[PICTURES] Will BazBall thrive in India?

After this tour, there are 12 Tests coming up against West Indies, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and New Zealand for the remainder of the year. Hopefully not many humiliations in there.

More than humiliation I expect burnout from a few seamers. Stokes doesn't realize how much he abuses his fast bowlers. That long short-pitch spell by Wood at Jhurel and Ashwin took a lot out of him. That was crazy. I get it England can steamroll any bowling side with their batting. But in quest of taking 20 wickets he sometimes pushes the limit. So far bowlers are obliging it like Jimmy bowling 25 plus overs. At some point it is going to backfire. This is where opposition can take advantage if they are smart.
 
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
This is why Bazball getting owned is so satisfying. This is the cringiest Test team I have ever seen.

What a bunch of deluded, self-serving idiots.
So still no reply about root.

I just wanted to see if it was worth engaging.

Enjoy this loss and enjoy celebrating the rest of the series whatever happens. Don’t tag me again.
 
In a veiled dig at England over is 'Bazball' style of cricket after India steam-rolled the visitors by a massive 434 runs in the third Test at Rajkot, with a day to spare, skipper Rohit Sharma said at the post-match presentation:

"When you play Test cricket, you do not play it in two or three days. You have to stay in the game for five days. They played good shots (in the second innings) and put us under pressure but we have got class in our squad when it comes to bowling. So obviously the message was to stay calm (after day two). Important that time to stay calm, otherwise you drift. We stuck to our plans on day three, and when those things happen, it is a delight."
Don't see a dig here.
 

‘We should take some credit’: Pom’s bizarre ‘Bazball’ claim after India star’s blitz​


England star Ben Duckett praised Yashasvi Jaiswal’s attacking intent that helped him blast a century but boldly claimed his nation’s new approach to cricket encouraged others to use an aggressive style.

Jaiswal retired hurt after hitting a century to extend India’s lead over England to 322 after the tourists’ batting collapse in the third Test on Saturday.


India reached 196-2 in their second innings at stumps on day three in Rajkot, with Shubman Gill (65) and nightwatchman Kuldeep Yadav (three) batting at the close of play.


India have been left with 10 players to bat and bowl after Ashwin left the match late Friday due to a family emergency. Devdutt Padikkal came in as substitute fielder.

Jaiswal, struggling with his back, retired hurt on 104 and the next man Rajat Patidar was out for a duck from 10 balls.

“He looks like a superstar in the making, unfortunately he’s in some very good form at the moment,” England’s Ben Duckett said of the rising Indian talent.

“He’s due a couple of low ones,” Duckett, who hit 153 in England’s innings, said tongue-in-cheek.

Duckett also felt without England’s ‘Bazball’ tactics under Test coach Brendon McCullum, Jaiswal — and other players across the world — might not have had the confidence to play in such a manner.

“When you see players from the opposition playing like that, it almost feels like we should take some credit that they’re playing differently than how other people play Test cricket,” Duckett said. :rolleyes:


“We saw it a bit in the summer and it’s quite exciting to see other players and other teams are also playing that aggressive style of cricket.


Skipper Rohit Sharma departed early on 19 but Jaiswal stood strong to build the innings along with Gill before the opener changed gears.

Jaiswal smashed veteran pace bowler James Anderson for a six and two fours on successive balls and kept up the charge against opposition spinners with his sweep and reverse sweep.

He raised his third Test ton in just his seventh match with a boundary off fast bowler Mark Wood, jumping, roaring and blowing kisses to an applauding crowd.

The 22-year-old, who hit a matchwinning 209 in the previous Test, leads the series batting with 435 runs after his 155-run stand with Gill.

Rohit, who hit 131 in the first innings, missed a sweep off part-time spinner Joe Root and England successfully reviewed the decision after the on-field umpire denied the appeal.

Fast bowler Mohammed Siraj led India’s bowling charge in Ashwin’s absence with figures of 4-84 to help bowl England out for 319 after the visitors collapsed from 299-5.


“In the morning when we got to know that (Ashwin) is not there, more responsibility fell on us,” Siraj said.

“Rohit told us that we will need to bowl long spells and we got success with long spells. We stopped runs and got wickets.”

Duckett moved from his overnight 133 to go past 150 and skipper Ben Stokes made 41 in his 100th Test but their innings came to a quick halt in the second session.

“It was one of those days when I feel we have to give credit to India,” said Duckett. “We just kept on losing wickets at the wrong times.” Siraj wiped out the tail with help from Ravindra Jadeja, who along with fellow spinner Kuldeep took two wickets each.

Left-hander Stokes attempted to hit back after Duckett’s departure but fell to Jadeja’s left-arm spin.


England resumed on 207-2 in reply to India’s 445 but lost two wickets in the space of six deliveries inside the first 30 minutes.

