A bowling machine can bowl faster and more accurately than a human bowler so why not allow teams to use a bowling machine, Batsmen would get out less if we allowed them to have bigger and wider bats and fielders would drop less catches if they were allowed to use catching mitts so why are we stopping all these advancements in cricket.
I didnt expect anything intelligible from you, so i am not surprised.
For one, Catching mitts are different than free-hand catching..it does NOT make one a better catcher just to be wearing mitts... In baseball, mitts give you a slightly wider range for grasping the ball but less feel and i've seen the ball slip out from the gloves just as much, if not more, than free hand.
For two, Machines can bowl faster or more accurately but it cannot produce the variety without sentience from another source- ie, someone needs to go tinker with it to make it bowl the googly or the flipper or the offcutter or whatever and it is not strategically the equal of human beings, since it lacks the sentience to take a gamble or use mind-games.
It is equivalent of playing chess with a computer- i am a regular chess player and i can tell you that while the computer is superior than many human beings, it is not a match for many ( deep purple/blue exempted but then again, it is not a sentient player, neither is it completely independent.)
The involvement of technology is in the DECISIONMAKING process of the game and not the PLAYINGS of the game itself. two are quiete different.
For making a pre-programmed and generic version of goods ( clothes/automobiles) etc. the machine is better suited but cricket is not bowling generic pre-programmed deliveries or generic pre-programmed strokes. It is about sentience and cognition-based intelligence.
Umpiring or decisionmaking is however a pre-determined set of rules being used to guage the situation and therefore can be programmed into a machine. It is no different than a quality control unit that is essentially a CPU hooked to several sensors that runs a re-determined set of rules to PASS/FAIL a product.
Playing involves innovation, psychology and gambling. Those are sentient functions that technology cannot replace YET. While umpiring/referreeing decisionmaking is akin to a quality control unit, playing is akin to designing...and machines dont design-YET.
If players are to be replaced, you need a sentient and cognitive form of artificial intelligence-Lt.Data-type from star trek- to take its place.
And until we DO manage to design a sentient artificial intelligence, arguing whether it can replace a human being or not is irrelevant- we havnt come to that bridge yet and arguing about that is akin to arguing what are we gonna do 5 billion years from now when the sun will go supernova.
It just seems that Indians cant ever grasp the fact that accepting the umpires decision is what makes the man not how much you can blame on the umpire.
Indians, Pakitsanis, Sri Lankans, West Indians and many Kiwis i know........
Arnt you a believer in democracy ? majority rules right ? i dare ya to take a poll worldwide on this technology issue and see where the cricketing public slants.
ere are two facets to reading: reading the words and comprehending their meaning. You're quite good at the first part, congratulations. However, the second is really where you start to struggle. I don't know whether to blame the Australian school system or your genes, but either way, you seem to have little to no ability to comprehend the written word. So really any explanation from me is a waste of everyone's time. But as I am a big proponent (that means "fan" Scallywag) of charity work, I shall attempt to do so anyway. My remark that "Perhaps Dravid slept with Bucknor's daughter" was a facetious one. A facetious remark is a joke. Now you may be wondering aloud, "But what's a joke?" Well, a good example of one is the term "Australian sportsmanship". 
