ashes ,when Trev admits the Ozzies had reason to gripe at umpiring, was a time when CoJones and Flintosser bowled magnificently and created a heap of chances

Hardly. Bravo had scored 3 runs of the previous 43 balls and was looking nervous anyway. The other two aren't exactly Brian Lara either.

So because Bravo was looking nervous it's fair enough that he was given out? The Windies are playing for a draw anyway, and Bravo was batting time. He was doing his job considering the game stuation. Lee was also getting the ball to reverse swing a lot, and Bravo (as a set batsman) was much better equipped to deal with it. One dodgy decision brought two more wickets....which were also dodgy decisions. In the space of 5 minutes the game had been changed completely by Russel Tiffin's incompetence.

JGK wrote:

Henry wrote:

JGK wrote:

Henry wrote:How else do you explain the massive amount of dodgy decisions that go the Aussie's way? Even one eyed's of the like seen on this forum would struggle to deny that Australia's opponents more often than not bare the brunt of the bad umpiring decisions throughout the course of a test series.

The only time in the last 5 years where I have seen Australia receive more bad decisions than their opponents in a test series was the 2005 ashes.

I don't think that is right. People just remember the decisions that go Australia's way because they like to cling to the fact that their team was robbed when in actual fact they are just inferior.

I do it all the time in Rugby League.

Put another way, a better team is going to produce more close decisions and is therefore likely to get more of those decisions.

But 3 shockers in a row? That is game changing stuff.

Hardly. Bravo had scored 3 runs of the previous 43 balls and was looking nervous anyway. The other two aren't exactly Brian Lara either.


Game Series changing is Billy's decision to give Kaspa out.

fixed.

Personally I have never found the Aussies appealing.

Guess there IS something more gay than sooking about umpires. Trev.

The Sub continental teams of the past have been guilty of appealing for decisions that should never be given out, such as . LBW for a ball pitching outside leg, or ball hiting outside off when player has attempted a shot. Some of this could be dut to ignorance but mostly it is due to over exuberance. The Aussies would never do that, that could help build credibility and sway the close ones they go up for vociferously.

Josh Carney wrote:The Sub continental teams of the past have been guilty of appealing for decisions that should never be given out, such as . LBW for a ball pitching outside leg, or ball hiting outside off when player has attempted a shot. Some of this could be dut to ignorance but mostly it is due to over exuberancecheating. The Aussies would never do that, that could help build credibility and sway the close ones they go up for vociferously.

Fixed

Josh Carney wrote:The Sub continental teams of the past have been guilty of appealing for decisions that should never be given out, such as . LBW for a ball pitching outside leg, or ball hiting outside off when player has attempted a shot. Some of this could be dut to ignorance but mostly it is due to over exuberance. The Aussies would never do that, that could help build credibility and sway the close ones they go up for vociferously.

Did you never see Shane Warne bowl?

And you heard that from Hansie Cronje's testimony did you ?

Josh Carney wrote:And you heard that from Hansie Cronje's testimony did you ?

Everyone knows he was led astray by Indians.

Henry wrote:

Hardly. Bravo had scored 3 runs of the previous 43 balls and was looking nervous anyway. The other two aren't exactly Brian Lara either.

So because Bravo was looking nervous it's fair enough that he was given out? The Windies are playing for a draw anyway, and Bravo was batting time. He was doing his job considering the game stuation. Lee was also getting the ball to reverse swing a lot, and Bravo (as a set batsman) was much better equipped to deal with it. One dodgy decision brought two more wickets....which were also dodgy decisions. In the space of 5 minutes the game had been changed completely by Russel Tiffin's incompetence.

What I am saying it looked like Bravo could fall soon anyway. He was in his "danger zone" in the 40s and the pressure was building.

I don't see how it's possible to be totally objective in discussing bad appeals and bad decision making, it's one of the most subjective areas there is. It's just the rub of the game when they go with you and the most appalling act of ineptidude when they go against you. At least for until the next time if you're not totally rabid.