Jasprit Bumrah struck in the fifth over of the day when Root attempted a reverse scoop and Jaiswal caught it at second slip. Jonny Bairstow then fell for a duck.

The left-handed Duckett, who smashed 23 fours and two sixes in his 151-ball knock, had a tame end when he chased a wide delivery from Kuldeep to be caught at cover.

The five-match series is level at 1-1 after England won the opener and India bounced back in the second match.
It's just a ridiculous statement from Eng. Sehwag, Gilly, Pant .... many have played attacking brand of cricket in test format.

Many players have played attacking cricket before and Jaisawal playing attacking cricket is no different. Nothing to do with Eng.
 
I don’t see a dig towards England at all. He’s just saying that the game wasn’t over after day 2 when England were in a good position and that India had to hang in there.

I didn't follow the Ashes last year, was the Duke's ball having the same issue of going out of shape frequently?
 
I have nothing against Bazball. This may be the best way for the English batsmen to flourish. This the game they know and this is the way they want to play.

Still two tests to go and it's not over yet.
 
It's just a ridiculous statement from Eng. Sehwag, Gilly, Pant .... many have played attacking brand of cricket in test format.

Many players have played attacking cricket before and Jaisawal playing attacking cricket is no different. Nothing to do with Eng.

This is the result of their Media created hype.
 
I dont think anybody will have any issue in Eng adopting a tactic which maximises the output from their available resources. Atleast i dont have any issue. The problems are sermonizing of Bazball tactics , the coping mechanism of being "entertainers not focussing on results " when things go south, cringey statements like "we should get credit for every team playing attacking cricket ", " India delayed declaration coz they were scared of Bazball ", " Let them score more, we would chase it in 100 overs" etc... Conventional methods are conventions because they always work. The utter disrespect to everything else is nauseating.

To top it all Stokes leadership is getting credit left, right and centre, even for putting men on moon
 
To be fair to England, In the second innings nobody from England played bazball cricket. They were in typical survival mode like they used to do before bazball.
 
How down do you expect them to be after 3 Tests?

England will lose 4-1 to a heavily depleted Indian team. The same score line that India lost by in 2021 and they faced a much stronger Indian team and their win was more impressive than England’s win in this series.

The Ashes and this series has exposed Bazball. Bazball this and that. They have been humiliated.
england would prefer bowling to the 2021 team of rahane,pujara and an out of form kohli who were walking wickets.

jaiswal and sarfraz are massive upgrades to pujara and rahane and even gill has gotten better now than in 2021.
 
Manjereker asked Nick Knight during the Indian innings that whether Eng would still play Bazball if they were 20 odd for 3 chasing 500. Nick didnt think for even a sec saying they would walk the talk. What happened next is history.. Only thing Root and Stokes dint do during their partnership was to put out a tent
 
To top it all Stokes leadership is getting credit left, right and centre

I think most of this praise is warranted, he’s got two batsmen Crawley and Duckett who used to be walking wickets in county cricket playing as a quality Test match opening partnership, he has helped Pope to improve his game and self belief a huge amount, he revived Bairstow’s red ball career from the absolute doldrums and briefly got him playing like a beast MVP, and he has inspired club level spinners like Hartley, Rehan and Bashir to work together and take 20 wickets. As a result of all this, his win rate % as a captain is really good. Bazball isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but Stokes is a very good leader in any case.
 
Batting first has also proven to be a big factor in this series.

If England get to bat first next test they can challenge India.

But i agree with the general sentiment in this thread. Bazball is currently on par with Pakball.
 
After this tour, there are 12 Tests coming up against West Indies, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and New Zealand for the remainder of the year. Hopefully not many humiliations in there.
The problem is that Bazball came into prominence at a time when Test cricket had started declining severely outside of the Big 3. New Zealand won't even have a competent attack when they tour. It's not 2021 when they had Boult/Jamieson/Wagner/Southee bowling at somewhere near their best.


SL, PAK and WI have attacks that are barely international standard in most Tests. South Africa, in SA, can possibly put out a pace attack that can challenge this lineup but they hardy care about Tests either.

Even maybe a decade ago, the Top 7 teams had good attacks at least at home
 
TBH England played a bad second innings. Still two games to go. Cant write them off. Their approach is at-least giving results
 
The problem is that Bazball came into prominence at a time when Test cricket had started declining severely outside of the Big 3. New Zealand won't even have a competent attack when they tour. It's not 2021 when they had Boult/Jamieson/Wagner/Southee bowling at somewhere near their best.


SL, PAK and WI have attacks that are barely international standard in most Tests. South Africa, in SA, can possibly put out a pace attack that can challenge this lineup but they hardy care about Tests either.

Even maybe a decade ago, the Top 7 teams had good attacks at least at home
England will do well against all of these sides as they should given the resources at their disposal and the priority still given to Test cricket.
Lets see how they fare against Australia in the winter of ‘25.

