• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

**Official**VB Series 2005 Australia,Pakistan,West Indies.

Scallywag

Banned
Choora said:
This is clearly pathetic. I have been a big critic of Woolmer, but i would never say that Pakistan fared poorly only coz of woolmer. If Coaches is all that takes to turn a team into champs then Bangladesh should have been doing wonders.

Pakistan batting has been poor since a decade, the fielding has been poor ever since they started playing cricket.Anyone who knows Inzi and Youhanna would know that their running b/w wkts would never improve no matter how hard a coach tries that( be it be Miandad or Woolmer), and Pakistan certainly didn't concedes extras anywhere where they use to do .So why blame Woolmer?
The fact that their second string bowling attack (whose opening bowllers haven't got even 100 ODI wkts ) fought wonderfully against champion batsman proves that Woolmer certainly didn't do such an awful job to call him hopeless.

If the umpires in question tries to attack Woolmer by using scallywag's logic then it will proove that not only they are inefficient but they are also idiots!
And anyone that has watched cricket for any length of time will know that since time began umpires have made mistakes and there is nothing you can do about it because that is the part of cricket that makes it a gentlemens game (accepting the umpires decision).

And you are right anyone using that tactic are not only inefficient but an idiot and the only one using that tactic is Woolmer which makes him?.
 

Choora

State Regular
Scallywag said:
What we dont need is coaches critizing umpires and umpires critizing coaches. .
An umpire cannot criticize a coach as they have nothing to do with the coach, but when a coach see's his team being hurt by inefficient umpiring then he certainly has the right to criticize the umpire.
 

Deja moo

International Captain
FaaipDeOiad said:
Quite simply, I am talking about late swing. As I'm sure you know, the ball doesn't always swing in the air before pitching or straight on from the point of hitting the pitch, it sometimes swings late, and if the ball pitches and swings late before hitting the pads, Hawkeye is quite liable to get it wrong. You might say the umpire wouldn't be able to anticipate the degree of the swing either, but at the very least knowing something about cricket and most likely having played himself he could make an educated guess, which is something a machine cannot do.

You are missing the point. The cameras track the path of the delivery upto the point of impact ( with pad, bat, whatever). Any late swing would be recorded by Hawkeye (and I have seen Hawkeye replays depicting late swing). The extrapolation aspect of it is only for the expected path of the ball after the point of impact, and that is plotted based on all infomation gathered till the impact occurs. Basically, it does exactly what the umpire does under ideal conditions.


Yes, usually snicko will show the bat as a thinner, longer line and the pad or clothing as thicker, shorter lines because of the tone of the sound. As I said, in some cases snicko works fine, but usually only in the cases where the umpire could have made a simple decision anyway. In situations like bat-pad catches and situations where the ball may have hit bat and pad at roughly the same time - ie: the situations where the umpire is most likely to be in doubt and refer it to the third umpire - it is inconclusive more often than not.
Chances are that it would prove conclusive more often than the umpires ever will be. That is reason enough for it to be considered superior to the umps. What about instances where the crowd is so noisy that the umpire cannot hear properly ?
 

Deja moo

International Captain
Scallywag said:
He is answerable to the PCB and they have their system for evaluating his performance just like the umpires have their peers who evaluate their performances. What we dont need is coaches critizing umpires and umpires critizing coaches. Whatever Woolmer says will have no effect on the performance anaylasis of the umpires just like umpires whinging about Woolmer would have no effect on the PCB evaluating his performance.
What it does do though is create tension between the umpires and his players and provides unsubstantuated percieved bias for rabid supporters.
So everybody loses including cricket and no good comes from it.
Exactly. So dont you think that the umpires hould avoid this by not making lopsided mistakes in the first place ?
 

Choora

State Regular
Scallywag said:
And anyone that has watched cricket for any length of time will know that since time began umpires have made mistakes and there is nothing you can do about it because that is the part of cricket that makes it a gentlemens game (accepting the umpires decision).
.
The players did accept the decision on the field, off the field the coach has the right to express his views.
And you are right anyone using that tactic are not only inefficient but an idiot and the only one using that tactic is Woolmer which makes him?
As i said earlier, a coach can criticize the umpire if he see's that his side is getting hurt coz of inefficient umpiring, but an umpire has no business in expressing his views of the coach ability.
 

Scallywag

Banned
You guys are just sad cases that cant take a beating and allways blame the umpire. Shame shame shame on you, you get beaten fair and square but have to show your poor sportsmanship.

