"If I see it again, I'd still give it out" : Ian Gould on Sachin Tendulkar LBW decision at Mohali

[Abdullah719]

"If I see it again, I'd still give it out" : Ian Gould on Sachin Tendulkar LBW decision at Mohali

Ian Gould speaking on BBC 5 Live Sport:

"You can't be walking through many airports when you've just given Sachin out LBW sliding down the leg-side. You'll want to find a dress shop, get a wig and a beard and start limping, whatever...

"I remember Nigel Llong giving him out, it pitched outside and was missing leg. He wasn't going anywhere when he gave him out. He said he couldn't go to the airport, he was frightened to go through the airport and had to get an armed guard to get through. He had two more Test matches to do as well.

"When I gave him out at Mohali, I'm thinking this is out. I will sit here and guarantee you, if I see it again, I'd still give it out, simple as that. He talked to Gambhir and looked like he was going to walk out, and I'm thinking thank God for that, then he spun on his heels and made that T sign and the world stopped.

"Eventually, Billy Bowden told me 'It's missing leg, I need you to change your decision.' Well, no disrespect to him, but I was watching on a 90-foot screen showing me it was missing leg by an inch so I didn't really need his analysis.

"I've got a picture here where I'm looking slightly disgruntled or annoyed as I gave them not out."

Michael Vaughan: "Do you think someone was in those TV trucks just kind of shimmying it down the leg-side?"

IG: "MICHAEL, MICHAEL, please don't drag me into that! But maybe... Anyway, at the end of it, the TV company were brilliant.

"My biggest fear after that was that I didn't want another ball to hit anybody on the pad, my mind had gone. I had the brilliant Simon Taufel with me who kept me going. At the end of it, it's just one of those moments.

"To umpire a semi-final was just a dream, India-Pakistan in India, wow.

"When the ball hit the pad, all I saw was a quicker ball from Ajmal and it thudded into the pads and went to square leg. It was just 'Right, he's out. Sorry, you're out. I don't care who you are, Sachin or anybody, you're out.'

(Did you have anger, nerves, whatever after it was overturned) "I did. It does affect you at some stage but what you have to do is like a player, get rid of it as soon as you can. My problem was the disbelief of that thing missing leg-stump, in my mind it was one of those straightforward ones, gone. Then you get the feeling 'Oh this is Sachin, it could take a while.'"

 

[Dulex9]

I seen a YouTube video stated the ball trajectory was doctored. I'm not sure how that can be done in a limited amount of time.

The video showed the line before and then then line after something like that.

It did look out in my opinion.

 

[Dulex9]

The men in trucks could do it.

 

[Hawkeye]

The trajectory wasn't doctored. But, Saeed Ajmal's action definitely was.

He was throwing and not bowling. There's a reason why he always wore full sleeves.

Throwing or watta bowling is not at all legal in cricket, and he should be stripped off all the wickets he'd taken.

It just wasn't bowling. Sorry. It's as bad as doping - you deserve mockery, not appreciation.

 

[Dulex9]

The video shows point of impact moved slightly to our right.

 

[Saj]

It was plumb. No way was that missing leg stump.

 

[HitWicket]

The video shows point of impact moved slightly to our right.

I've been through this with others on here before but this is because the cameras don't pick up the exact moment at which the ball hits the pads. This occurs between frames therefore when the real point of impact gets overlayed on the frame before impact has actually happened it looks like the point of impact has moved.

Most people on here happily claim "It was plumb"/"It was doctored" but fail to actually point out which factor was wrong in the ball tracking.

 

[MenInG]

We reminded Saeed Ajmal about this incident and his reply:

"He looked out and and was actually out as well; Even then we made so much out of it but could not change anything, so nothing can be gained by thinking about it now"

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Yeah well. To err is human. Probably looked out in real time. Not everyone is an unbelievably good umpire like Simon taufel. Had Saeed bowled with a straighter arm it may have actually been plumb

 

[Kiwi]

As a professional player, I highly suspected match fixing in quite a few games in WC 2011 and i still firmly do. I watched every game sad some of the match changing events that happened, I was like no way, something is not right here. Sachin was plumb, he was gone the moment he got hit in the front to this day umpire and Saeed ajmal swear that they don't know how DRS said it was missing. My friend there's a reason India did not support DR'S as it can be manipulated with match changing consequences.

 

[DRsohail]

he was out.Nothing more.