The most irritating thing about the current England side is their sermonising about how they are changing the way that the game is played, taking credit for the way Jaiswal played etc
Dudes you just got beaten by 400 runs….
 
^ This shows how dumb he actually is. His IQ must be really low if he doesn’t understand the concept of umpire’s call.

The ball is not hitting the stumps. It is a prediction and it can be wrong. Therefore, you always need a margin of error. Why is it so difficult to understand?

You may need a margin of error (and even that's debatable), but not a random margin size selected by some suits at the ICC to keep the on field umpires relevant.
 
They got out LBW sweeping the ball. Hence crying and moaning and trying to put pressure on the umpires.

If umpires fall for this pressure Rohit should call it out and let BCCI handle it afterwards.

The discussion about DRS came about in the press conference from the Crawley dismissal that showed up as umpires call despite the graphics showing the ball not hitting the stumps, that's therefore a completely reasonable thing to question.

Stokes's views on umpires call would literally have had no impact today, he says he believes umpires call should be replaced with out therefore everyone who was out today would still have been out. It's a valid viewpoint that would have had no benefit to his team today.
 
The discussion about DRS came about in the press conference from the Crawley dismissal that showed up as umpires call despite the graphics showing the ball not hitting the stumps, that's therefore a completely reasonable thing to question.

Stokes's views on umpires call would literally have had no impact today, he says he believes umpires call should be replaced with out therefore everyone who was out today would still have been out. It's a valid viewpoint that would have had no benefit to his team today.

Ball was clipping the bails.

Stokes' views on umpires call may have significant impact on umpires decision in the series.

He knows exactly what he is doing. He doesn't want umpires to give close calls against his team. If it's not out onfield or out on field, then umpires call doesn't change the decision. That's what he wants.

Hence this planned outburst to put the umpires under pressure.
 
I think most of this praise is warranted, he’s got two batsmen Crawley and Duckett who used to be walking wickets in county cricket playing as a quality Test match opening partnership, he has helped Pope to improve his game and self belief a huge amount, he revived Bairstow’s red ball career from the absolute doldrums and briefly got him playing like a beast MVP, and he has inspired club level spinners like Hartley, Rehan and Bashir to work together and take 20 wickets. As a result of all this, his win rate % as a captain is really good. Bazball isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but Stokes is a very good leader in any case.
Agreed. He is trying to make something out of what he has at his disposal. Credit to him there. A team like this has no business bowling India out even once. They have bowled India out 5 times. Ofcourse India self-destruted many times. Catalyst for those self-destruction was funky field sets of Stokes. He managed to capitalize on India's inexperience.
 
Ball was clipping the bails.
There was clear daylight between the ball and the bails in the projection.

Stokes' views on umpires call may have significant impact on umpires decision in the series.

He knows exactly what he is doing. He doesn't want umpires to give close calls against his team. If it's not out onfield or out on field, then umpires call doesn't change the decision. That's what he wants.

Hence this planned outburst to put the umpires under pressure.

He's literally asking for umpires call to be removed so that umpires can't have this impact on decisions.
 
What are the parameters of relevance? How do you measure that?

Bazball getting owned has been entertaining. I agree with that.
What are the parameters of relevance? How do you measure that?

Bazball getting owned has been entertaining. I agree with that.

At some point a measurement will take place...at the moment I can only measure it based on my own interactions with people. I think it has sparked an interest in people who would not have been at all interested in a test cricket series v India.

It probably has sparked more debate than usual among cricket fans too.

However the interest for the moment does seem limited to bazball as a short term trend and its hard to say if it will capture the imagination for a long time or truly reinvigorate test cricket in this country.
 
Very difficult for them to make a comeback after such a humiliating defeat.
They can make a comeback but for that, Eng needs to score big in the first inning. Making 250-300 range is not enough on flat tracks. Needs to put 450 plus. Otherwise, they are always playing catch-up.
 
They can make a comeback but for that, Eng needs to score big in the first inning. Making 250-300 range is not enough on flat tracks. Needs to put 450 plus. Otherwise, they are always playing catch-up.
England's bad luck is they are not winning the toss if they do so they can put up some runs early on to build pressure in India because Indiá's batting still not tested on day 4 or 5 wicket.
 
There was clear daylight between the ball and the bails in the projection.



He's literally asking for umpires call to be removed so that umpires can't have this impact on decisions.

Why this sudden urge to remove umpires call today? Because two umpires calls went against him?

The way Crawley behaved after getting out and now Stokes' outburst, its pretty clear that they want to put pressure on the umpires.
 
Tbh, India deserves credit for countering Bazball. They have not allowed England to consistently succeed with the approach, with time they have figured out the field placings necessary to get wickets.
 
