What's new

Saeed Ajmal still baffled by Sachin Tendulkar lbw reversal

QuarterBack said:
Technical explanation is that it does not need to know. It computes the path traveled by the ball based on actual movement...
Click to expand...

in other words it didn't predict which bowl was bowled because sachin was playing ajmal like a amateur.
 
The software still has bugs. ICC and other cricket nations should work on making it perfect. Btw this decsion is not what makes Pakistan lose this match.
 
sully3 said:
in other words it didn't predict which bowl was bowled because sachin was playing ajmal like a amateur.
Click to expand...

It never predicts/guesses what ball was bowled, jus follows the trajectory...
It had nothing to do with the way Sachin played Ajmal... The ball spun the amount it did before hitting Sachin's pad and HE merely extrapolates it...
 
From what I saw, the worst hawkeye-related incident was the Ian Bell referral where he survived on a crappy ruling. You could argue that India deserved their change of luck. :afridi [/devil's advocate]
 
Saurav said:
Sehwag looked not out from naked eye.it looked like like pitching outside leg since it was short n Wahab isnt known to swing the ball back in.wonder everybody is quiet about that:))):)))
Click to expand...

Please look at the video. I can't understand how someone still believes that Sehwag's LBW was doubtful. It can't be straighter than that. The only doubt would have been whether that ball was pitched inline or not. and everyone knows the pitching of the ball is independant of the software.
 
Poll: Tedulkar's LBW reversal on Ajmal's bowling

What are your thoughts on Tedulkar's LBW reversal on Ajmal's bowling by the Hawk eye.

1. It was OUT and the software made a mistake.
2. It was NOT OUT and the software made the correct decision.

Mods lets create a poll.
 
It was Out. Everyone knew it. Technology can never be 100% accurate.

Sachin reluctantly asked for the review, unlike Sehwag.
 
youboy said:
Please look at the video. I can't understand how someone still believes that Sehwag's LBW was doubtful. It can't be straighter than that. The only doubt would have been whether that ball was pitched inline or not. and everyone knows the pitching of the ball is independant of the software.
Click to expand...

yeah but with naked it looked not out didnt it.please be honest n say what u felt wen ball hit Sehwag?
 
srh said:
What are your thoughts on Tedulkar's LBW reversal on Ajmal's bowling by the Hawk eye.

1. It was OUT and the software made a mistake.
2. It was NOT OUT and the software made the correct decision.

Mods lets create a poll.
Click to expand...

needs to be a 3rd choice.

3. It may have been OUT, but the software's decision was consistent with other decisions it has made in the past.
 
NorthStar said:
"I don't know how the television replays showed my delivery turning towards the leg side because I had bowled an arm ball and it went straight ...I was 110% confident when the referral was made that the batsman was out." Saeed Ajmal told AFP on the team's arrival in Lahore.

http://img132.imageshack.us/i/3srtfcorrectpath.jpg/
3srtfcorrectpath.jpg

The red line is straightest path from Pitching to Impact and to the Stumps ... surprise, surprise its hitting leg stump. :ajmal
Click to expand...



i think your extrapolated line isnt taking into consideration the exponential path of the curve.

as something begins to turn, the rate at which it turns slightly increases as time passes. your line hasnt given the time variable a chance to progress and is thereby cancelling out the exponential effect.

to be honest, even if it was JUST clipping leg, it still cant be overturned according to the policy of irrefutable evidence showing a significant error in the umpires decision.

like i said bro we've got to just let this go, its pointless. the decision made in real time was fair.
 
QuarterBack said:
It never predicts/guesses what ball was bowled, jus follows the trajectory...
It had nothing to do with the way Sachin played Ajmal... The ball spun the amount it did before hitting Sachin's pad and HE merely extrapolates it...
Click to expand...

Please have a look at the pictures or videos. The computer generated ball is at a different positon from the actual position of the ball. Unfortunately we do not have the hotspot to see the actual impact. so I added the frame where the ball rolls over the pads and move towards right. There is no match between the two. It may have extrapolated but the software didnt follow the trajectory as you mention. Please copy the gif and zoom it. I am sure you and the rest would be surprised.
 
youboy said:
Please have a look at the pictures or videos. The computer generated ball is at a different positon from the actual position of the ball. Unfortunately we do not have the hotspot to see the actual impact. so I added the frame where the ball rolls over the pads and move towards right. There is no match between the two. It may have extrapolated but the software didnt follow the trajectory as you mention. Please copy the gif and zoom it. I am sure you and the rest would be surprised.
Click to expand...

