Idle cricket musing

[Brendan]

It is good to see England doing well and most importantly making proper use of their talent.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Nah, nah did just about sum it up.

I'm not keen on furreners playing for England and I certainly thought KP was an arrogant tosspot, but to give him credit, he does seem to have responded rather maturely to the captaincy, and lost some of his ego (or at least learned to hide it).

But despite trouncing SA on the last two one dayers, the grown up tests are the ones that count and we failed. I reckon the SA team were just resting on their laurels a little too much, besides, what have they got to prove?

[Brendan]

Don?t belittle England?s victories here. Unlike England, South Africa take the one dayers as seriously as the tests. So beating them in one day cricket isn?t because they are resting on their laurels.

Well I hope not anyway.

[david_carnell]

So do I after this afternoon.....

It's becoming more and more difficult to report on these matches without giggling to myself.

[Brendan]

What does this one mean again? >:D

[Marmora Man]

Great that England is 3 - 0 up but I always feel the Duckworth - Lewis calculations give the advantage to the team batting second with fewer overs to face the likelihood of them losing wickets is reduced. So - to an extent SA were unfortunate on Sunday.

[citizenED]

5-0 by the end of today will propel England into No 2 one-day team in the rankings. After, guess who.

[david_carnell]

Holland?

[citizenED]

One Hundred and Eighty! How do you know all these obscure facts d_c? Top notch education in the 'burbs?

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Ho hum, tra la la.

[Keef]

Feckin Wales! (6)

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Quite.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Well, the shipping forecast was quite interesting.

[citizenED]

I'm glad the rain came. For now we can bask in the glory of having thrashed the 2nd best team in the whole wide world. If we'd won we would have only beaten the 3rd best team.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Loving the logic.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

The International Cricket Council have confirmed that a series of amendments to playing conditions are to take effect.

... Additionally, all catches can now be referred to the third umpire when the on-field officials are unsure as to the validity of an appeal.

I quite like watching slow action replays and even waiting for third umpire decisions, but I can't help feeling we are moving away from the human element - bad/good umpiring decisions are part of the fun.

What do you think?

[Brendan]

I?m all for using technology to make umpiring more accurate but I do think that this referring business can be a waste of time sometimes. I also don?t think that the teams should be able to ask for a decision to be referred, as they have experimented with. It just invites silly buggery from the captains. Especially with the, shall we say less scrupulous, approach to the game the colonials have.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

This is patently not cricket:

England's Test series against West Indies this winter will use the umpire decision review system.

The system - trialled during the recent series between India and Sri Lanka - allows a side up to three appeals against a decision per innings.

The International Cricket Council confirmed on Tuesday it will be implemented during England's four Test matches in the Caribbean in February and March 2009.

[Brendan]

Silly buggery here we come.

...and not in a good way either

[david_carnell]

Can one of you knowledgable folk fill me in on this new techno babble?

What does it enable to be reviewed? I'm guessing lbw decisions are the main fodder. Or the odd grounded catch.

Otherwise I can't work it out. Run outs are sent to the 3rd umpire anyways.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Frankly it doesn't matter what it is. The Umpire's word is final. Or you are not an Englishman/gentleman/sportsman.

[SimonM]

Time was a fellow would be halfway to the pavilion before an umpire had raised his finger. In those days cricket was played by gentlemen of course....

[Ted Max]

Would you care to name that time, SimonM? Cricket's always been full of selfish, cheating hypocrites. It's part of its charm.

David, batting and bowling teams can refer any type of decision they disagree with - up to three unsuccessful appeals per innings. The third umpire will then use slow mo repeats (but not other gadgetry such as Hawkeye, HotSpot or Snicko) to give a decision.

It was used in the recent Sri Lanka/ India series. Sri Lanka seemed to be much better at judging a dodgy call than India, from memory. There were 48 referrals in three tests.

[Brendan]

I don?t have a problem with technology being used but a proper decision should be made on it and it should be controlled by the umpire.

So if they decide that all LBW decisions will be automatically determined by hawkeye and relayed to the umpire on a little walkie-talkie or something, then fine.

What I don?t like is this business of the teams being able to ask for referrals to the 3rd umpire. Firstly they?re second guessing the umpire which shouldn?t happen. Next thing they will be openly arguing with them (like the mercenaries employed in that gambling pastime for feral miscreants that befouls our tv screens do) Secondly it causes unseemly hold-ups in the game while the captains appeal to the umpires like a bunch of whingeing schoolgirls.

It?s a captain?s job to lead his team not try to manipulate the umpire.

It?s a sport. In real sports you play the fucking game, you don?t question the fucking umpire. I don?t care how much money they?re being paid it doesn?t give a grown man the excuse to behave like a child in need of a hiding.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Ted darling, don't stifle Simon's romanticism - it's very refreshing.