England's bad luck is they are not winning the toss if they do so they can put up some runs early on to build pressure in India because Indiá's batting still not tested on day 4 or 5 wicket.
India played carelessly in the first innings of first Test. In a bat second scenario India's goal will be batting just one innings going forward. Some lackluster fielding, field placing allowed England to crawl back in the first test. This should have been the goal of England as well. You should never plan for 4th innings.
 
I don't think all English supporters are on the same page with respect to Bazball. Nasser is definitely seeing some scope for enhancement with this approach. I remember Steve waugh's words during 2004/05 series where India had dominating batting display. HE said something along the lines there are sometimes you have to buckle down and play defensive cricket. Australia capitulated in the 2nd innings after putting up 556 in the first innings at the Adelaide oval. India chased down 230 odd in 4th innings. England is in similar situation. Australia really started this fast scoring approach. There was one match where AUstralia declared in both innings at the risk of losing the Test. They indeed lost the Test. Butcher made 173 runs for England.
 
The discussion about DRS came about in the press conference from the Crawley dismissal that showed up as umpires call despite the graphics showing the ball not hitting the stumps, that's therefore a completely reasonable thing to question.

Stokes's views on umpires call would literally have had no impact today, he says he believes umpires call should be replaced with out therefore everyone who was out today would still have been out. It's a valid viewpoint that would have had no benefit to his team today.
so ICC shoved a piece of crap unproven technology down everyone's throat?

Has any one seen any evidence that HE is anything more than fancy graphics?

@James any information on how they verified HE is accurate to an inch?
 
You may need a margin of error (and even that's debatable), but not a random margin size selected by some suits at the ICC to keep the on field umpires relevant.
have you seen any data which would support a given margin of error or are you blowing smoke?

Full disclosure: I have been vocal against HE. Not sure it any thing more than fancy graphics. You'd think they would put the information out as how they verified HE accuracy after all these years.

Guess it suited ECB becos a english company was making money.
 
have you seen any data which would support a given margin of error or are you blowing smoke?

Full disclosure: I have been vocal against HE. Not sure it any thing more than fancy graphics. You'd think they would put the information out as how they verified HE accuracy after all these years.

Guess it suited ECB becos a english company was making money.

There is some good info on how HE works in this article today on CI

Link : Hawk eye response to Stokes call to eliminate umpires call
 
some background on HE umpires call


thats a really old article from June 2016 and I think back then the entire ball had to be in contact with the stumps for the decision to be turned.
 
thats a really old article from June 2016 and I think back then the entire ball had to be in contact with the stumps for the decision to be turned.
the point being, All this non sense with HE championed by rest of ICC while BCCI was skeptical. BCCI was skewered for it.

Now you have idiots splitting hairs instead of asking what evidence was there if any that HE is good enough to be used in predicting when the ball position might have been.
 
I looked around the internet. More than Indians, it is Aussies that bag the baseball. The reason is England team is getting preachy about this approach like it is a gold standard and everyone should follow it. The most recent comment from Duckett has become a subject of ridicule in the Australian press. I kinda see where they are coming from. It works for England. Fair enough. If they stop making propaganda this approach they took up was to save Test cricket then people will go easy on them whenever they fail. I think they are using a smart approach given that previous approach did not work. But they might have to tone down the bragging.
 
I looked around the internet. More than Indians, it is Aussies that bag the baseball. The reason is England team is getting preachy about this approach like it is a gold standard and everyone should follow it. The most recent comment from Duckett has become a subject of ridicule in the Australian press. I kinda see where they are coming from. It works for England. Fair enough. If they stop making propaganda this approach they took up was to save Test cricket then people will go easy on them whenever they fail. I think they are using a smart approach given that previous approach did not work. But they might have to tone down the bragging.

A part of me wishes that Bazball actually succeeds and gets adopted by other teams especially Ind and Aus. It will make for some spectacular test matches.
 
the point being, All this non sense with HE championed by rest of ICC while BCCI was skeptical. BCCI was skewered for it.

Now you have idiots splitting hairs instead of asking what evidence was there if any that HE is good enough to be used in predicting when the ball position might have been.
Its not perfect but its infinitely better than thugs like Bucknor, Benson, Hair mugging teams in broad daylight and on camera and you could do nothing about it. Infact some of the old foggies would publish long drivel in media in support of what they called "Beauty of Cricket" , "The Charm of human element" and what not.
 
Its not perfect but its infinitely better than thugs like Bucknor, Benson, Hair mugging teams in broad daylight and on camera and you could do nothing about it. Infact some of the old foggies would publish long drivel in media in support of what they called "Beauty of Cricket" , "The Charm of human element" and what not.
This is more of a rant against biased umpiring than making the case for HE.

the solution to poor umpires is not a crappy technology used poorly.

I'm yet to see any data about HE testing.
 
This is more of a rant against biased umpiring than making the case for HE.

the solution to poor umpires is not a crappy technology used poorly.