No, am not surprised the HE's trajectory is a bit different compared to one where you extrapolate the path as a straight line. Drift and spin are not straight line phenomenons...
 
There always going to be times when people will doubt the technology specially at critical moments when it could go either way .
Anyway this one was a fair call.
First if we have let technology involved then we have to take it thorougly and accept its short comings and benefits.

And to be fair when i saw the replay even when the hawkeye was not shown ,i was fearing it is missing leg and feared it coming.And what the Hawkeye showed was spot on for me .

I have to say that Hawkeye is more reliable for spin bowling as usually height is not an issue against spin ,there is no swing involved and spin is accurately measured as the ball has already pitched.
So I would always trust hawkeye against spin .
 
Last edited:
Saurav said:
yeah but with naked it looked not out didnt it.please be honest n say what u felt wen ball hit Sehwag?
Click to expand...

with the naked eye, I think the best one in a position to judge it is the umpire. He saw it pitched in line and hit in front of stump. So he gave him out. I think Sehwag had doubt about the height because he was jumping. He misjudged the bounce in my opinion. It was pitched short. Sehwag was crounching to pull it but it didnt bounce and in the end he had to jump thinking it may stilll continue to rise but it didnt. To be honest It looked out to me and so many others even with the naked eye.
 
clearly looked plumb to me. that stumping was dead close and they didnt showed it from many angles also. should be given out. bad luck for us
 
NorthStar said:
"I don't know how the television replays showed my delivery turning towards the leg side because I had bowled an arm ball and it went straight ...I was 110% confident when the referral was made that the batsman was out." Saeed Ajmal told AFP on the team's arrival in Lahore.

http://img132.imageshack.us/i/3srtfcorrectpath.jpg/
3srtfcorrectpath.jpg

The red line is straightest path from Pitching to Impact and to the Stumps ... surprise, surprise its hitting leg stump. :ajmal
Click to expand...

Wao! Excellent work Norhstar. Take that ICC.....
 
That Sachin survived both those appeals is simply astounding. All there is to say...
 
QuarterBack said:
No, am not surprised the HE's trajectory is a bit different compared to one where you extrapolate the path as a straight line. Drift and spin are not straight line phenomenons...
Click to expand...

Thats what I mean. It was not drifting. It was an armball, the straighter one. Did u see the position of the ball?. Please also check the zoomed in view in the videos where the ball is hitting the pads. This was done to check if it touched the bat or not.

Also, please check how close the bat was when it hits the pad then, while the computer generated ball hits almost in the middle of the pad. How can you explain this lateral movement? The ball cannot hit at 2 different places.

The word is LBW. which means the position of impact is the most crucial one. If it was not important then the bowlers would ask for all the bowls that are padded up while the ball's trajectory would lead it to hit the stumps.
 
This is not sour grapes or excuses or anything

It looked dead in front.

Almost every commentator and expert is as baffled and confused as we are regarding this.

What looked to be hitting the middle or middle stump live isn't even clipping the outside of leg stump is a joke
 
IM NOT YOU said:
i think your extrapolated line isnt taking into consideration the exponential path of the curve.

as something begins to turn, the rate at which it turns slightly increases as time passes. your line hasnt given the time variable a chance to progress and is thereby cancelling out the exponential effect.

to be honest, even if it was JUST clipping leg, it still cant be overturned according to the policy of irrefutable evidence showing a significant error in the umpires decision.

like i said bro we've got to just let this go, its pointless. the decision made in real time was fair.
Click to expand...

not only that.. his red line is disregarding effects of gravity!! It is on an upward trajectory.. which in the picture ALONE makes it look closer to the leg stump.

Also look at where he has started the red line on the ball when it is pitched. Very conveniently to the right side of the ball... thus when you draw a line from this "right justified point" on the ball on the pitch... to the ball before it hits tendulkar's leg.. but of course it is going to hit the leg stump!
 
Last edited:
youboy said:
Thats what I mean. It was not drifting. It was an armball, the straighter one. Did u see the position of the ball?. Please also check the zoomed in view in the videos where the ball is hitting the pads. This was done to check if it touched the bat or not.
Click to expand...

