CA and BCCI, explain yourselves

[pasag]

Cricket Australia - Cricket Australia approves one-day split-innings format | Australia Cricket News | Cricinfo.com

That joke isn't funny anymore...



BCCI - No UDRS for Sri Lanka-India Tests | Cricket News | Sri Lanka v India | Cricinfo.com

Don't you remember this:

2nd Test: Australia v India at Sydney, Jan 2-6, 2008 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com ?



wtf is going on with these two boards?

 

[Black_Warrior]

Money, capitalism, profit maximisation, 'greed is good'


CA believes 50 overs matches are financial losses and since CA is a finance company rather than a cricket board, any venture that does not yield a high rate of return is automatically rejected.


BCCI believes UDRS would incur unnecessary costs which would bring down profits. Costs have to be minimised to maxmimise profits.

 

[Jono]

Unnecessary losses? I don't think that's the reason at all.

The BCCI are just being conservative retards on this matter.

 

[Black_Warrior]

sorry I meant 'unnecessary' costs

 

[vcs]

What's the consensus here about UDRS? Is everyone in favour of adopting it? I'm not so sure myself.

 

[andyc]

Agree totally on both points, although the UDRS thing especially gets my goat. After the massive fuss they kicked up after Sydney, including basically holding the ICC at ransom unless they got rid of Bucknor and chartering a plane to go home, when they finally introduce a system to avoid similar events from happening in the future, the BCCI buries their heads in the ground and refuses to use it. So frustrating.

As for the splitting up the List-A games, pretty much the worst idea I've ever heard, and unfortunately it doesn't surprise me at all that CA has disregarded the players' opinions on it.

 

[Spark]

ICC should just hurry up and make UDRS mandatory.

 

[kingpin]

Personally i dont like UDRS.......

But we just cant challenge Golden goose of ICC.....Can we????

 

[Spark]

Personally i dont like UDRS.......

But we just cant challenge Golden goose of ICC.....Can we????

Then don't complain if Sachin gets shaved off because of an inside edge onto pad. Because it will.

 

[Goughy]

What's the consensus here about UDRS? Is everyone in favour of adopting it? I'm not so sure myself.

Of course it has to be introduced everywhere. It is a fuss over nothing. In 5 years any controversy will be forgotten and the game will feel wierd without it just like 3rd umpire runout referals and the speed gun.

 

[Streetwise]

Then don't complain if Sachin gets shaved off because of an inside edge onto pad. Because it will.

It was Sachins idea not to board the plane for the next test so hold on to your hat.

 

[andyc]

Of course it has to be introduced everywhere. It is a fuss over nothing. In 5 years any controversy will be forgotten and the game will feel wierd without it just like 3rd umpire runout referals and the speed gun.

Yep, this. Big fan of the system as it is btw, reckon it works very well, especially in terms of leaving the call with the on field umpire when it comes to a line-call with Hawkeye.

 

[SJS]

The only time the Indians were exposed to the UDRS system they screwed up They seemed to be under the impression that if it was like the toss of the coin - if you asked for a review the chances were fifty-fifty of it being turned in your favour or against. When they found it did not happen like that they screamed blue murder.

If they had been smarter and went for the reviews only where they were very confident a mistake had been made, as the Sri Lankan's did, they may have had much better results and this controversy never would have arisen. Just imagine if the two sides (India and Sri Lanka) had got exactly the opposite response to their referrals and then be honest and ask yourselves if India would have ruled against the UDRS.

Not only should the UDRS be mandatory, the number of referrals should be increased to four per side.

While on the subject of squealing sub-continental sides, one is amazed that Waqar was so squeamish about the use by England of a ball that swung "too much". There we go again. Coming from one of the greatest exponents of that fast disappearing skill this is rich.

If Waqar had Pakistani'c cricket's interest at heart, he would have shut up and made a note in his diary for making a recommendation to the PCB to make the use of the same "swinging-too-much" cricket ball mandatory in all domestic cricket in Pakistan. It may have, over time, given Pakistan openers and other batsmen who can do what openers were always expected to be able to do - face the new ball with better competence than shown by the sub-continent's youngsters.

I wonder why ICC should not change the law of which cricket ball to be used in a Test series. Why should the home side be the arbitrator for all the balls. Let the decision be left to the fielding sides as long as they are from an approved list of balls from the ICC.

I know this second bit is off topic but I have been thinking about it for some time so just thought I would say it :-)

 

[vcs]

Using UDRS in the subcontinent is OK, but in places like England where runs are already hard to come by? It seems to me you always need a bit of luck by way of surviving a marginal LBW/caught behind decision or two early on in your innings when the ball is moving all over the place.

 

[Noble One]

If a batsman is out, he should be out. I am a big fan of the UDRS, one of the best ideas the ICC have implemented in the past decade. The next step is to enforce it for all Test matches. It makes no sense to have two Test matches running at the same time in different parts of the world, and each running under a separate law.

 

[Debris]

I wouldn't worry too much about the CA initiative. They have a long history of trying things out in the domestic competition to see if they make sense (anyone remember the super sub). They will ditch it after a year if no-one likes it.

No idea why BCCI does not want UDRS. Maybe they think their players suck at using it and don't want to give away an advantage. Remember the UDRS was originally meant to reverse obviously wrong decisions so if you are going to use it to challenge marginal ones, you deserve what you get when they run out.

 

[GotSpin]

Using UDRS in the subcontinent is OK, but in places like England where runs are already hard to come by? It seems to me you always need a bit of luck by way of surviving a marginal LBW/caught behind decision or two early on in your innings when the ball is moving all over the place.

Yeah I agree. Batsmen have it too easy

 

[Black_Warrior]

Using UDRS in the subcontinent is OK, but in places like England where runs are already hard to come by? It seems to me you always need a bit of luck by way of surviving a marginal LBW/caught behind decision or two early on in your innings when the ball is moving all over the place.

Hey you're talking as if teams getting all out for 70 9 times out of 10 in England..Thats not true.. Teams have scored over 500 and batsmen have scored double centuries in England too.. If you are good enough, you will be able to score runs, if you're not good enough, UDRS or not, you will get out which brings me to my second point

Not only should the UDRS be mandatory, the number of referrals should be increased to four per side.

That was a great post SJS and agree with everything you said except this. I think 3 per side is just about the perfect balance between allowing players to genuinely appeal and those who appeal because they dont want to get out. I saw Salman Butt refer a plump LBW decision against Australia earlier this year. The moment he referred, I burst out laughing..it was a classic case of "aww I'm out but can I get another chance?"

Increasing the number of referrals would only allow average players like him to abuse the system.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Can anyone tell me why the UDRS costs so much? Isn't it just a bunch of extra cameras and someone to interpret the images?

 

[vcs]

Hey you're talking as if teams getting all out for 70 9 times out of 10 in England..Thats not true.. Teams have scored over 500 and batsmen have scored double centuries in England too.. If you are good enough, you will be able to score runs, if you're not good enough, UDRS or not, you will get out which brings me to my second point

Yeah, I'm probably letting recent matches bias my opinion a bit.