Not a rant. Its based on absolute hard facts.

I'm yet to see any data about HE testing.

You can do that on your own ... just jog your memory and see how many HE howlers you can find. Its not like they can blatantly manipulate HE to suit any team. Not possible. But umpires could most certainly be brazenly hostile to one team. The most crucial part about HE is that it is the same tech for both teams.
 
Not a rant. Its based on absolute hard facts.
I'm as big a hater of bucknor, hair etc as one can be.
You can do that on your own ... just jog your memory and see how many HE howlers you can find.
Is that even possible? HE presents us with graphic of what might have happened and claims accuracy of +/- 2.5cm. using camera's which are ~100 m away. Is that possible? maybe. the burden of proof is on the vendor and ICC to demonstrate that HE can do what is being claimed.

almost a decade after implementation, I 'm yet to see any evidence that it actually works.

how the hell do you vouch for its accuracy while watching it on TV?

Until I see hard data, it is no better than a psychic and doesn't belong in the game IMO

Its not like they can blatantly manipulate HE to suit any team. Not possible. But umpires could most certainly be brazenly hostile to one team. The most crucial part about HE is that it is the same tech for both teams.
off topic.
 
I'm as big a hater of bucknor, hair etc as one can be.

Then how is it that you do not see value in HE ? Doesnt make any sense.

Is that even possible? HE presents with graphic of what might have happened and claims accuracy of 2.5cm. using camera's whihc are ~100 m away. Is that possible? maybe. the burden of proof is on the vendor and ICC to demonstrate that HE can do what is being claimed

how the hell do you vouch for its accuracy while watching it on TV?

Until I see hard data, it is no better than a psychic and doesn't belong in the game IMO

You most certainly can ... because they almost always show multiple camera angles and there is rarely ever a incongruent or odd inexplicable discrepancies. If HE was sooo unreliable as you suggest it would be easily visible to the naked eye considering the extreme close-up views that modern TV coverage is paired with HE. Remember the TV cameras are independent from the HE cameras and therefore they act as a form of checks and balances. Add ultra edge and we have a very robust tech that ensures that vast majority of decisions are adjudicated fairly. Also sometimes they show you HE tracking as part of analysis when clean bowled and you can see that it projects sooo accurately to the exact spot where the ball hit the stumps according to the camera ( which is a seperate camera from HE tracking camera ).


off topic.

Not off topic at all. The entire problem with the old system was there was no checks and balances to the umpires authority. He could do whatever he felt like and he had full immunity. There was nothing you could do and we saw that unfold time and time again on live TV. Just fixing that thru DRS system is a huge step forward.
 
Then how is it that you do not see value in HE ? Doesnt make any sense.
becos tere as been no data to prove it s predictive ability
You most certainly can ... because they almost always show multiple camera angles and there is rarely ever a incongruent or odd inexplicable discrepancies. If HE was sooo unreliable as you suggest it would be easily visible to the naked eye considering the extreme close-up views that modern TV coverage is paired with HE. Remember the TV cameras are independent from the HE cameras and therefore they act as a form of checks and balances. Add ultra edge and we have a very robust tech that ensures that vast majority of decisions are adjudicated fairly. Also sometimes they show you HE tracking as part of analysis when clean bowled and you can see that it projects sooo accurately to the exact spot where the ball hit the stumps according to the camera ( which is a seperate camera from HE tracking camera ).
biggest word salad ever. I don't think you have put an iota of thought into the technical side of the issue.

HE clams where the ball might have been 2 meters from the last measurement, which is made from 100m away, to an accuracy of +/- 2.5 cm.

If regular cameras were good enough to double check HE whats the point of HE. it costs almost $500K per test.

until there is demonstrated evidence to this ability (not emotional appeals), it noting more than theology...... and I'm an athiest

Look, you either have the necessary technical education to understand the issues or you don't.

Come up with hard data which supports your point of view.

Hitchen's Razor: what is asserted w/o evidence can be dismissed w/o evidence.

Here is thread on rec.sport.cricket about DRS and specifically HE


Not off topic at all. The entire problem with the old system was there was no checks and balances to the umpires authority. He could do whatever he felt like and he had full immunity. There was nothing you could do and we saw that unfold time and time again on live TV. Just fixing that thru DRS system is a huge step forward.
so a fake graphic is enough? for you maybe. not for me
 
becos tere as been no data to prove it s predictive ability

biggest word salad ever. I don't think you have put an iota of thought into the technical side of the issue.

HE clams where the ball might have been 2 meters from the last measurement, which is made from 100m away, to an accuracy of +/- 2.5 cm.

If regular cameras were good enough to double check HE whats the point of HE. it costs almost $500K per test.

until there is demonstrated evidence to this ability (not emotional appeals), it noting more than theology...... and I'm an athiest

Look, you either have the necessary technical education to understand the issues or you don't.