The ball was not drifting before it pitched. However with the grip on the surface and turn, there cannot be 0 drift... Ajmal may have wanted to bowl a straight ball, but that was turning, it was not going on with the arm.

Also, please check how close the bat was when it hits the pad then, while the computer generated ball hits almost in the middle of the pad. How can you explain this lateral movement? The ball cannot hit at 2 different places.

The word is LBW. which means the position of impact is the most crucial one. If it was not important then the bowlers would ask for all the bowls that are padded up while the ball's trajectory would lead it to hit the stumps.
Click to expand...


Its called point of impact my friend. With a front on view, with the naked eye, there's no telling where the ball it the pad exactly. On that call, i trust the technology to be able to tell the right spot.
 
QuarterBack said:
The ball was not drifting before it pitched. However with the grip on the surface and turn, there cannot be 0 drift... Ajmal may have wanted to bowl a straight ball, but that was turning, it was not going on with the arm.




Its called point of impact my friend. With a front on view, with the naked eye, there's no telling where the ball it the pad exactly. On that call, i trust the technology to be able to tell the right spot.
Click to expand...

camera is also kind of technology,better than hawkeye,the point of impact is clearly changed.
 
Another possibility is that that the ball could drifted out towards middle stump after hitting the pads
 
Say all you want, that was plumb and I know it.

The look on shock on everyones faces is a testimony to that
 
kriskmk said:
not only that.. his red line is disregarding effects of gravity!! It is on an upward trajectory.. which in the picture ALONE makes it look closer to the leg stump.

Also look at where he has started the red line on the ball when it is pitched. Very conveniently to the right side of the ball... thus when you draw a line from this "right justified point" on the ball on the pitch... to the ball before it hits tendulkar's leg.. but of course it is going to hit the leg stump!
Click to expand...

Cmon, this was done taking into consideration the arm ball from ajmal and not the usual offspinner.

If we believe ajmal and the umpire this the path the ball would have taken.
 
Xohaib said:
camera is also kind of technology,better than hawkeye,the point of impact is clearly changed.
Click to expand...

No its not, with the camera frame by frame shot, there is no "clear" frame where the ball hits the pad, you can call it one way, i can call it the other... Thats the issue with a front on shot...
 
Why don't you guys make a petition to ICC that it was a fraud and if the semi-finals could be played again. I would have done that if it happened to some Pakistani batsman.
 
youboy said:
Cmon, this was done taking into consideration the arm ball from ajmal and not the usual offspinner.

If we believe ajmal and the umpire this the path the ball would have taken.
Click to expand...

Its not a matter of believing Ajmal y.boy... He could have wanted to bowl a straighter arm ball, but thats not necessarily what happened out there... Look where the ball goes past Sachin's bat... SRT was playing for the one that does not turn but the ball did turn, beat his bat and hit the pad...
 
Last edited:
QuarterBack said:
No its not, with the camera frame by frame shot, there is no "clear" frame where the ball hits the pad, you can call it one way, i can call it the other... Thats the issue with a front on shot...
Click to expand...

But how the point of impact changes to right?
 
Xohaib said:
But how the point of impact changes to right?
Click to expand...

It does not change Xohaib. The poster refers to a previous frame as the part where the ball hits the pad, HawkEye says its the next frame and hence the ball is further in its trajectory and hence more to the right. I think HawkEye was right with the point of impact...
 
NorthStar said:
"I don't know how the television replays showed my delivery turning towards the leg side because I had bowled an arm ball and it went straight ...I was 110% confident when the referral was made that the batsman was out." Saeed Ajmal told AFP on the team's arrival in Lahore.

http://img132.imageshack.us/i/3srtfcorrectpath.jpg/
3srtfcorrectpath.jpg

The red line is straightest path from Pitching to Impact and to the Stumps ... surprise, surprise its hitting leg stump.
Click to expand...


You do realise that going by your extrapolation, the ball will land outside the stadium..? Or better go straight into space.

Try to take a look at a spinner's delivery side on. Maybe the position where sq leg umpire stands will get some obvious thing clear to you, that a ball is not a jet which ll take off like you suggest .. esp when its a slow bowler.
The ball starts to dip as well and that is where this whole hawk eye becomes a wobbly business.

