The Ashes 2010/11
- Thread starter strung out
- Start date
Haddin's scored more runs but Prior's not had as many opportunities. Haddin's conceded more byes but to be fair he's also had to keep to Johnson. Prior's claimed more victims but he's had the better bowlers to keep to. Tough one, I'll go with Prior.
More on Bell/hotspot etc. Remember back in Brisbane when England were convinced Hussey had got an edge, hotspot showed nothing and Hussey went on to 190-odd? With England losing a referral into the bargain. What comes around, goes around. Besides, it's not as though hotspot is flawed, yet snicko is infallible. Both have drawbacks and the best we can say is that the use of available technology reduces errors but doesn't eliminate them - and there will always be some edges just too fine to be certain of, even if you're holding the bat.
In the light of Cook's comments re: Haddin and Hughes immediately saying they weren't sure whether the catch had carried, I'm prepared to withdraw my 'cheat' slurs from last night
In the light of Cook's comments re: Haddin and Hughes immediately saying they weren't sure whether the catch had carried, I'm prepared to withdraw my 'cheat' slurs from last night
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Yeah fair does. Didn't look very bloody i'm not sure though.
strung out
💩 🤣 🍆 💦 🧐 👻 🐝 🐈⬛
i bet botham doesn't though, somerset twat (sorry butch)
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I think Cook was doing that posh thing of covering for the enemy.
If the ball bounces up into your hands you don't even dream of appealing - a scoop, yes, maybe...not one you know came upwards...
If the ball bounces up into your hands you don't even dream of appealing - a scoop, yes, maybe...not one you know came upwards...
strung out
💩 🤣 🍆 💦 🧐 👻 🐝 🐈⬛
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
Edges away very nervously indeed!
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
which wouldn't explain Haddin leaping like he'd been jabbed with a cattle prod the moment he saw Clarke go up for the catch
Idaho
blah blah blah
There's always been a fair bit of 'crowd catching' and 'optimistic appealing' in cricket. I don't think it's worth making that much of a fuss about it. As to whether he knew it bounced? Well, the right decision came out in the end.
Likewise with the Bell 'edge' - we can't know for certain whether he edged it (although it's likely he did), and we can't know for certain whether if he did edge it, he knew it. So go with the umps decision, and get on with the game.
Likewise with the Bell 'edge' - we can't know for certain whether he edged it (although it's likely he did), and we can't know for certain whether if he did edge it, he knew it. So go with the umps decision, and get on with the game.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
These are two totally different things. A bumped ball that looks like a catch from the stand and a catch you know you didn't take. It's irrelevant if the right decision came out in the end - that's the whole fucking point of the anger.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
In my early hours daze did I hear someone comment Snicko is less reliable than HotSpot, HotSpot being about 96-97% reliable?
Fuck knows how they assess reliability, but maybe that's another question . . .
Fuck knows how they assess reliability, but maybe that's another question . . .
Idaho
blah blah blah
Snicko is coincidental - it just shows a sound occuring at the time the ball passes bat.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
For my part, I'd like to think there's still some code of sportsmanship in this game -it's one of the things that makes it special
Ted Striker
Foot's on the other hand
Been on this all day, amazing cricket match going on. Tendulkers delivery to dismiss the tail ender was the stuff of playground!
Idaho
blah blah blah
The thing with sportsmanship is that you need to back off and let it happen. If you go straight to defcon 1 every time you perceive that you've been wronged, and assume the other side have the worst possible motives, then you've played your part in eradicating sportsmanship.
It's similar to the relationship between politicians and journos. The latter are looking for any possible angle to make a story so the politicians provide them with a practiced and airbrushed answer that gives no insight at all because they know they will be crucified otherwise.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
No, you call cheating when you see it. Not when it might not be. Let those ones go. Why are you having problems with this?
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
hold on, I presume that's a probability question....CAAALLLIIING KAAAABBBEEESSS!!!
A discussion about reliability is more interesting than it first seems, actually.
Errors are generally divided into "Type I" (hang an innocent man) and "Type II" (let a guilty man go free). You generally focus on avoiding Type I because it is generally considered to be more serious. So it might be that you are 99% reliable on this basis and this is what is quoted. But this says nothing at all about the Type II error!
When quoting reliability they should really quote the probability of BOTH error types.
Errors are generally divided into "Type I" (hang an innocent man) and "Type II" (let a guilty man go free). You generally focus on avoiding Type I because it is generally considered to be more serious. So it might be that you are 99% reliable on this basis and this is what is quoted. But this says nothing at all about the Type II error!
When quoting reliability they should really quote the probability of BOTH error types.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
I don't think it's a case of 'going to defcon 1' every time, as you put it! it's simply a case of acknowledging an unwritten but universal ethical code, expecting all to abide by it, and then making clear one's disapproval when someone acts in a manner that is - excuse the pun - 'simply not cricket'.
Idaho
blah blah blah
Because I find myopic, partisan braying far more annoying than the odd bit of (unsuccessful) gamesmanship.
Idaho
blah blah blah
If they got away with it, then perhaps one might make clear one's disapproval. But seeing as they didn't, one can merely sit back in serene natural-justice-laden smugness
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Or, you enjoy painting those who disagree as this. Fair play.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
If they got away with it, then perhaps one might make clear one's disapproval. But seeing as they didn't, one can merely sit back in serene natural-justice-laden smugness
In that case you're indulging in the same instrumental thinking as the cheat. It's not whether they got away with it or not, but that they cheated in the first place.
Idaho
blah blah blah
butchersapron - if you were one of the more well-balanced, rational and agreeable posters on the board, then I might give ground. But as it is, you'll just have to put up with it.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Yep, off you go. Even billy is telling you to leave.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
no, you don't! It's the unsporting behaviour that's the real issue, not whether the umpires (and a couple of bits of technowizardry) were up to spotting it.If they got away with it, then perhaps one might make clear one's disapproval. But seeing as they didn't, one can merely sit back in serene natural-justice-laden smugness
e2a: this sportsmanship is intrinsic to the game's soul and ethos. I(f you want to see the dangers of 'relaxing on this' - look at football.