Pffft sooks.
 

Choora

State Regular
Scallywag said:
You guys are just sad cases that cant take a beating and allways blame the umpire. Shame shame shame on you, you get beaten fair and square but have to show your poor sportsmanship.

Pffft sooks.
You are a true laughing stock who can't even undertstand that people here commenting on ur umpires are not Pakistanis !!! So ur talk about sportmanship is plain stupid.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Deja moo said:
Its 29-6 for the entire tour. And thats still appaling.
I guess it depends on what people call dubious.

The number of ones we've seen people moaning about on here that have been spot on decisions suggests that it's not as many as that.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Fiery said:
In the case where even the technology is inconclusive then you go back to the old doctrine of "benefit of the doubt" to the batsman.
And have then wasted a couple of minutes...

If the technology is to be used it cannot produce inconclusive results on a decision that is matter of opinion.
 

Deja moo

International Captain
marc71178 said:
I guess it depends on what people call dubious.

The number of ones we've seen people moaning about on here that have been spot on decisions suggests that it's not as many as that.
Agreed. But even if it were 15-3, its still not good for the game !
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Deja moo said:
As for the snick to the keeper, you are right, videos are not the tool to provide a conclusive verdict. There does exist another wonderful tool- Its called a snickometer.
Which is still not accurate enough.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Slow Love™ said:
This might be one of the funniest "reaches" I've ever seen at cricketweb, and I've seen some real pearlers.
LMAO! I agree that was a shocker. To even suggest that every ball, such as one which clean bowls a batsman, or is perfectly driven for four, requires the umpire to make a decision is an absolute joke.
 

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
vandemataram said:
That can be a case in onedayers, but in the longer format of the game they still haven't got a guy for the all important one-down slot!
You ever heard of a guy called Younis Khan, he had a pretty good series aganist Australia and his overall record isn't that bad at number three.
 

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
Scallywag said:
I would love to see Woolmers face if the umpires released a satatement about his coaching abilities after watching batsmen get out to stupid shots, poor running between wickets, sloppy fielding, poor catching, bowling extras and not getting through their overs. I mean this guy is supposed to be a top coach and look at how pathetic his team is. Surely he his just trying to deflect any attention away from his useless coaching. How can he comment on the performance of others when he has failed miserably in his own position to even be mediocre. He is a hopeless coach who cannot even get the basics of coaching right but thinks he knows more about umpiring, so the question must be asked why is he not an umpire, possibly because he failed at that also. Pakistan will sack him in the near future.
Is this the same coach that got South Africa to the number two spot in both One day and Test Cricket. You can't improve a team overnight it takes time. he probably honestly believes that the decision of the umpires weren't best his seen in his career.
 

chaminda_00

Hall of Fame Member
I can't see Hawkeye used to make official decision on whether a batsmen is out or not, it is not accurate enough in its current form. But increased use in technology could be used in no-balls calls and lbws in term of where the ball pitches and where it hits the batsmen. This won't mean that we get 100% correct decision, but this will increase the amount of correct decision just like run out/stumpings been refered to 3rd Umpire have increased the amount of correct calls.
 

Deja moo

International Captain
marc71178 said:
Which(snickometer) is still not accurate enough.

It might not be conclusive in 100% cases, but certainly is accurate on more occasions than umpires, especially in noisy conditions. That is reason enough for it to be considered as a better option.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
marc71178 said:
Which is still not accurate enough.
How is something not accurate enough? That makes no sense. It's more accurate than the umpire, which thus means its an improvement.

If you are eating food which is far from good, and you are offered different food to replace it which is slightly better, yet still not perfect, obviously you'd take it. Why? Because it's an improvement.

Your logic makes absolutely no sense at all.
 

shaka

International Regular
In the Northern Districts versus Canterbury match, Peter Fulton had a disputed caught behind, and so they went to replays and made a decision. there was an edge. Replays are not hugely scientific but imo the right decision was made, and so what I am trying to say is technology does not have to use hawkeye etc, but replays and common sense.
 

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
shaka said:
In the Northern Districts versus Canterbury match, Peter Fulton had a disputed caught behind, and so they went to replays and made a decision. there was an edge. Replays are not hugely scientific but imo the right decision was made, and so what I am trying to say is technology does not have to use hawkeye etc, but replays and common sense.
Agreed...I thought he edged it and thought the right decision was made. The ICC should seriously look at this
 

Top