 

[Bewal Express]

It was plumb. No way was that missing leg stump.

I started a thread on it, it was out. I still think the trajectory was doctored

 

[Indiafan]

The video shows point of impact moved slightly to our right.

If the human eye was better than technology we would never need H/E. And I love how people ek are judging based on a 2 D screen but don't trust technology which csotjrese from multiple angles

 

[Indiafan]

I started a thread on it, it was out. I still think the trajectory was doctored

and hawk eye answered every one of the points but you people will ignore that and repeat the same points next time

 

[Indiafan]

What I find really really hilarious is that teu same people who used to whine and whine about india not adopting DRS no all think an umpire's word is better than technogly. Heck even if the DRS was doctored why would they tale an umpire's word for it when the whole argument was that DRS was needed as umpires were fallible?

 

[Saj]

I recall how long it took to show the replays with the decision.

It took an age.

 

[Iqbal'sh]

What I find really really hilarious is that teu same people who used to whine and whine about india not adopting DRS no all think an umpire's word is better than technogly. Heck even if the DRS was doctored why would they tale an umpire's word for it when the whole argument was that DRS was needed as umpires were fallible?

Huge difference between ‘being fallible’ and ‘being doctored’

 

[ElRaja]

umar gul lost the plot in pbly the most important game of his life, pak dropped like 5 catches, hafeez tried to scoop a ball a metre outside off stump to fine leg, among everything pak did wrong whats the point of going on abt the lbw any more.

 

[Saj]

umar gul lost the plot in pbly the most important game of his life, pak dropped like 5 catches, hafeez tried to scoop a ball a metre outside off stump to fine leg, among everything pak did wrong whats the point of going on abt the lbw any more.

It's being discussed because Ian Gould has given an interview on it.

That's why people are 'going on about it'.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Funny thing is BCCI and Indian players then were against DRS, they all felt the ball tracking system wasn't accurate. Sachin was one of the leading voices against that technology. Because it was a WC the will of the majority prevailed.

 

[HitWicket]

I recall how long it took to show the replays with the decision.

It took an age.

To be incorrect the point of pitching or point of impact would have to be falsified or the ball projection would have to be wonky. The first 2 are easily verifiable by eye and the third has been proven to not be true so I'm curious where you think this doctoring was.

 

[sweep_shot]

That looked plumb with naked eye. Can't blame Gould.

 

[Saj]

To be incorrect the point of pitching or point of impact would have to be falsified or the ball projection would have to be wonky. The first 2 are easily verifiable by eye and the third has been proven to not be true so I'm curious where you think this doctoring was.

I've seen enough replays of that ball to know that was hitting the stumps.

I don't need any tracking or anything else to tell me otherwise.

 

[HitWicket]

I've seen enough replays of that ball to know that was hitting the stumps.

I don't need any tracking or anything else to tell me otherwise.

Suggesting you think the ball tracking was wrong, meaning one of the 3 factors would have to be wrong, but you're unable to point out which?

 

[Saj]

Suggesting you think the ball tracking was wrong, meaning one of the 3 factors would have to be wrong, but you're unable to point out which?

It's obvious to most, looking at that delivery it was not turning as much as the replays eventually showed.

The clue is in what Gould said.......see if you can spot it.

 

[HitWicket]

It's obvious to most, looking at that delivery it was not turning as much as the replays eventually showed.

The clue is in what Gould said.......see if you can spot it.

If it wasn't turning as much as what was shown then one of the point of pitching or impact would have to be incorrect (or both) to create the increased angle.

It pitched outside off and hit Tendulkar on middle stump well infront of his crease.

 

[Saj]

If it wasn't turning as much as what was shown then one of the point of pitching or impact would have to be incorrect (or both) to create the increased angle.

It pitched outside off and hit Tendulkar on middle stump well infront of his crease.

Keep trying......The clue is in what Gould said.......see if you can spot it.

 

[HitWicket]

Keep trying......The clue is in what Gould said.......see if you can spot it.

There's nothing in what Gould says that factually backs up your conspiracy theory/accusation, the only thing that would is evidence that either the point of pitching or impact shown by hawkeye didn't match up with the real life reality of the situation.

 

[Hadi Rizvi]

There's nothing in what Gould says that factually backs up your conspiracy theory/accusation, the only thing that would is evidence that either the point of pitching or impact shown by hawkeye didn't match up with the real life reality of the situation.