Come up with hard data which supports your point of view.

Hitchen's Razor: what is asserted w/o evidence can be dismissed w/o evidence.

Here is thread on rec.sport.cricket about DRS and specifically HE



so a fake graphic is enough? for you maybe. not for me

There is no Publicly available data. Doesn't mean that MCC/ICC also do not have it. Unless you are in the know(Which then implies large scale corruption). Also remember that Tennis uses the same tech. Are we saying that two large world sports bodies are using dodgy tech ? What are the chances of that happening ?

And the camera confirmation point was to provide you a means of independent confirmation through your own eyes in the light of missing official testing data. But since you feel soo strongly about HE when was the last time you observed that HE did a terrible job ? Do you have any hard data ?

In short ... I am just using my own common sense to figure out if Iam being sold a dummy. Prove me wrong and I will accept.​

And what fake graphic are you talking about ? Did you see the link I posted ?
 

There is no Publicly available data. Doesn't mean that MCC/ICC also do not have it.​
glad you brought up this up


Given the amount contrversy surrounding this, i have a tough time understanding why they wouldn't put it up.

Remember BCCI was not in favor of HE. ICC could have humiliated BCCI by showing teh proof
Unless you are in the know(Which then implies large scale corruption). Also remember that Tennis uses the same tech. Are we saying that two large world sports bodies are using dodgy tech ? What are the chances of that happening ?
tells me how clueless you are.

1) Tennis does not use predictive ability

Isn't that what is being questioned?

you want to trust unproven stuff, be my guest. Dont appeals to authority to cover up lack of data

And the camera confirmation point was to provide you a means of independent confirmation through your own eyes in the light of missing official testing data. But since you feel soo strongly about HE when was the last time you observed that HE did a terrible job ? Do you have any hard data ?​
Thats a word salad with no substance and like a religious person you are shifting the burden of proof. becos you have nothing but emotional appeals
In short ... I am just using my own common sense to figure out if Iam being sold a dummy. Prove me wrong and I will accept.​
yup. theology. nothing more.
And what fake graphic are you talking about ? Did you see the link I posted ?
As it stands, HE is nothing more than fake graphics designed to fool the gullible.

All you have to do is feed HE, which is the predictive software, truncated videos from a variety of bowlers, which stop 2-3 m before the stumps.

Overlay that prediction from HE with what actually happened. That would clearly demonstrate if HE is as accurate as it claims.

would be trivial to do and raises serioss questions about why that hasn't happened
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Whats with the aggressive posturing/tone ? I'am not a HE salesperson and you can probably start a petition to bring back Bucknor, Billy and Benson. If you want to continue this discussion you will have to tone down your bile content and improve on maturity levels.​
Dude,

1) this is topic which was used to beat BCCI black and blue with for ~5 years.

2) added a enormous amount of cost to test cricket

3) used to ripoff revenue which probably belonged to BCCI.

Those are strong material reasons (which hurt BCCI) I'm come out strongly against HE

On a philosophical level, not in favor of untested crap glorified using dodgy reasoning

Seriously, go thro that rec.sport.cricket thread.
 
Dude,

1) this is topic which was used to beat BCCI black and blue with for ~5 years.

2) added a enormous amount of cost to test cricket

3) used to ripoff revenue which probably belonged to BCCI.

Those are strong material reasons (which hurt BCCI) I'm come out strongly against HE

On a philosophical level, not in favor of untested crap glorified using dodgy reasoning

Seriously, go thro that rec.sport.cricket thread.

all of that is besides the point ... which is that I do not engage with keyboard warriors. Cheers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thats ok I'm used to engaging posters whoi canlt brig any relevant facts to the topic in question. Cheers


I can and I will but not with hostile keyboard warriors. The very fact that you lost your cool just because you do not agree with my view points suggests that you don't have the requisite maturity levels for me to spend time in a meaningful discussion.
 
I can and I will but not with hostile keyboard warriors. The very fact that you lost your cool just because you do not agree with my view points suggests that you don't have the requisite maturity levels for me to spend time in a meaningful discussion.
meh.

Whatever floats your boat.

you don't have the technical chops to keep with an important point.
 
Bazball the term was added to oxford dictionary last November lol Obviously it will get ridiculed at every opportunity. Marnus called it garbage.

Bazballin British English​

(ˈbæzbɔːl IPA Pronunciation Guide )
NOUN
a style of test cricket in which the batting side attempts to gain the initiative by playing in a highly aggressive manner
Collins English Dictionary. Copyright © HarperCollins Publishers
Word origin
C21: after Brendon McCullum, known as Baz (born 1981), New Zealand cricketer and coach
 
England's bad luck is they are not winning the toss if they do so they can put up some runs early on to build pressure in India because Indiá's batting still not tested on day 4 or 5 wicket.
India is missing quite a few regular test players while sans Brook, England has all their regular test cricketers playing. So many deubtants in Indian XI which hasn't happened in Indian cricket for decades.