To be honest, I think IM NOT YOU has written most of what i can write in his post so not gonna repeat that.

I thought it was a case for hawk eye and was a good call for taking the review.
 
QuarterBack said:
The ball was not drifting before it pitched. However with the grip on the surface and turn, there cannot be 0 drift... Ajmal may have wanted to bowl a straight ball, but that was turning, it was not going on with the arm.

Its called point of impact my friend. With a front on view, with the naked eye, there's no telling where the ball it the pad exactly. On that call, i trust the technology to be able to tell the right spot.
Click to expand...

You mean to say that the software is smart enough to know how much grip each surface has?

My dear this H.E. technology is based on the statistical estimations. It is based on the principles of photogrammetry.

The 3D position of the ball is computed by triangulation using images from 4 special cameras placed at different positions. The system uses the high speed video camera and a ball tracker to record the images of the ball from different angles. Then, based on the principles of photogrametry the relative and then the absolute position of the ball is calculated.

The flight path of the ball is created using successive image frames. The future trajectory of the ball is also computed but i am not sure how we can introduce other parameters such as the surface. Each surface is unique. I have a feeling they use same average values for all the surfaces. Specially if the wicket is new like in this case.

But, only 4 positions are not good enough when the ball is bowled by a spinner. Too many factors are involved. You would need at least 6 cameras for better bundle adjustment i.e more rays of intersections. The relative results may be within tolerance. But only measured relative to each other.

I am not sure about the absolute position i.e the position in relation to the stumps. I dont know how they calibrate the boresight misalignments. I can challenge on this if the manufacturers say that they are providing within cms accuracy. I dont think they send the engineers to do the calibration for every match.

The shift that I showed is exactly what I believed the difference between the actual and the estimation. The statistics showed the position of the bowl different than the actual positon.

This tecnology was created only for nice looking TV presentations. This hawkeye is full of flaws. I dont believe in these statistics. Even small statistical errors introduced could lead to bizzare results.

No wonder the Indians dont like it. I support the UDRS except for the hawk-eye. It still needs alot of improvements.

Its called point of impact my friend. With a front on view, with the naked eye, there's no telling where the ball it the pad exactly. On that call, i trust the technology to be able to tell the right spot.
Click to expand...


There is no hotspot or snicko to tell exactly the point of impact my dear. In this case we have to use our eyes.

A humble advice. Please dont always trust the technology. You may have heard of people using the GPS navigation devices blindly. Some of them have ended up in really bizzare situations.
:ajmal
 
youboy said:
You mean to say that the software is smart enough to know how much grip each surface has?
Click to expand...
No. Simply pointing out the flaw in your straight line extrapolation.

My dear this H.E. technology is based on the statistical estimations. It is based on the principles of photogrammetry.

The 3D position of the ball is computed by triangulation using images from 4 special cameras placed at different positions. The system uses the high speed video camera and a ball tracker to record the images of the ball from different angles. Then, based on the principles of photogrametry the relative and then the absolute position of the ball is calculated.

The flight path of the ball is created using successive image frames. The future trajectory of the ball is also computed but i am not sure how we can introduce other parameters such as the surface. Each surface is unique. I have a feeling they use same average values for all the surfaces. Specially if the wicket is new like in this case.

But, only 4 positions are not good enough when the ball is bowled by a spinner. Too many factors are involved. You would need at least 6 cameras for better bundle adjustment i.e more rays of intersections. The relative results may be within tolerance. But only measured relative to each other.
Click to expand...

Pretty accurate description, but i was not saying that HE takes the grip or surface into account.

I am not sure about the absolute position i.e the position in relation to the stumps. I dont know how they calibrate the boresight misalignments. I can challenge on this if the manufacturers say that they are providing within cms accuracy. I dont think they send the engineers to do the calibration for every match.
Click to expand...
Not cms, their error margin is in mms...

The shift that I showed is exactly what I believed the difference between the actual and the estimation. The statistics showed the position of the bowl different than the actual positon.
Click to expand...
Not true, I think you simply assumed a different point of impact and extrapolated it using a straight line. Subjective view of where the ball struck the pad...

This tecnology was created only for nice looking TV presentations. This hawkeye is full of flaws. I dont believe in these statistics. Even small statistical errors introduced could lead to bizzare results.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, HE has its fair share of flaws...