Hilarious how some posters here think they know more about how DRS works than the umpires themselves.

You know something's off when the umpire himself is baffled at the inaccuracy of the trajectory

 

[Bewal Express]

The system was tampered with. It was hitting

 

[HitWicket]

Hilarious how some posters here think they know more about how DRS works than the umpires themselves.

You know something's off when the umpire himself is baffled at the inaccuracy of the trajectory

And if there's an innacuracy in the trajectory presumably you'll be the one who's able to tell me which of the three (point of impact, point of pitching or the straightness of the predicted trajectory after impact) factors is wrong and show me how that's clearly so.

Or the more likely case that you'll join the rest of the conspiracy theorists in this thread in skirting round that key bit of information because you're unable to provide it.

What more is there to Gould to know than us? It's a system that takes the point of pitching, takes the point of impact and extends a straight line accounting for gravity. There's nothing more to it than that. In the end he's an umpire, he didn't create or operate the technology being used. He just reads the output it pumps out off a screen.

 

[viveks]

Hilarious how some posters here think they know more about how DRS works than the umpires themselves.

You know something's off when the umpire himself is baffled at the inaccuracy of the trajectory

Not to comment on the situation overall as I don't really have any interest in that, but if anything the umpire would be biased towards thinking he's right.

 

[Usman]

And if there's an innacuracy in the trajectory presumably you'll be the one who's able to tell me which of the three (point of impact, point of pitching or the straightness of the predicted trajectory after impact) factors is wrong and show me how that's clearly so.

Or the more likely case that you'll join the rest of the conspiracy theorists in this thread in skirting round that key bit of information because you're unable to provide it.

What more is there to Gould to know than us? It's a system that takes the point of pitching, takes the point of impact and extends a straight line accounting for gravity. There's nothing more to it than that. In the end he's an umpire, he didn't create or operate the technology being used. He just reads the output it pumps out off a screen.

Would be interested to hear your views on some analysis which suggests tampering of the footage occurred

 

[HitWicket]

Would be interested to hear your views on some analysis which suggests tampering of the footage occurred:

Please refer to post #7.

 

[Usman]

Please refer to post #7.

I'm not sure I agree that the cameras don't pick up the exact moment at which the ball hits the pads. If that was true, then what we would see is one frame where the ball is still mid-flight and the next frame where the ball has already hit the pad. This would be similar to run-out scenarios where in one frame you see the bat outside the crease and the next frame you see the bat already past the crease.

However when you watch the footage, even in slow mo, there is no such issue. You see the ball all the way from the moment it leaves the bowlers hand to the exact moment it hits the pad - how can you tell me that the cameras haven't picked the moment of impact up when I can actually see it in the footage. It's not like the run out scenario at all.

My view is that the point of impact on Hawkeye was wrong. I don't know if that was deliberately done or just a flaw in the technology.

 

[Suleiman]

Something wasn’t right that game. A lot of unbiased people will agree, like me.

 

[MenInG]

Gould's comment which hints at personal safety if SRT had been given out speaks volumes also

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

I was surprised too.

May be it was done deliberately so that India could start taking DRS seriously?

 

[Hadi Rizvi]

And if there's an innacuracy in the trajectory presumably you'll be the one who's able to tell me which of the three (point of impact, point of pitching or the straightness of the predicted trajectory after impact) factors is wrong and show me how that's clearly so.

Or the more likely case that you'll join the rest of the conspiracy theorists in this thread in skirting round that key bit of information because you're unable to provide it.

What more is there to Gould to know than us? It's a system that takes the point of pitching, takes the point of impact and extends a straight line accounting for gravity. There's nothing more to it than that. In the end he's an umpire, he didn't create or operate the technology being used. He just reads the output it pumps out off a screen.

If it's that the case perhaps you can explain how DRS shows the ball as an offspinner while everyone on the field and watching live can see that it was an arm ball i.e. went on with the angle.

 

[Hadi Rizvi]

Not to comment on the situation overall as I don't really have any interest in that, but if anything the umpire would be biased towards thinking he's right.

Wouldn't you be biased as well if you'd been an elite panel umpire for years.
It's not even a 50-50 decision. Looks plumb and everyone watching live agreed i.e. commies and umpire alike. Even Tendulkar reviewed it out of mere hope than any real doubt.

 

[HitWicket]

If it's that the case perhaps you can explain how DRS shows the ball as an offspinner while everyone on the field and watching live can see that it was an arm ball i.e. went on with the angle.