Do they still need to win tosses to win in India?
 
India is missing quite a few regular test players while sans Brook, England has all their regular test cricketers playing. So many deubtants in Indian XI which hasn't happened in Indian cricket for decades.

Do they still need to win tosses to win in India?
They said they like to chase in 4th innings.
 
India played carelessly in the first innings of first Test. In a bat second scenario India's goal will be batting just one innings going forward. Some lackluster fielding, field placing allowed England to crawl back in the first test. This should have been the goal of England as well. You should never plan for 4th innings.
Even after winning the toss in the first test, England won by just 28 runs.
 
meh.

Whatever floats your boat.

you don't have the technical chops to keep with an important point.

Did you have any evidence that HE is faulty other than lament about lack of Testing data ? Absolutely not So there ... I rest my case. Come back here when you find instances of HE being eggregiously faulty ( as in Bucknoresque faulty ) and then we an talk about technical chops or lack there-off.
 
Did you have any evidence that HE is faulty other than lament about lack of Testing data ? Absolutely not So there ... I rest my case. Come back here when you find instances of HE being eggregiously faulty ( as in Bucknoresque faulty ) and then we an talk about technical chops or lack there-off.
why am I not surprised.

HE claims it can predict to 2.5cm accuracy. burden of proof is on the HE and its advocates to back up that claim.

This is like the god argument really. Burden of proof is on those who claim there is a all powerful magic sky daddy who watches over us and intervenes when he feels like it to prove his existence

If thats all you got. we are wasting each others time
 
why am I not surprised.

HE claims it can predict to 2.5cm accuracy. burden of proof is on the HE and its advocates to back up that claim.

This is like the god argument really. Burden of proof is on those who claim there is a all powerful magic sky daddy who watches over us and intervenes when he feels like it to prove his existence

If thats all you got. we are wasting each others time

As I said I am not here to sell HE nor do I have any conflict of interest. You however seem unhappy with HE. So go ahead and give me a few real life examples of a really shoddy decision made by HE that lead you to that state of un-happiness. If you don't have that example then all you are doing is arguing for the sake of arguing.​
 
As I said I am not here to sell HE nor do I have any conflict of interest. You however seem unhappy with HE. So go ahead and give me a few real life examples of a really shoddy decision made by HE that lead you to that state of un-happiness. If you don't have that example then all you are doing is arguing for the sake of arguing.​
If you don't understand the concept of burden of proof, logic is not your strong suit.

HE and its advocates are making the claim. you are buying that claim. Its on them and you to prove it works. til then, it is nothing more than fancy graphics for gullible.
 
If you don't understand the concept of burden of proof, logic is not your strong suit.

The bigger issue is that you don't understand the simple concept of logical deduction. Lets assume that HE is a very faulty system. If that were to be a true statement.. there would be numerous dodgy decisions out there. So where are these dodgy decisions ?


HE and its advocates are making the claim. you are buying that claim. Its on them and you to prove it works. til then, it is nothing more than fancy graphics for gullible.

I don't care what HE claims or not. I only buy what my eyes and brains are validating. Just the simple fact that I no longer have to dread the likes of Bucknor, Benson and Billy ruining my Cricket watching experience as a Cricket tragic that is a HUUUGE upgrade for me. Very basic common sense.​
 
so ICC shoved a piece of crap unproven technology down everyone's throat?

Has any one seen any evidence that HE is anything more than fancy graphics?

@James any information on how they verified HE is accurate to an inch?

I like umpire’s call, I wouldn’t change it.
 
This is more of a rant against biased umpiring than making the case for HE.

the solution to poor umpires is not a crappy technology used poorly.

I'm yet to see any data about HE testing.

HE was tested by MIT. Kumble attended the tests. This was in 2016.

To improve accuracy of HE ultra motion cameras with 340fps were added(earlier it was 75-80fps cameras).

The point of impact that was earlier manually determined by the operator was automated to be determined by ultraedge.

The predictive capacity of HE was said to be 97 percent. Hence the need of umpires call.
 
Bazball the term was added to oxford dictionary last November lol Obviously it will get ridiculed at every opportunity. Marnus called it garbage.

The England team don’t use the term themselves, it’s a media/cultural phenomenon. “Marnus” has had one hundred in his last 35 innings and loads of low scores, he should focus less on England and more on his own faltering form for Australia.
 
HE was tested by MIT. Kumble attended the tests. This was in 2016.

To improve accuracy of HE ultra motion cameras with 340fps were added(earlier it was 75-80fps cameras).

The point of impact that was earlier manually determined by the operator was automated to be determined by ultraedge.

The predictive capacity of HE was said to be 97 percent. Hence the need of umpires call.
All those are claims nothing more.

