Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

International Cricket

Reports that cricket* is one stage closer to being accepted at the LA Olympics:

www.google.com

Cricket recommended for 2028 LA Olympics spot

Cricket could be in the Olympics for the first time since 1900 as organisers recommend it to be part of the 2028 Los Angeles Games.
www.google.com www.google.com
www.espncricinfo.com

Cricket to make summer Olympics return after 128 years for 2028 LA Games

Cricket one of five sports recommended for "potential inclusion" with a final decision to be taken by the IOC later this week
www.espncricinfo.com


*Limited overs.
 
Somewhat unbelievably, Australia and India begin a 5 match T20 series today, days after the World Cup final. How fucking greedy is the BCCI?
 
Petcha said:
Maxwell. Striking at 220 again.

We have Arshdeep bowling but sadly no sign of Hardik..
Click to expand...

Quick useless post about those stupid 'win forecasters/predictors' we discussed elsewhere, probably on the WC thread.

Your post made me check the game. On cricinfo, which I love and has some of the best cricket writing and commentary by far. But it practically started this win forecaster crap and today proved what a completely meaningless waste of time it is.

When I looked, Aus needed about 50 in 18 balls or something. The commentary mentioned (I've been at work all day) that India had scored more than this in their last 18 balls? They'd got 67. Something like that.

So the stupid win forecaster was showing, at some point in that 18th over, Aus at 0.5%. With Maxwell in full flow.

Worst algorithm ever.
 
Oh I completely agree. The best win predictor is bet365 or similar sites. They don't fuck around, money's involved.

But Maxwell is a loose cannon and I don't think even they could have seen that coming again. He doesn't even move his feet. He must have enormously powerful forearms although hes not exactly built like Stoinis.
 
1701532216793.png

Proper game of cricket, well played Bangladesh. I don't think Boult not playing made much difference. Bangladesh were without a lot of their 'names'. They got it right, under a new captain, against a good batting line-up. On the 5th day.

Long live test cricket.
 
Interesting first day of the second Test between Bangladesh and New Zealand. After winning the toss and being bowled out for 172, Bangladesh then got New Zealand to 55 for 5 by stumps.

Weirdly, Mushfiqur Rahim was given out for obstructing the field. Weirdly because in the past it would have been 'handling the ball' but more weirdly because he had absolutely no reason to do it.

Very odd.

1701888292090.png
 
So we're back to proper cricket over the next couple of months. South Africa just thrashed India inside three days in a test match that saw near-full houses on two of the days and a smaller crowd on the other day only because the weather was dodgy. Test cricket in SA should be alive and kicking. Instead... This.

A South Africa Test squad with just seven capped players

They're sending roughly a third 11 to NZ for two tests because they clash with their domestic T20 comp and they want their biggest stars in that comp. SA are only due to play six tests a year anyway, and now this. It's like they want test cricket to fail when all the signs - like the bumper crowds in Pretoria and no doubt next week as well - are that it isn't failing at all. This is ludicrous.
 
Well you can't blame them. It's capitalism. What do you expect? NZ's lineup probably won't be full strength either due to T20 commitments. NZ isn't a a box office draw on telly. It's only the big three that haul in huge viewing numbers and crowds.

In saying that I've been watching a bit of the Big Bash and it's very noticable how small the crowds have been compared to the Tests there happening at the same time.
 
Pakistan calling for the end of the farcial 'umpire's call' after being robbed the other day by 4 of them. And the umpire being the most incompetent on the circuit, Joel Wilson

Hafeez did concede Pakistan had not helped themselves with several errors, including Abdullah Shafique’s crucial drop of Mitchell Marsh on day three. But he also called for the removal of umpire’s call on ball-tracking lbw decisions, after Pakistan were on the wrong end of four such decisions in the loss.

“We play this game for the fans, and the fans will never understand why this technology is inconsistent,” Hafeez said. “We played this beautiful game of cricket on the basics of the game, but sometimes the technology brings decisions which as a human we don’t understand. The ball hitting the stump is always out. Why it’s umpire’s call, I never understand that.”
Click to expand...
 
Pakistan were on course for a famous win then fell in a heap. They're hurting. Some days umpire's call goes against you like that. I don't think there's much wrong with the system as it is. Their biggest problem is that none of their bowlers can bat. They've basically got four number 11s.

The margin with umpire's call was reduced a few years ago - it was certainly too big. But it allows for two things. One, when judging lbw without technology, the umpire is supposed to give the benefit of any doubt to the batter, so if they think 'maybe clipping' then they should probably say not out. Two, the predictive aspect of DRS isn't perfect - it also has a margin of error. So DRS removes howlers. I think it's about right.
 
I just don't know why tennis does't have umpire's call. They trust hawkeye completely. The ball's either in out.

In cricket the ball's either hitting the wickets or not. Pitching outside leg or not. Impacting outside off or not. If it's clipping then bails then that's out. It shouldn't be down to a late middle aged man's eyesight 22 yards away.
 