Hawkeye doesn't predict what type of ball it is in any way. As was clear with the naked eye the ball pitched.outaide off and the point of impact was Infront of middle stump (about 4 degrees of spin).

 

[HitWicket]

I'm not sure I agree that the cameras don't pick up the exact moment at which the ball hits the pads. If that was true, then what we would see is one frame where the ball is still mid-flight and the next frame where the ball has already hit the pad. This would be similar to run-out scenarios where in one frame you see the bat outside the crease and the next frame you see the bat already past the crease.

However when you watch the footage, even in slow mo, there is no such issue. You see the ball all the way from the moment it leaves the bowlers hand to the exact moment it hits the pad - how can you tell me that the cameras haven't picked the moment of impact up when I can actually see it in the footage. It's not like the run out scenario at all.

My view is that the point of impact on Hawkeye was wrong. I don't know if that was deliberately done or just a flaw in the technology.

In reality it's very unlikely you're pausing at a frame that's the exact moment of impact but there's only going to be centimetres in it so you won't be able to tell from a flattened down the pitch view.

 

[Bewal Express]

At worst the decision was umpires call, it def wasnt missing and those of us that saw it then and seen it since know this to be the case.

 

[the Great Khan]

knowing what we now know about how the Indian state , media and other elements functioned it would not surprise me one bit if this was doctored or somehow the vid umpire was pressured. Nothing coming out of India should be trusted. If tomorrow their leaders said the moon was made of cheese their populace would come on pakpassion to argue the type of cheese.

 

[BoomBoomCricket]

Expect more of this to come in his book. That is why he was on the show.

 

[Hadi Rizvi]

Hawkeye doesn't predict what type of ball it is in any way. As was clear with the naked eye the ball pitched.outaide off and the point of impact was Infront of middle stump (about 4 degrees of spin).

The bowler who bowled it and the umpire who saw it all live said it was an arm ball.

But I guess you know better than both of them.

P.S. by your logic even Imad Wasim can call himself a turner of the ball lol.

 

[HitWicket]

The bowler who bowled it and the umpire who saw it all live said it was an arm ball.

But I guess you know better than both of them.

P.S. by your logic even Imad Wasim can call himself a turner of the ball lol.

It's there for everyone to see. The ball pitched outside off and hit the pad infront of middle stump, there's nothing to dispute there. It may have been a quicker ball, but it still clearly turned given the angle between the point of pitching and point of impact.

 

[srh]

It was out. We all know it whether we want to admit it or not. Its a universal truth.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Maybe something wrong with the technology, even as recent as early this year I couldn't make sense of some of the ball tracking paths, especially the bounce.

 

[MenInG]

It's being discussed because Ian Gould has given an interview on it.

That's why people are 'going on about it'.

Yes done an interview 2 says ago so all this coming out.

 

[Saj]

There's nothing in what Gould says that factually backs up your conspiracy theory/accusation, the only thing that would is evidence that either the point of pitching or impact shown by hawkeye didn't match up with the real life reality of the situation.

It's beyond you to comprehend it.

 

[Smbhayi]

What did ball tracker says? If you believe it was tampered then you should believe some of your players fixed that match.. I mean how many easy chance they missed and there's some questionable batting by some players.. Maybe they too scared of leaving ground if they beat India so..

 

[Geil]

Even if Sachin was given out I highly doubt that Pakistan could have chased any total India made in that semifinal, the result would be the same as Pakistan were and are terrible chasers in high pressure matches, opposition only needs a sub par score to give them as the target to chase and Pakistan batsmen will crumble under pressure as they did in that semi-final at Mohali

The result would still remain the same and India was the better side i=to win that match

 

[IMMY69]

Most if not all umpires would give that out
It looked absolutely plumb

 

[Bewal Express]

Even if Sachin was given out I highly doubt that Pakistan could have chased any total India made in that semifinal, the result would be the same as Pakistan were and are terrible chasers in high pressure matches, opposition only needs a sub par score to give them as the target to chase and Pakistan batsmen will crumble under pressure as they did in that semi-final at Mohali

The result would still remain the same and India was the better side i=to win that match

This bit is def true, but the total that they get was hardly taxing, but some awful shots by the likes of Hafeez etc showed poor they are under pressure.

