Re: Honest Opinions

by Paul Keating Mon 07 Jan 2008, 10:03

I'm prepared to get stoned for this. But in my honest opinion had Dravid not been given out, I honestly believe India would have drawn the match.As poor as his form has been, he has a remarkable ability to consume a lot of balls, and has endless patience.

You could effectively say his dismissal from an umpire's error cost India the match.

by lardbucket Mon 07 Jan 2008, 10:08

Maybe. Remember, he'd already been dropped once. So it IS Roy's fault; if he'd held the catch, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

by tac Mon 07 Jan 2008, 10:09

lardbucket wrote:Maybe. Remember, he'd already been dropped once. So it IS Roy's fault; if he'd held the catch, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

No ball . . . not called . . . yes, we would!

by prasad14 Mon 07 Jan 2008, 10:22

Zat wrote:
[*]Do I like prasad14 and Buckeroo?

Not at all.

Any other questions you'd like answered? I'll get to them sometime tomorrow. I'm off to have a few drinks.

bring it on biitch onguard

by *Buckaroo* Mon 07 Jan 2008, 11:03

It seems gilchrist used to be good in these matters (not falsely appealing) long back in the past. but life in a pack of wolves can be tough, you either move with the pack or get eaten.

Hayden is some kind of evangelist..I am trying to get more details on it. The smaller wolfier creatures like ponting and Clarke are always in the thick of things. there are exceptions like mcgrath who was large but surely more wolfish than Hayden.

All in all, quite a nasty pack of critters. then you have newbies like johnson and hogg trying to prove they have the teeth to hunt with the pack too.

by Ash Mon 07 Jan 2008, 13:28

Zat wrote:Well, I thnk I'll nail my colours to the mast. Because there just can't ever be enough threadfs on all the fun and games going on at the moment.

Feel free to join in.

[*]Was Harbajan racist?

probably but he shouldnt be charged unless there is sufficient evidence.

[*]Was the umpiring bad in the Sydney Test?

amongst the worst i have seen - completely changed the course that the match took.

[*]Was it the first time that umpiring has sunk to this level?

probably not but in the 10 yrs of following india tests, it was definitely the worst.

[*]Were the umpiring mistakes deliberately aimed at India?

cannot say. bucknor has a history of very poor decisions against us.

[*]Did poor umpiring change the outcome of the match

yes, and ruined a potentially classic series

[*]is ponting a w@nker of the highest order

yes

by PearlJ Mon 07 Jan 2008, 14:14

Paul Keating wrote:I'm prepared to get stoned for this. But in my honest opinion had Dravid not been given out, I honestly believe India would have drawn the match.As poor as his form has been, he has a remarkable ability to consume a lot of balls, and has endless patience.

You could effectively say his dismissal from an umpire's error cost India the match.

They would have drawn the match as well if they hadn't of lost 3 wickets in a 5 balls to a part time SLA.

by Ash Mon 07 Jan 2008, 14:21

thats irrelevant. its like saying they'd have won the match had laxman and sachin gone on to make doubles.

fact is dravid wasnt out, ganguly wasnt out. but they were given and this lost them the match.

by please don't yell Mon 07 Jan 2008, 14:28

India made many many mistakes in the game, thats all they can work on.

India needed a massive amount of help from the umps to win in 2001 but we still made so many mistakes we learnt from them and then were able to easily beat India in their own backyard.

by embee Mon 07 Jan 2008, 14:29

Ash wrote:thats irrelevant. its like saying they'd have won the match had laxman and sachin gone on to make doubles.

fact is dravid wasnt out, ganguly wasnt out. but they were given and this lost them the match.

No ...Losing the 10th wicket in the second innings lost them the match ...the game was virtually saved until they choked to the Anti-Custer's bowling ...There is no way of knowing what WOULD have happened had the Fence and LB decisions been different.

by Ash Mon 07 Jan 2008, 14:34

please don't yell wrote:India made many many mistakes in the game, thats all they can work on.

India needed a massive amount of help from the umps to win in 2001 but we still made so many mistakes we learnt from them and then were able to easily beat India in their own backyard.

you're right - of course we made mistakes and have weaklinks within the side but so did/do australia. we did enough not to lose. i take your point about working on what is in your control but its frustrating to lose this way. and i think "massive amount of help" may be a slight exaggeration - the umpiring was certainly nowhere near as atrocious as it has been the past few days.

by please don't yell Mon 07 Jan 2008, 14:34

Probably the strangest thing of all in this, people saying an umpiring decision is worse if the player goes on to make a big score.

A mistake is a mistake, when yuvraj got a left off in the first test it was just as big as mistake as one that cost a 100 runs.

by Henry Mon 07 Jan 2008, 14:40

How about when Symonds was clearly out stumped but the third umpire for some reason said not out? Or when Benson could have easily referred Clarke's 'catch' to the third umpire on the last day but chose not to?

What kind of dimwitted, amateur hour idiots allow themselves to let this happen?

by Ash Mon 07 Jan 2008, 16:13

please don't yell wrote:Probably the strangest thing of all in this, people saying an umpiring decision is worse if the player goes on to make a big score.

A mistake is a mistake, when yuvraj got a left off in the first test it was just as big as mistake as one that cost a 100 runs.

you leave your front door open and come back and find you've either been burgled or not. same mistake, different consequences.

by please don't yell Mon 07 Jan 2008, 16:14

And all you can take responsibly for is leaving the door open.

What happens as a result doesn't make your actions any better or worse.

by Ash Mon 07 Jan 2008, 16:24

you're being pedantic. it may not make your actions better/worse but the implications of your actions can be better/worse. you break a traffic signal and crash - the consequences would be more serious than if you hadn't crashed.

of course, we got symonds at least 3 times if not 4 and hussey twice (yet both ended with "unbeaten" tons) so we're talking of repeated mistakes here.

by please don't yell Mon 07 Jan 2008, 16:28

if an ump makes 5 mistakes he makes 5 mistakes if those 5 mistakes cost 10 runs it's still worse than an ump who makes 1 mistake that cost 100 runs.

by Ash Mon 07 Jan 2008, 16:45

but thats not what you've been saying. you've been of the opinion that 5 mistakes costing 100 runs are as bad as 5 mistakes costing 10 runs. this is not true. in real life at least.

by please don't yell Mon 07 Jan 2008, 16:46

it's the same thing.

A mistake is a mistake is a mistake is a mistake.

by Ash Mon 07 Jan 2008, 16:48

keep telling yourself that mate, out in the real world its a different story

by please don't yell Mon 07 Jan 2008, 16:49

Unelss you think the ICC should sit down and work out whose errors cost more runs before deciding on the elite panel?

You can only judge the the number of error that are made not the consequences of such errors.

That would be like saying an ump who gives a number 4 batmen out wrongly is worse than an ump who gives out number 9 wrongly.

by Ash Mon 07 Jan 2008, 16:52

a mistake costing little is - rightly or wrongly - more likely to be overlooked than a mistake costing a lot.

by please don't yell Mon 07 Jan 2008, 16:53

By irrational childish fans who spend all day carping on the net yes...

Thankfully those people don't have any say on anything important in cricket.

by Ash Mon 07 Jan 2008, 17:04

as opposed to by pedants and idealists who would not survive a day in the real world...

unfortunately those are exactly the kind of people running the game

by please don't yell Mon 07 Jan 2008, 17:11

Since when did common sense get confused with idealism?

unless things have got so stupid that common sense is that untouchable a place to arrive at that you would have to be an out of touch idealist to use it.

by Sponsored content