No wonder the Indians dont like it. I support the UDRS except for the hawk-eye. It still needs alot of improvements.
Click to expand...

Again, absolutely true...


There is no hotspot or snicko to tell exactly the point of impact my dear. In this case we have to use our eyes.
Click to expand...
Which can be misleading... Thats all am saying... :)

A humble advice. Please dont always trust the technology. You may have heard of people using the GPS navigation devices blindly. Some of them have ended up in really bizzare situations.
:ajmal
Click to expand...
True... But technology is objective and the human eye can be subjective... :)

To sum it up, Im all for improving Hotspot and integrating Hotspot in UDRS... HawkEye is flawed on many levels. That being said, I dont believe your extrapolation view to be accurate at all, for the reasons i cited above. That was my bone of contention, not HawkEye's flaws... :)
 
Last edited:
@Youboy

The point you raised have been questioned many times by the commentators as well.
Esp when the Hawk eye was introduced.

But nothing much can be done and if they have adopted it as a technology to rely upon, then you ll have to rejoice at few decisions which luckily went your way and in others.. well rely on threads like these to vent your anger and frustration :)
 
QuarterBack said:
No. Simply pointing out the flaw in your straight line extrapolation.
Click to expand...

I didnt say that it was a perfect straight line but the obvious difference I found cannot be justified by these ordinary factors that you mentioned, unless it is a cracked day 5 pitch of a test match in India.

Pretty accurate description, but i was not saying that HE takes the grip or surface into account.
Click to expand...

If its not taking into account the surface then i can confirm that hawk-eye is definitely flawed


Not cms, their error margin is in mms...
Click to expand...


How do you know they are accurate within mms. Are you a sales person working for these guys? If you are, please provide the calibration reports of these systems.

True... But technology is objective and the human eye can be subjective
Click to expand...

Yes, thats why you still fly in the planes with human pilots. Technology has always room for improvement. You cannot always bet your lives on it.
 
spiron said:
@Youboy

The point you raised have been questioned many times by the commentators as well.
Esp when the Hawk eye was introduced.

But nothing much can be done and if they have adopted it as a technology to rely upon, then you ll have to rejoice at few decisions which luckily went your way and
Click to expand...

in others.. well rely on threads like these to vent your anger and frustration :)
Click to expand...

Its not about anger and frustation. I understand that this thread was created to discuss Ajmal's confusion over the LBW reversal. I think there will be differences of opinions but it doesnt mean that critisizing something means to show anger.

In the meantime chill out guys and watch this clip where Tendulkar does get out due to UDRS. Compare this one with Semi final :ajmal

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IxNRt12UGs&feature=player_embedded
 
how the hell ball turns after hitting the batsman's pads. It is suppose to be going straight, what the heck.
 
This is ridulous man. How could that ball miss. It's a bigger farce than the Bell incident involving the 2.5m rule. Let me remind you that that got a response from the media and the ICC. This has nothing so far.

Sledger said:
^ I don't think Kamran's keeping trigger movements are ever a good litmus test.

:danish
Click to expand...

:)))
 
youboy said:
How do you know they are accurate within mms. Are you a sales person working for these guys? If you are, please provide the calibration reports of these systems.
Click to expand...

Err, you dont need to be a sales person to know that...

"In a document titled "Hawkeye Accuracy and Beleivability", the following is reported:
Hawk-Eye is able to deliver a system which meets the following performance criteria:
Pitching point accuracy under 5mm (in MCC tests it was shown to be 2.6mm)
Interception point accuracy under 5mm (in MCC tests it was shown to be 2.6mm)
Prediction of where the ball passes the stumps:

In all “normal” LBW instances under 15mm and average error of 5mm
In “extreme” LBW instances under 25mm

An “extreme” LBW is one where there is less than 40cm of travel between pitching point and interception point and the batsman is hit over 2 meters from the stumps."
 
Last edited:
kkmix said:
how the hell ball turns after hitting the batsman's pads. It is suppose to be going straight, what the heck.
Click to expand...

:facepalm:
Pls read the LBW rule... Only for full tosses, will the ball be considered to go straight on... For a ball that pitches and does anything, the deviation is VERY important in the decision...
 
I'm more interested in how this is not out:

Bails broken, foot is clearly in the air.


