2004, it's over.

[biased indian]

hi jason I'm an avid WI fAN living in USA. Could you tell me how i could either listen or watch the WI match against Victoria on the internet on Jan 5. PLZ let me know. Thx.

another master blaster one with a space between him

 

[Richard]

That brings the total up to three.
Sangrah has started a cult!
Seems two were referring to SRT, tho - this one presumably to IVAR.

 

[marc71178]

Because something reliant in a few isolated instances on opinion is far better than better than something reliant so much on luck.

"A few isolated instances"?

I think it's for than a few.

 

[tooextracool]

The snickometer registered a sound which the analysts concluded not to be bat on ball. Also, a 50-50 decision is only correct if it is given not out. Benefit of the doubt goes with the batsman.

yes but usually if a decision like that goes the other way no one complains because its hard to judge whether it was out or not.
the thing is if it wasnt bat on ball then what was the sound?

 

[tooextracool]

But it's only necessary in the tight ones, and thoe are the ones where it's not proven to be very accurate.

nope its necessary for the ones that dont appear too tight either, such as inside edges for lbws and whether the ball pitched outside leg stump, too high etc.

 

[tooextracool]

"A few isolated instances"?

I think it's for than a few.

no its not, its extremely rare, possibly 1 every test series. as opposed to the number of bad decisions that happen every test match.

 

[marc71178]

no its not, its extremely rare, possibly 1 every test series. as opposed to the number of bad decisions that happen every test match.

What, whether a chance was a chance or not?!

 

[Pratters]

Because something reliant in a few isolated instances on opinion is far better than better than something reliant so much on luck.

Richard, you have put yuor logic of first chance average on so many threads. Please dont cloud this thread with it too. If you want people to discuss on it, go ahead and create another thread.

 

[tooextracool]

What, whether a chance was a chance or not?!

nevermind, i took your post to mean something else.

 

[Richard]

Richard, you have put yuor logic of first chance average on so many threads. Please dont cloud this thread with it too. If you want people to discuss on it, go ahead and create another thread.

I didn't bring the darn thing up - Jamee did!

 

[Richard]

"A few isolated instances"?

I think it's for than a few.

For every "was that a chance?" there are at least 10, maybe 15, "should have caught that"s.
Maybe not "what a sitter" - but the Trescothick one off Kallis today, for instance - tricky, but he clearly should have caught the thing.

 

[garage flower]

Best moments: Windies winning the ICC and the 1st Pakistan-India ODI (the one where about 700 runs were scored!)

Worst: Day 4 at Sabina Park - precipitating a season of humbling defeats for the West Indies at the hands of England - who it now turns out are rubbish!

 

[Beleg]

best moment: I don't remember any single one. Extremely bad year for Pakistan. Might say the the unveiling of the ICC report was a pretty okay moment, best thing to come out of them in a long long time.

worst moment: too many to name.

 

[marc71178]

For every "was that a chance?" there are at least 10, maybe 15, "should have caught that"s.

But people don't agree on how good chances were, and that is the main problem, there is no consistency.

 

[Richard]

Like I've told you many, many times, when pushed most people do agree on what should and shouldn't have been caught.
Most prominent people don't treat chances properly, though, so you don't get that impression.

 

[Richard]

Worst: Day 4 at Sabina Park - precipitating a season of humbling defeats for the West Indies at the hands of England - who it now turns out are rubbish!

Hmm...
Let's reserve judgement on that one just a little while longer shall we?
I appreciate that may have been slightly TIC, and you might have a point in that England may be shown to be not quite as good as some were thinking - but rubbish?
You don't get P12, W11, D1 by being rubbish.

 

[marc71178]

Like I've told you many, many times, when pushed most people do agree on what should and shouldn't have been caught.

Which is why there are so many different views of most chances is it?

 

[Richard]

No, that's because people, for some reason, like to complicate things, chances included.
Which is where you get absurdities like "half-chance" and even, quite obscenely, "quarter-chances" have been referred to a bit recently.
If anyone actually realised what they were saying, they might change their mind.

 

[Pratters]

No, that's because people, for some reason, like to complicate things, chances included.
Which is where you get absurdities like "half-chance" and even, quite obscenely, "quarter-chances" have been referred to a bit recently.
If anyone actually realised what they were saying, they might change their mind.

Only you would like to destroy every other thread with the stupid chance theory of yours. As you so love your theory, why dont you simply create a thread where you can babble all about it!

 

[tooextracool]

Only you would like to destroy every other thread with the stupid chance theory of yours. As you so love your theory, why dont you simply create a thread where you can babble all about it!

the theory actually makes a lot of sense, given that its quite unfair for someone who scores 50 odd out once as opposed to someone who scores 100 odd with 5 dropped catches. of course if there was someway to actually standardize what counts as a catch and what doesnt, IMO it wouldnt be a bad idea to make it official.