 

[Usman]

In reality it's very unlikely you're pausing at a frame that's the exact moment of impact but there's only going to be centimetres in it so you won't be able to tell from a flattened down the pitch view.

If you're saying you can't tell when the ball actually hits the pad, then on what basis are you so certain that the point of impact shown on Hawk Eye is indeed correct?

This technology has been proven to be inaccurate in the past, a fact acknowledged by the manufacturers themselves. As you say, there's only centimetres in it and it's perfectly concievable that the point of impact could be calculated wrongly by the technology.

I actually think that by slowing down the footage, you can freeze it at the exact moment the ball hits the pad - you see the thud onto the pad and the pad moving. In this case, it appears that Hawk Eye registers the hit shortly after it actually happened. This gives the impression that Tendulker was hit in front of middle and leg rather than in front of off and middle stump. The ball was always slanting into the batsman, and so the consequence of the incorrect point of impact is that the ball is shown to miss leg stump.

You've said a few times in this thread that people are peddling conspiracy theories etc. However, I actually think people are using their own brains and their experience of watching cricket over many years, and are applying that to question the technology. This I think is perfectly healthy and is much better than following technology blindly like robots. As good as the technology is, it is no match for the human brain.

 

[HitWicket]

If you're saying you can't tell when the ball actually hits the pad, then on what basis are you so certain that the point of impact shown on Hawk Eye is indeed correct?

This technology has been proven to be inaccurate in the past, a fact acknowledged by the manufacturers themselves. As you say, there's only centimetres in it and it's perfectly concievable that the point of impact could be calculated wrongly by the technology.

I actually think that by slowing down the footage, you can freeze it at the exact moment the ball hits the pad - you see the thud onto the pad and the pad moving. In this case, it appears that Hawk Eye registers the hit shortly after it actually happened. This gives the impression that Tendulker was hit in front of middle and leg rather than in front of off and middle stump. The ball was always slanting into the batsman, and so the consequence of the incorrect point of impact is that the ball is shown to miss leg stump.

You've said a few times in this thread that people are peddling conspiracy theories etc. However, I actually think people are using their own brains and their experience of watching cricket over many years, and are applying that to question the technology. This I think is perfectly healthy and is much better than following technology blindly like robots. As good as the technology is, it is no match for the human brain.

By eye we're just looking at a single front on view from a broadcasting camera recording at 50 frames per second. Given the speed of the ball (getting to the batsman in less than a second) some fairly simple maths would obviously show it's extremely unlikely that this camera picked up the exact frame in which impact occurred. If you look at the 'spin vision' footage that was also shown during the review (that would've been recorded at a greater FPS) you'll notice the impact seems to be more in line with middle than the 'down the line' camera view.

Now compare this to hawkeye which is actually looking at the situation from 6 different angles with camera tracking the ball at a far greater 340 FPS. Using that the technology is clearly going to have a significantly greater chance of getting a frame closest to the point of impact, and the varied angles provided negate any depth illusions we get from viewing it from one angle.

 

[HitWicket]

[MENTION=758]Usman[/MENTION]

To add to my previous post this image may also be of interest:

It shows the ball as it was positioned in each frame from the broadcast camera view. Where the trajectory line following these balls turns from blue to orange is where Hawkeye cameras detected the point of impact.

As you can see these 2 points (the final ball detected by the broadcast camera before impact and Hawkeyes impact point) are actually on the same trajectory. That would mean even if the technology (mistakenly) used the final frame from the broadcast camera as the point of impact it would still output the same end result because that point would be slightly further from the stumps than the actual point of impact.

 

[IMMY69]

People have to get over this tech nonsense.

With or without Hawkeye, go back theee or four decades of you like, when you see the ball hitting the bat people just know if it looks out or not and 9 out of 10 times it’s is out....

The instance we’re taking about looked a nailed on lBW....
Literally zero doubt

 

[HitWicket]

People have to get over this tech nonsense.

With or without Hawkeye, go back theee or four decades of you like, when you see the ball hitting the bat people just know if it looks out or not and 9 out of 10 times it’s is out....

The instance we’re taking about looked a nailed on lBW....
Literally zero doubt

There is clearly room for some doubt in an LBW when the bowler is an off spinner who pitches the ball outside off stump and hits the batsman well in front of his crease in front of middle stump. You're blinded by bias.

 

[IMMY69]

There is clearly room for some doubt in an LBW when the bowler is an off spinner who pitches the ball outside off stump and hits the batsman well in front of his crease in front of middle stump. You're blinded by bias.

