It is very suprising why BCCI is opposing DRS. What is their interest in oppsing DRS. Already opposing DRS cost India dearly with as many as three players given out when they are actually not out. Bunch of stupids!!
Re: why BCCI is opposing DRS?
by Mehul Mehta on Jun 23, 2011 07:33 PM
Bcci has awarded tv rights for several years to private companies for home series and those companies will have to incur extra cost for Drs and none of them is ready to bear that and do hell with good cricket
Has Boycott forgotten what British Raj had done to India and other countries , where it was called Sun nevers sets in British Empire.How much they have looted India. If Indian people demands all that they will be with nothing.
He should understand what MCC once was doing once. behaving
Re: British Raj
by Gopalram on Jun 23, 2011 07:17 PM
before british came there was no India.what did they loot can u tell.In econmics wealth iss not permanently storable thing.
Re: Re: British Raj
by mano on Jun 23, 2011 07:55 PM
Before British came India had 25% share of world gdp and british .25%. After they left India had .5% to Bristish 25%.
Yes, feel bad when we hear about BCCI power and being an India feel sometime happy and proud that India could reach to this stage.
Boycott should know that 65 years before, when MCC was playing cricket in Mumbai, Indians were asked to sit in the sun near the fence and Britishers were made to sit in neatly arranged chairs, with hats on, with glass of beer in their hand.
200 years, Britishers were doing everything and had a virtual monopoly on anything and everything. When the table turns, the burning starts. Good for Boycott and good for Indians.
Re: Well, absolute laughing stock..
by pkr ramesh on Jun 23, 2011 07:10 PM
You are missing the point Forget what X Y Z did.What is wrong in BCCI agreeing to DRS ? It is going to help or not help to both teams Saw yesterday,Raina was given out caught wrongly,Imagine a young player getting out It damages the career of the player So we can minimise the errors After all nothing is fool proof in this world
Re: Why no snickometer?
by pkr ramesh on Jun 23, 2011 07:04 PM
Both patented by Aussie company Cost a bomb also involves technology which Indian Government feels NOT IN NATIONAL INTREST Period They have to get clearences from lot of agencies in India before Importing,Installing it
Re: BCCI is nothing but a bunch of corrupt politicians!!!!
by V SR on Jun 23, 2011 06:52 PM
Without BCCI's money, players would not have got the fame what they have today. With BCCI's support players would not have got good sponsors and popularise cricket in India. Just players cannot do many thing. If that would have been the case, Aussies and Britishers must be still ruling the cricket. Know the fact, before you comment. Happening in BCCI is not good, but it is certainly not a curse.
Re: Re: BCCI is nothing but a bunch of corrupt politicians!!!!
by Prem Selvam on Jun 23, 2011 07:08 PM
it is players winning the world cup in 1983 that brought money and fame to cricket in India are u aware that BCCI did not have money to felicitate the cricketers on wiining the cup it was Lata Mangeswar who performed free for a live performance to raise money for the BCCI to felicitate the crickters
Indian Cricket will rule the world during the next few years. Boycott has to understand this. BCCI is having lot of money. Agreed. Why is he getting pinched? BCCI has the capacity to become rich so it is rich.BCCI and Indian Cricket has the right and might to rule over England, Australia and South Africa, much to their dislike.
Re: Indian Cricket will rule
by Abhishek Kulkarni on Jun 23, 2011 08:59 PM
It has got nothing to do with implementation of the UDRS. Please talk something relevant.
Re: DRS will make fixing a tough job for BCCI
by darsh d on Jun 23, 2011 06:58 PM
You gotta be kiddin me, pakistanis had DRS in place and still they showed it to the world how it can be done.....lol..
In fact there was a foolish system by english and aussie people in the wc 1992 which deprived SA winning the important match...majority voting does not necessarily mean sensinble