30uwjkm.jpg
 
Saurav said:
Sehwag looked not out from naked eye.it looked like like pitching outside leg since it was short n Wahab isnt known to swing the ball back in.wonder everybody is quiet about that:))):)))
Click to expand...
hawk-eye, speed guns etc. are right only when it goes in favor of someones' own favorite team :) :) just as simple as that!
 
Yeah people don't realise when you watch it a few times, it looks plumber than plumb because of Tendulkar's movement after he got hit on the pads. It was sliding down leg, no turn at all.
 
QuarterBack said:
Im pretty sure that the bail needs to be in the air for a run out, the frame in the picture shows the bail still in contact with the stumps.... The next frame will show the bail in the air and SRT's foot on the ground...
Click to expand...

I see. :( Akmal should work on dislodging the bails too then.. :/ :p
 
QuarterBack said:
Err, you dont need to be a sales person to know that...

"In a document titled "Hawkeye Accuracy and Beleivability", the following is reported:
Hawk-Eye is able to deliver a system which meets the following performance criteria:
Pitching point accuracy under 5mm (in MCC tests it was shown to be 2.6mm)
Interception point accuracy under 5mm (in MCC tests it was shown to be 2.6mm)
Prediction of where the ball passes the stumps:

In all “normal” LBW instances under 15mm and average error of 5mm
In “extreme” LBW instances under 25mm

An “extreme” LBW is one where there is less than 40cm of travel between pitching point and interception point and the batsman is hit over 2 meters from the stumps."
Click to expand...


I have read the document. Please try to understand that the accuracies they have mentioned are relative accuracies one camera to another. I have no doubts in the relative accuracy they mentioned. But, absolute accuracy is my concern. For abolute accuracy you need to calibrate your systems by bowling a few balls on the pitch and determine the standard deviations of the results using some sort of control strip. There calibration procedures and the results need to be verified.

How can they confirm that the alignments they have made are correct without testing a few balls on the pitch either side?

The interesting fact is that although they claim its accuracy, it is not automatic. There are 2 operators working on it independantly. After the ball is recorded the tracking results are compared and are then manually fine tuned for the point on trajectory where the impact is made. According to this document the hawk-eye automatically cannot be accurate enough to be within a 5mm tolerance. They work independantly and ICC has no expertise to determine how much manual intervention is made. I know it since this is what I do for a living. This is my bread andd butter. There are always differences between the estimations and the actual path. To confirm that we use independant checks made at the same position to determine how much the estimations deviate from the real measurements.

These checks can only be made using some system independant checks to verify the ball's actual path. They can use some control strip material behind the stumps and send some balls down the pitch. The ball would hit that board or surface. They can record the ball's actual flight path and check for the deviations. But unfortunately, you would need to send a few balls down the pitch which the organisers and the teams would not agree to. In tennis this is possible because they are not critical about the changes in the nature of the surface caused by the soft tennis ball. So, without some third party confirming that the system is correct, i.e. they check the results against any control material, we are at the mercy of the operators. It can get quite fishy seriously. You can do many things manually to alter the measurements. This they call fine tuning.

Can't you see the difference I have shown between the actual impact and the virtual impact determined by the operators.

They would claim anything about the accuracy to sell it . The problem is that they have not made these calibration results public for someone else to study it and verify it.

If it was fully automatic I would accept the results as it is, because it would be the same each time. The problem is when these operators have the liberty to alter or so called fine tune the results. This raises concerns.
 
Last edited:
ElRaja said:
i looked at the replays too and stopped it at the point where you can see trajectory from where it is estimated by hawkeye. it looks like it is predicted correctly.

the problem is this, if the umpire had given it not out, and the ball had hit by a millimetre it would have been given not out, however now the umpire has given it out and it misses by a millimetre the decision is overturned, icc clearly didnt think out the rules properly why they implimented them. or is this just a manifestation of the benefit of doubt goes to batsmen.

if i was ajmal, id be more baffled by hw pak dropped tendu 4 times. pak litteraly have themselves to blame, ajmal can be baffled abt udrs all he wants.
Click to expand...

ok but tendu's wicket wud hav made a big difference. also, the catches were dropped after this incident. pakistan is taking responsibility for having lost the game. ajmal n co r simply making a point that tendu was out n had the decision remained as out, the game wud hav turned out much differently. Hence, his bafflement.
 
Last edited:
having read all of the posts in this thread.....