Nonsense...
I would call it, as I often do, irrespective of which team is playing...

I happened to watch that game at my cricket club which has hosted the greats of the game and had some fine cricketers watch it it live... each and every single one called it out live... these are experienced crickers who’ve seen enough cricket both live and on television and have no bias...

If there was no DRS/Hawkeye not one person would have disputed that decision... not even the most biased of biased Indian would have said that was not out and it was a controversial decision.
That is the bottom line

 

[HitWicket]

Nonsense...
I would call it, as I often do, irrespective of which team is playing...

I happened to watch that game at my cricket club which has hosted the greats of the game and had some fine cricketers watch it it live... each and every single one called it out live... these are experienced crickers who’ve seen enough cricket both live and on television and have no bias...

If there was no DRS/Hawkeye not one person would have disputed that decision... not even the most biased of biased Indian would have said that was not out and it was a controversial decision.
That is the bottom line

That's great but we do have DRS and Hawkeye, therefore if you want to dispute it dispute what specifically you think was wrong with it rather than 'it just was'.

My personal opinion is that the vast majority of those that say it just looked out have been done by the fact that Tendulkar was actually a good distance in front of his crease. That's something that doesn't get represented well in a flattened front-on image that makes it look like he's caught on the crease. The ball had already travelled pretty much a full set of stumps horizontally between pitching and impact therefore it's hardly a ridiculous idea for the ball to travel another half a set of stumps in the almost 2m distance between the impact point and stumps.

 

[Mesozoic]

Sachin was way down the wicket and was hit on the middle stump. It would obviously miss the leg stump. Besides, Gould is well known for his horrible decision to give Sachin out on 99 against England in 2007 when the ball clearly went off his arm. He's not really immune to errors.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Sachin was way down the wicket and was hit on the middle stump. It would obviously miss the leg stump. Besides, Gould is well known for his horrible decision to give Sachin out on 99 against England in 2007 when the ball clearly went off his arm. He's not really immune to errors.

Which umpire isn't?

 

[Mesozoic]

Which umpire isn't?

That was my point.

 

[IMMY69]

Lol there are actual videos on YouTube where you can see impact on pad was different once Hawkeye showed it so although I initially put it down to tech error but n is I have to call it as it is and this is CHEATING!!!!

Cheaters

 

[HitWicket]

Lol there are actual videos on YouTube where you can see impact on pad was different once Hawkeye showed it so although I initially put it down to tech error but n is I have to call it as it is and this is CHEATING!!!!

Cheaters

Been through this already, take a look at post #7 (and some parts of #57/#58) for your explanation.

 

[IMMY69]

Been through this already, take a look at post #7 (and some parts of #57/#58) for your explanation.

I’ve drawn my conclusion.
Also I will repeat that most of not all umpires would give that out on the field.

 

[Smbhayi]

I’ve drawn my conclusion.
Also I will repeat that most of not all umpires would give that out on the field.

And will be revised by DRS..

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

BCCI & Indian techies made a mockery of cricket that day!

Each to his own interpretation. That was as plumb as it could get.

$ runs the world. Y'all know that!

 

[nextover666666]

Indians won't admit the match was fixed but it's in the past , obviously what happend was wrong but it's in the past we got or revange anyways champions trophy final win on Father's Day with highest margin of win by runs in a India vs Pakistan match everything has its time and place

 

[Dr_Bassim]

That's like the doctor saying I am 100 percent sure the pain is renal colic and he has the symptoms and I don't care what the CT scan says, I have practiced enough in my 50 years of profession to know what this pain is and it must be renal colic.

Misses an ectopic pregnancy in the end.

 

[Mesozoic]

Indians won't admit the match was fixed but it's in the past , obviously what happend was wrong but it's in the past we got or revange anyways champions trophy final win on Father's Day with highest margin of win by runs in a India vs Pakistan match everything has its time and place

Only Pak fans can regularly question the integrity of their team and indirectly their nation just to gain a few excuses for a sporting defeat. I legit never saw any sports fans do that.

Foolish to compare that champions trophy final to the Mohali game no matter the winning margin. The hype and the build-up for the latter was just something else. Easily the biggest Indo-pak game of all time by a country mile.

 

[nextover666666]

Only Pak fans can regularly question the integrity of their team and indirectly their nation just to gain a few excuses for a sporting defeat. I legit never saw any sports fans do that.

