RE:RE:Performance in winning matches since 29 July,2007......
by arindam chakraborty on Jul 29, 2008 03:15 PM
What do you want to justify that pick up the young squads for the TEST matches where afterwards they can say that they are tired of International Schedules by ICC. After playing so much cricket the young guns cannot win finals, so how can we expect them to win the test matches.
RE:Performance in winning matches since 29 July,2007......
by Anurag Rathore on Jul 29, 2008 03:41 PM
I can only show that Laxman and Sachin are our biggest match winner in last 1 year. And in ODI Dhoni is our biggest match winner. Some people always criticized these players. So I want to stats to those guys.
RE:Performance in winning matches since 29 July,2007......
by Sai Prakash on Jul 29, 2008 05:51 PM
Very eye opening stats, Anurag.It shows the class of Laxman, Tendulkar and Dhoni. Raina too has been good in ODIs.
RE:Performance in winning matches since 29 July,2007......
by Dinesh on Jul 29, 2008 05:56 PM
How can u compare the ODI stat with test stats..put the test stat of those youngsters, then you will see how poor are those guys.. do u remember the last time Yuvraj scored a run in a test match? Whenever I saw in Australia he got out for a duck..
RE:Performance in winning matches since 29 July,2007......
by Tarun Agarwal on Jul 29, 2008 09:19 PM
The averages do not mean anything without the number of matches played. A player playing 10 matches with an average of 50 does not mean he is better than a player with an average of 35 in 100 matches. Consistency in number of matches also counts, and not only the average.
Who is a Rajneesh Gupta to give his verdict on the authenticity of the referrals?? Here is yet another of those mediocre scribes who bask in the misguided beliefs in their reporting credentials. For all the brouhaha about Sehwag, the ball in fact, struck him on the left leg and then deviated on to his right, which caught him plumb in front as he was then on the back-foot. I wonder how can a non-entity like Rajneesh generate such a falsified notion on a fairly straightforward decision. The only contentious thing was that the hawkeye failed to follow the trajectory of the ball as it deviated and charted out a linear path. Either ways, the ball would have hit the stumps alright. The only wrong decision was of Sangakkara, but for that one, there were a cluster of incorrect decisions that were recitified through the referral system, so it would be patently incorrect to reject its efficacy, just because India went on to lose the Test.
RE:Rajnish Nigam is no authority!!
by arindam chakraborty on Jul 29, 2008 03:13 PM
I think you are totally against the fact which Mr. Rajneesh has provided. He has provided the fact story that the referrals are also handled by an individual.
RE:RE:Rajnish Nigam is no authority!!
by Jay Subramanyam on Jul 29, 2008 06:21 PM
My point was regarding scribes who raise an issue whenever India loses a match. Would the same Rajneesh have been so meticulous in listing out the said dismissals had India won or drawn the match? It was just incidental that Sri Lanka got the benefit of most of referrals.
RE:RE:Rajnish Nigam is no authority!!
by Jay Subramanyam on Jul 29, 2008 06:20 PM
My point was regarding scribes who raise an issue whenever India loses a match. Would the same Rajneesh have been so meticulous in listing out the said dismissals had India won or drawn the match? It was just incidental that Sri Lanka got the benefit of most of referrals.
RE:Rajnish Nigam is no authority!!
by Shakti on Jul 29, 2008 05:05 PM
You are very right. Just see that after referral many of so called "human elemental errors" were removed and overall it benefited the result of the game. You should be given out if you are, thats what happened most of the times..
RE:Rajnish Nigam is no authority!!
by Dinesh on Jul 29, 2008 05:59 PM
If u Sehwag dismissal you can clearly see that the ball would have gone down the leg side..the third umpire simply missed the fact that it struck his front pad..
RE:Rajnish Nigam is no authority!!
by Jay Subramanyam on Jul 29, 2008 06:11 PM
The ball was not going down the leg side if you follow its trajectory, it struck the batsman on the left leg first but then diverted on to his right which was directly in line with the stumps. That was reason enough for him to be given out especially as he was on the back foot.
RE:Rajnish Nigam is no authority!!
by S Sudarshan on Jul 30, 2008 07:12 AM
You are missing the rules of LBW here. If the ball has hit the left leg first then you dont see where the ball has deviated to by this imopact(in this case to the back leg) . Rather you will see where the ball was heading to at the time it hit the first point of contact on the batsmen's body which was his front leg. And the result was that if the ball had not hit Sehwag on the front leg it wud have missed Leg stump. And so not out.
Please dont consider thefact that after hitting the left leg it hit the back leg which was dead in front of middle stump. The fact that it hit the left leg first is the first point of imopact and thats whatis considered in an LBW decision.
RE:RE:Rajnish Nigam is no authority!!
by S Sudarshan on Jul 30, 2008 07:16 AM
For eg Lets say a ball hit a batsmen on the helmet first which is not in front of the stumps. After hitting on the helmet the ball deviates and hits the batsmen on the front or back leg which is dead in fron of the stumps. Do you give the batsmen out? The answer is NO. The first point of impact was the helmet. So where wud the ball be heading had it not hit the helmet. It would have missed all the stumps. So Not out. Sehwag's case is some what similar and hence not Out.
I think in this stupid game there dozen or more ways to claim a wicket, the best is to allow 5 overs per head and no sticks or umpires required, just score whatever you wish. or for better sharper and quicker results, just toss the coin, finish the match.
RE:Ban Cricket
by B Basu on Jul 29, 2008 03:35 PM
Then the cricket boards will not earn a single paisa. Cricket bosses will lose their pocket(?) money; no foreign visits with wives (and girlfriends) etc. etc. etc.
If the team has an option of refering the decision of the field umpire to the 3rd umpire, why should the field umpires be there in the 1st place? Let the 3rd umpires take all the decisions!
RE:Wat are the field unpire for??
by Shakti on Jul 29, 2008 05:07 PM
Logistically it is not possible, since if everything is decided by third empire then it will take up a lot of time. Instead it is a good idea to follow what is done in tennis, i.e. if one of the side feels the decision is wrong then you can challenge it a few number of times.
RE:Referral System
by Shakti on Jul 29, 2008 05:09 PM
As if it is that easy to be more active, it is a test match and one umpire has to monitor 45 overs in a day with only one over break after an over..
Soon, we are going to see matches being played without umpires. It severely affects the on field umpire as he can not take the decision as the result will not be given respect by the captains.
RE:Umpires are under pressure
by Shakti on Jul 29, 2008 05:10 PM
Why the hell he needs extra respect? Just because he is old? He should be given due respect but not be treated like a God.