I think that the point of impact was manually 'fine tuned' so that at the point of impact it hit the pad more towards the leg side hence giving the impresision that it was turning more than it did and therfore the extrapolation which is already exponentioal would be doubly exponential.

either way.... its gone. We had more chances after this and we only have ourselves to blame.

In the order of importance..... the things to blame are....

1) dropped catches
2) shoddy ground fielding
3) Ajmal should have been bowling to Tendu and other right handers when Hafeez was bowling. Tendu didn't have a clue against Ajmal.
4) Hafeez overs should have been saved for Raina. he is a genious bowler to lefties.
5) Hafeez had a Brain fart while batting.

in terms of when to take PP - that was not to blame as its a 50 50 call whether to take or delay when you are in the position we were in. its just a call you have to make. Personally my view is that when Afridi decides its time to tee off. its absolute stupidity not to use PP.

Misbah was not to blame. he was rescuing the situation and had to remove the panic situation. he has done it a number of times before successfully and was backing himself.

Can't blame Gul. he relies on rhythm. his rhythm was knocked and couldn't get his head together. you can't blame a player for that... we should know that that's what he is. it can be fixed but its really difficult to fix that in the middle of a game.
 
MR__KHAN__JI said:
having read all of the posts in this thread.....

I think that the point of impact was manually 'fine tuned' so that at the point of impact it hit the pad more towards the leg side hence giving the impresision that it was turning more than it did and therfore the extrapolation which is already exponentioal would be doubly exponential.

either way.... its gone. We had more chances after this and we only have ourselves to blame.

In the order of importance..... the things to blame are....

1) dropped catches
2) shoddy ground fielding
3) Ajmal should have been bowling to Tendu and other right handers when Hafeez was bowling. Tendu didn't have a clue against Ajmal.
4) Hafeez overs should have been saved for Raina. he is a genious bowler to lefties.
5) Hafeez had a Brain fart while batting.

in terms of when to take PP - that was not to blame as its a 50 50 call whether to take or delay when you are in the position we were in. its just a call you have to make. Personally my view is that when Afridi decides its time to tee off. its absolute stupidity not to use PP.

Misbah was not to blame. he was rescuing the situation and had to remove the panic situation. he has done it a number of times before successfully and was backing himself.

Can't blame Gul. he relies on rhythm. his rhythm was knocked and couldn't get his head together. you can't blame a player for that... we should know that that's what he is. it can be fixed but its really difficult to fix that in the middle of a game.
Click to expand...

I agree but I want to clarify that this whole thread was created to discuss and study the LBW reversal by UDRS irrespective of the impact it made on the result of the match.

The real impact it did make was on Saeed Ajmal's mind. I think everyone here would agree that Tendulkar was least comfortable while facing Ajmal and Hafeez. Ajmal had set a trap for Tendulkar. He has this habit of closing the face of his bat to flick the ball to square leg or fine leg for a single. Many a times he has been bowled or trapped LBW on the straighter deliveries.

I mean you cannot expect a great batsmen like Tendulkar to repeat this mistake again and again. Ajmal would have been greatly dissappointed when he was certain that he didnt bowl an off spinner. Please remember that this happened in the 11th over. Even then he didnt let Tendulkar the great to dominate him. But this reversal would have shattered his confidence on trying for another LBW.

I would have made the same call if any Pakistan batsmen was involved against any bowler. This simply didnt make sense to me. Yes, we are dissappointed at the loss, but it does not mean that when we discuss any issue it means we are putting blame on just one incidence for the loss. It would have been very crucial. Tendulkar stayed on the crease until the end of the 37 over.

Professional teams dont cry on one decision. They move on and create other their chances. India won fair and square. But here we only were discussing the technolgy and the results thats all.
 
this decision should be reversed, like they did for Pakistan vs England test game, they changed it from abandon to win for england, so first they should find out what caused this error, secondly they should minus all the runs that scored after that from tendulkar, and third they should change the match result, because this is cheating... India should not have won that game.
 
Last edited:
sunny_155 said:
this decision should be reversed, like they did for Pakistan vs England test game, they changed it from abandon to win for england, so first they should find out what caused this error, secondly they should minus all the runs that scored after that from tendulkar, and third they should change the match result, because this is cheating... India should not have won that game.
Click to expand...