Petcha said:
I just don't know why tennis does't have umpire's call. They trust hawkeye completely. The ball's either in out.

In cricket the ball's either hitting the wickets or not. Pitching outside leg or not. Impacting outside off or not. If it's clipping then bails then that's out. It shouldn't be down to a late middle aged man's eyesight 22 yards away.
Click to expand...
Tennis doesn't have a predictive element. Whether or not the ball pitched in line or impact was in line is clear-cut, and they could do away with UC for that, but whether or not the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps isn't perfect. Hawkeye itself has a margin of error whenever it is predicting a path that wasn't actually taken.

Also, in tennis, the line judges don't have a protocol that says 'if in doubt, give it in/out' - they have to make a decision one way or the other even if they're not sure. If they're not sure, they make their best guess. In cricket, an umpire has always traditionally given the benefit of the doubt to the batter - so they might think it's probably out but still don't give it out. Maybe that tradition is wrong? Perhaps, but that's what DRS protocols have been built on.

And one further difference. In tennis, there are lines. In cricket, an umpire first has to imagine a line along the pitch on which the ball has either pitched or not, then make a prediction about what the ball would have done if it hadn't hit the pad.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
Tennis doesn't have a predictive element. Whether or not the ball pitched in line or impact was in line is clear-cut, and they could do away with UC for that, but whether or not the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps isn't perfect. Hawkeye itself has a margin of error whenever it is predicting a path that wasn't actually taken.

Also, in tennis, the line judges don't have a protocol that says 'if in doubt, give it in/out' - they have to make a decision one way or the other even if they're not sure. If they're not sure, they make their best guess. In cricket, an umpire has always traditionally given the benefit of the doubt to the batter - so they might think it's probably out but still don't give it out. Maybe that tradition is wrong? Perhaps, but that's what DRS protocols have been built on.

And one further difference. In tennis, there are lines. In cricket, an umpire first has to imagine a line along the pitch on which the ball has either pitched or not, then make a prediction about what the ball would have done if it hadn't hit the pad.
Click to expand...

If it's clipping it's out isn't actually a representation of the rules anyway is it. In that the ball clipping the stumps and the bails not coming off is rare-ish but certainly not freakish. It's not like cricket nerds can cite the three times it happened or anything like that.
 
Monkeygrinder's Organ said:
If it's clipping it's out isn't actually a representation of the rules anyway is it. In that the ball clipping the stumps and the bails not coming off is rare-ish but certainly not freakish. It's not like cricket nerds can cite the three times it happened or anything like that.
Click to expand...
tbh that's a bit of an imperfection of the rules imo. Yes, sometimes it clips and the bails stay put. The one that's really not fair is when the ball hits the base of middle stump and the bails stay put! That really should be out.

But that's sport. Sometimes luck comes into it. And really that's all that happened to Pakistan. The real problem was that they dropped catches, not that they were on the wrong end of marginal lbw decisions. Not going to have a go. They were clearly gutted after blowing the opportunity. Think we can forgive them not instantly having a good perspective on things. Not everyone can be Kane Williamson!

Anyhow, I like DRS. It does a decent job of getting rid of howlers. Pre-DRS, batters would regularly be sent on their way after getting huge inside edges onto their pads or after the ball has pitched miles outside leg. I think the protocols for lbw are about right. My only issue is when catches are given not out when they are almost certainly out. IMO with catches, the benefit of any doubt should go with the catcher because we all know the shortcomings of zoom lenses and their foreshortening effect, making it look like the ball is touching the grass when it is not. Sometimes it appears that third umps still don't know this, although they are actually given classes on it now.
 
Last edited:
The science isn't perfect, however much Petcha wants to trust it is. But DRS has massively improved good decision making and largely taken away what used to be undoubted bias in some umpiring. Everything being discussed here refers to human games and human error has to be an accepted part of that. I don't want my games spoiled by triangulation points that make things like VAR in football a farce at times, particularly in reference to the times taken to make a decision (and DRS itself could improve on this) and that still rely on supposed 'clear and obvious error' that can still be subjective. The clear and obvious error in football is a farce because it's decided solely by VAR and is obviously itself not always correct (unless you 100% happy with the science - I'm not. A ref going to the video screen to change his mind, as he is almost always required to do, is still dictated by generally non-football people who don't understand the game.)

Benefit of the doubt, which the cricket laws are still predicated on, is a good thing. Hence bails being clipped etc. Ball tracking is not a perfect science but has, with good sense, improved the game.

And in my memory Richard Illingworth has been involved in more than his fair share of controversy if we're picking on individual mistakes, mostly from the TV umpire aspect.

Leave it alone. It works better than what we had without ruining the game.

The same cannot be said for VAR.
 
Steve Waugh weighs in

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz www.stuff.co.nz

An IPL match is billed in rights value at $21.7 million per game, ahead of the English Premier League’s $16.8 million per game, Indian media reported at the time. The combined value of the IPL rights was estimated to be almost double the 2018-22 deal.
Click to expand...