Foolish to compare that champions trophy final to the Mohali game no matter the winning margin. The hype and the build-up for the latter was just something else. Easily the biggest Indo-pak game of all time by a country mile.

Only an Indian fan would lie about the hype of the champions trophy. You wanna talk hype why was loser sehwag saying India is the father and we're going to show them who father is. Why was all of India saying this. Why were your celebrities were at Wagah border telling us to buy new Tvs because we are going to break them.

You wanna talk about hype this was the final of an ICC tourney which in the very first game India itself won against us in a high margin it was 1st place team vs 8th place team buddy don't be a fool this was a big occasion I'll even say bigger than 2011 only because also nations relation between the two countries were really bad. In 2011 it was bad too but both like this.

Also if you read my post it's not a bad thing I'm saying that the pakistan fans should let that match go what happend has happend and India won. In 2017 we won be happy about that it's not a bad thing but again your an Indian fan so you will see everything bad

 

[Mesozoic]

Only an Indian fan would lie about the hype of the champions trophy. You wanna talk hype why was loser sehwag saying India is the father and we're going to show them who father is. Why was all of India saying this. Why were your celebrities were at Wagah border telling us to buy new Tvs because we are going to break them.

You wanna talk about hype this was the final of an ICC tourney which in the very first game India itself won against us in a high margin it was 1st place team vs 8th place team buddy don't be a fool this was a big occasion I'll even say bigger than 2011 only because also nations relation between the two countries were really bad. In 2011 it was bad too but both like this.

Also if you read my post it's not a bad thing I'm saying that the pakistan fans should let that match go what happend has happend and India won. In 2017 we won be happy about that it's not a bad thing but again your an Indian fan so you will see everything bad

Just because some idiot made some idiotic statements doesn't change the fact that Mohali was a much much bigger game than the CT final.

No matter what anyone says, a world cup is a 100 times bigger than a second grade ODI tournament like the CT. And that's the reason it got cancelled.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Just because some idiot made some idiotic statements doesn't change the fact that Mohali was a much much bigger game than the CT final.

No matter what anyone says, a world cup is a 100 times bigger than a second grade ODI tournament like the CT. And that's the reason it got cancelled.

You are right. Similarly Asia Cup is 100 times bigger than a third grade Circus like IPL. It involves two of the biggest rivals in cricket and not to forget teams like SL, Ban and Afg.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

What I find really really hilarious is that teu same people who used to whine and whine about india not adopting DRS no all think an umpire's word is better than technogly. Heck even if the DRS was doctored why would they tale an umpire's word for it when the whole argument was that DRS was needed as umpires were fallible?

I also find it hilarious that same people who used to be against DRS before 2011 World Cup started supporting it after Sachin's lbw decision got reversed.

 

[Mesozoic]

You are right. Similarly Asia Cup is 100 times bigger than a third grade Circus like IPL. It involves two of the biggest rivals in cricket and not to forget teams like SL, Ban and Afg.

BCCI knows what's better and they're doing their best to organise the "better one". What you and I say on an internet forum doesn't matter much.

 

[nextover666666]

Just because some idiot made some idiotic statements doesn't change the fact that Mohali was a much much bigger game than the CT final.

No matter what anyone says, a world cup is a 100 times bigger than a second grade ODI tournament like the CT. And that's the reason it got cancelled.

With all due respect it wasn't just one idiot it was a lot of idiots. Secondly I'm sure you wouldn't call it a second grade tourney if India actully won it. It also got cancelled because of how India lost trust me if India had won ICC would have kept I believe the next one was suppose to be held in India.

Also theirs no room for error in this tournament due the nature of it top 8 team so no minnows, were basically ever game is important after the group stage your in semi finals and than finals. So it's tough tournament to win.

 

[Abdullah719]

Comments from Saeed Ajmal:

"The decision was 100% correct. When the ball hit him, I had no doubt that it was out. Even if it went for DRS, I felt that it is missed the middle stump, it would hit the leg stump but it completely missed the stumps.

"If the ball hits in line, it usually clips the stumps. I don't know what the issue was but I was convinced about it.

"Whatever is the truth should be spoken. I don't say anything about Sachin Tendulkar, he is a legend but the umpire didn't even think about it, he was convinced he was out.

"Gambhir told Sachin that it's out, don't review it but he said let's try and the decision went against us."