What was the test? how did they come with 97%? to what tolerance?

First it was "professor at Cambridge" : rolston, who turned out to be former lecturer at Cambridge who was no longer associated with cambridge.

then its MIT.

so what was the test before implementing it? was it not used in 2011 WC?well before 2016
 
The bigger issue is that you don't understand the simple concept of logical deduction. Lets assume that HE is a very faulty system. If that were to be a true statement.. there would be numerous dodgy decisions out there. So where are these dodgy decisions ?​
sorry man you are way too slow.
I don't care what HE claims or not. I only buy what my eyes and brains are validating. Just the simple fact that I no longer have to dread the likes of Bucknor, Benson and Billy ruining my Cricket watching experience as a Cricket tragic that is a HUUUGE upgrade for me. Very basic common sense.​
so it nothing more than emotional feel good option. good of you to admit that.

bit like homeopathy
 
sorry man you are way too slow.

so it nothing more than emotional feel good option. good of you to admit that.

bit like homeopathy

In other words you dont have any concrete evidence to prove that HE is faulty ( which is where bluster/aggro comes in handy to mask that ). Yup thought so.
 
^ This shows how dumb he actually is. His IQ must be really low if he doesn’t understand the concept of umpire’s call.

The ball is not hitting the stumps. It is a prediction and it can be wrong. Therefore, you always need a margin of error. Why is it so difficult to understand?
Umpires call was not a problem for Stokes when he was winning. Of course it is a problem now because he didn’t win. All the fake hype being spouted by the English media has gone to his head.
 
Why this sudden urge to remove umpires call today? Because two umpires calls went against him?

The way Crawley behaved after getting out and now Stokes' outburst, its pretty clear that they want to put pressure on the umpires.

Because it came up as a topic in a press conference. Again, removing umpires call would have meant those 2 decisions would've just been out against them rather than umpires call.

Crawley was justified in looking a bit frustrated following his dismissal given he'd just seen the projection show it missing the stumps.
 
Changing it will mean expanding the stumps by 10-20 per cent due to the margin of error.

Nasser Hussain explained it beautifully on sky.

Nasser was wrong in this case, umpires call as it currently is has effectively shrunk the stumps for DRS. Removing it completely would return them to their true size for the sake of DRS.
 
I don't think all English supporters are on the same page with respect to Bazball.

They don't really have much supporters when compared to a sub continent side.

The test series barely makes the news here. There are no cricket talk shows where ex players and pundits analyse the game like there is in India or Pakistan.

Older players publish the occasional news article and these are cautiously critical of Bazball.

I think most pundits ( with the exception of Boycott) haven't quite nailed their colours to the mast, because if it eventually works and they have been critical throughout then they may be out of a job.
 
It would be fun to watch England lose 4-1 (fingers crossed) this series. Stokes and English media will complain that India stopped England on their noble mission to save the test cricket. Their sense of superiority knows no bounds.
 
I think most pundits ( with the exception of Boycott) haven't quite nailed their colours to the mast, because if it eventually works and they have been critical throughout then they may be out of a job.

Our pundits are useless. Including Boycott they have waxed lyrical about Bazball in the past when we’ve been winning and said they are captivated by it. Vaughan has been terrible for this as well, just goes with the wind, often radically changing his end of play view later on within same match.

After a loss, particularly a heavy one, the knives are out of course. But it’s the best style of play ever when we win, a revolutionary way of approaching red ball cricket, the opposition have soiled themselves, Brendon is a maverick and Stokes is a genius.

Even at the end of day 2 of this most recent match, with Duckett’s batting, everyone was loving it. Our pundits have exactly the same as our fans’ mentality.

Aside from Atherton & Husssin who are well known for their balance and class, English pundits are basically just England fans who have playing experience, are slightly more erudite, and have been given a regular newspaper column.
 
Zac is underdelivering right now, of all the english batsmen he's the one the Indian bowlers look clueless against. The issue is Crawley isn't playing the long innings. He bats 60-70 overs, India is out of the Test match. I know he's had unlucky dismissals. He'll come big, it's coming.
 
All those are claims nothing more.

What was the test? how did they come with 97%? to what tolerance?

First it was "professor at Cambridge" : rolston, who turned out to be former lecturer at Cambridge who was no longer associated with cambridge.

then its MIT.

so what was the test before implementing it? was it not used in 2011 WC?well before 2016

It was tested at MIT. Anil Kumble attended it.Later HE gave a detailed presentation to the BCCI regards to the improvements incorporated in the HE.

If i remember correctly, the figure is 3.6mm. Thats the margin of error.
 
Nasser was wrong in this case, umpires call as it currently is has effectively shrunk the stumps for DRS. Removing it completely would return them to their true size for the sake of DRS.

Incorrect. The margin of error is on either side of the stumps.
 
Back
Top