Lets come back to one fact now .pointed it out before now again,before semi final not oven one pak player is among the top 25 top run scorers of the tournament,not even one while in the list there was collins obuya,ryan ten doescathe etc.

That was how pathetic pak batting was in the tournament.And people telling if tendulkar was out they would have won easily lol.
 
So according to Mr Krishnan we are a pathetic side who would have lost Semi Final in any case. Understood.
 
Afridi_Fan said:
So according to Mr Krishnan we are a pathetic side who would have lost Semi Final in any case. Understood.
Click to expand...

How to twist words and add extra masala-best selling by afridi fan

1.pathetic batting is not equal to pathetic side.A side includes batting,bowling,wicketkeeping for your information

2.going by the words in some of the posts here-sachin out means big difference,won easily etc etc would have never happened.you would have had to bat hard to win with your batting whether it was 260 or 240 going by the batting form in the tournament and would not have not been easy and all
 
Krishnan said:
Lets come back to one fact now .pointed it out before now again,before semi final not oven one pak player is among the top 25 top run scorers of the tournament,not even one while in the list there was collins obuya,ryan ten doescathe etc.

That was how pathetic pak batting was in the tournament.And people telling if tendulkar was out they would have won easily lol.
Click to expand...

It's because Pakistan is the only side who didn't play on the flat tracks of India until the tense knockout stage.
 
Not been easy and pathetic batting as far as I know are two different things. But it seems all the Indians know cricket more than Pakistanis for the time being so I might be wrong here.
 
Abdullah22 said:
It's because Pakistan is the only side who didn't play on the flat tracks of India until the tense knockout stage.
Click to expand...

Upul tharanga,tilkeratne dilshan are in top 10 and they played only one match in mumbai where they scored 3 and 3 respectively,means 99 percent runs not in india.

Leave alone all that,i mean you dont even have to score that much to come in top 10 and all.But not even in top 25 with lot of associate players also in means something not good about the batting really.
 
Krishnan said:
Upul tharanga,tilkeratne dilshan are in top 10 and they played only one match in mumbai where they scored 3 and 3 respectively,means 99 percent runs not in india.

Leave alone all that,i mean you dont even have to score that much to come in top 10 and all.But not even in top 25 with lot of associate players also in means something not good about the batting really.
Click to expand...

Hello Mr do you have your own calculation of stats, since according to the stat listed in the following link two Pakistani players are in top 25:


Misbah at #19 and UA at # 24.:manzoor

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/icc_c...most_runs_career.html?id=4857;type=tournament

And

Tharanga and Dilshan played 8 out of their 9 matches on their home ground , if your not going to score there then I don't know where you will.:butt

EDIT: Jawardene just out scored Grandpa who is not at #20 but still 2 Pak players in top 25
 
Last edited:
Abdullah22 said:
Hello Mr do you have your own calculation of stats, since according to the stat listed in the following link two Pakistani players are in top 25:


Misbah at #19 and UA at # 24.:manzoor

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/icc_c...most_runs_career.html?id=4857;type=tournament

And

Tharanga and Dilshan played 8 out of their 9 matches on their home ground , if your not going to score there then I don't know where you will.:butt

EDIT: Jawardene just out scored Grandpa who is not at #20 but still 2 Pak players in top 25
Click to expand...


Had said before the indo-pak semi final
 
Krishnan said:
Had said before the indo-pak semi final
Click to expand...

Okay thanks for the clarification.

If we take out all the runs Indian players scored in India then none of the Indian players makes it to top 50.

Hope you get what I'm trying to say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Cricket Warrior
[EXCLUSIVE] "Sachin faced positive pressure, Babar faces hostility": Jonathan Agnew
2
Replies
92
Views
3K
TheSultan
T
Dr_Bassim
Did Sachin Tendulkar play against average teams or all-time great teams?
2 3 4
Replies
309
Views
7K
Hellion
H
Cricket Warrior
[PICTURES] ICC T20 World Cup: Controversial LBW decision in Mahmudullah's dismissal against South Africa
Replies
17
Views
860
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
atreus
  • Article Article
Viv Richards and Sachin Tendulkar — are they really far apart statistically?
Replies
7
Views
504
atreus
atreus
J
Is Babar Azam the Sachin Tendulkar of Pakistan?
2 3
Replies
178
Views
6K
Fanboy375
Fanboy375
Back
Top