I had no idea the IPL is actually more profitable than English football. Staggering.
 
planetgeli said:
The science isn't perfect, however much Petcha wants to trust it is. But DRS has massively improved good decision making and largely taken away what used to be undoubted bias in some umpiring. Everything being discussed here refers to human games and human error has to be an accepted part of that. I don't want my games spoiled by triangulation points that make things like VAR in football a farce at times, particularly in reference to the times taken to make a decision (and DRS itself could improve on this) and that still rely on supposed 'clear and obvious error' that can still be subjective. The clear and obvious error in football is a farce because it's decided solely by VAR and is obviously itself not always correct (unless you 100% happy with the science - I'm not. A ref going to the video screen to change his mind, as he is almost always required to do, is still dictated by generally non-football people who don't understand the game.)

Benefit of the doubt, which the cricket laws are still predicated on, is a good thing. Hence bails being clipped etc. Ball tracking is not a perfect science but has, with good sense, improved the game.

And in my memory Richard Illingworth has been involved in more than his fair share of controversy if we're picking on individual mistakes, mostly from the TV umpire aspect.

Leave it alone. It works better than what we had without ruining the game.

The same cannot be said for VAR.
Click to expand...

Shane Warne despised umpire's call and he knew a fair bit about the game. And you see so many players shaking their heads on either side when the yellow light comes up. It's nuts. But hey. I give it it a couple of years before they lose it just as they did trusting umpires to be able to call a no-ball from 5 yards behind the popping crease when the technology was there to sort that. And removing umpire's call on dodgy catches in the deep. Only a matter of time.
 
Petcha said:
Steve Waugh weighs in

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz www.stuff.co.nz
Click to expand...
Yep, spot on. And the answer to the problem is obvious, as pointed out by Waugh there and by me previously on here. You pay both sides an equal appearance fee, which is funded from the coffers of the 'big three'. They've easily got enough money to pay for it.

My original idea was that you would level up when the big fish were playing, but it is probably now the case that you need a standard fee across test cricket. £20k per player per match, every match, in the WTC. Total cost of that would be in the region of £20 million a year, split across the ten participating boards according to their relative revenue. It's not so much money, particularly as India, England and Aus already pay around that. It's probably only about £10 million per year extra for those three to find between them, so £3 million per year each, or the price of two Sam Currans in the IPL.

This SA tour is a total disgrace, bringing test cricket and the WTC into disrepute. Would be better if it were cancelled.
 
Last edited:
littlebabyjesus said:
Yep, spot on. And the answer to the problem is obvious, as pointed out by Waugh there and by me previously on here. You pay both sides an equal appearance fee, which is funded from the coffers of the 'big three'. They've easily got enough money to pay for it.

My original idea was that you would level up when the big fish were playing, but it is probably now the case that you need a standard fee across test cricket. £20k per player per match, every match, in the WTC. Total cost of that would be in the region of £20 million a year, split across the ten participating boards according to their relative revenue. It's not so much money, particularly as India, England and Aus already pay around that. It's probably only about £10 million per year extra.

This SA tour is a total disgrace, bringing test cricket and the WTC into disrepute. Would be better if it were cancelled.
Click to expand...

That's not gonna happen. These are hard-nosed businessmen. If they're getting £22m for a 3 hour game of IPL there's no way they'll go for that with test cricket, sadly. I think theyll probably end up extending the IPL season tbh if they're raking that much in. You're relying on philanthropy there.

But I'd love it if NZ just cancelled or sent out their u21s. The SA captain's never played international cricket ffs.
 
One other side effect of this is that it's fucking with statistics. Nobody will ever get close to Murali or even Jimmy or Broad in terms of wickets, and Tendulkar, Ponting in terms of runs. Those top tens are now pretty much locked in stone.
 
It's not philanthropy. It's more like enlightened self-interest. India, England and Aus playing each other endlessly isn't a commercially attractive proposition long-term. A healthy, competitive test scene needs other teams in it and it needs those teams to be fielding their strongest teams.

Test cricket isn't dying. We know this - cricket fans across the world follow it avidly and, when scheduled properly, it attracts big crowds. But it is wounded. All it needs is some antibiotics to clear the infection. It would be an act of rank stupidity to refuse to give those antibiotics.

A few million a year is nothing to the likes of India, England and Australia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Elpenor
Autumn International Rugby 2024
2 3 4
Replies
105
Views
1K
Monte
Monte
QueenOfGoths
T20 Cricket World Cup
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
290
Views
6K
Petcha
P
Puddy_Tat
County Cricket 2024
2 3
Replies
61
Views
1K
littlebabyjesus
littlebabyjesus
littlebabyjesus
England Cricket 2024
32 33 34 35 36
Replies
1K
Views
24K
Puddy_Tat
Puddy_Tat
QueenOfGoths
Cricket World Cup 2023
24 25 26 27 28
Replies
822
Views
17K
Petcha
P
Back
Top Bottom