Remove this Banner Ad

Cricket things that annoy you

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

One small part of the traditionalist in me agrees but the rest doesn’t: well the names anyway.

Numbers yes I think they’re pointless, but what’s wrong with the names?


I honestly have no logical reason, just feels tacky. I realise it probably makes it easier for fans, but I never felt like cricketers were moving around so much you couldn’t tell who was who.
 
I honestly have no logical reason, just feels tacky. I realise it probably makes it easier for fans, but I never felt like cricketers were moving around so much you couldn’t tell who was who.

Fair point. I think the big thing is that for a long time during the 70s and 80s when a lot of people (not sure of your age) and even 90s, you had the Aussies playing who generally everyone would know, and touring sides where MOST fans were fairly familiar with the faces they saw because there were less teams, so they were touring more often, and they didn’t have 3 separate squads for 3 different formats: they’d arrive, play the World Series cup, play their test matches, then be back a few years later with 50-80 per cent similar players so you’d be familiar with a lot of them and know who they were.

Now nobody knows one player from the next when they get here. I follow cricket as close as most and beyond Babar, Rizwan, Abbas - and I didn’t even realise he was back in the team - and 1-2 others - I would be f**ked trying to recognise anyone in the Pakistan team that played the other night
 
Fair point. I think the big thing is that for a long time during the 70s and 80s when a lot of people (not sure of your age) and even 90s, you had the Aussies playing who generally everyone would know, and touring sides where MOST fans were fairly familiar with the faces they saw because there were less teams, so they were touring more often, and they didn’t have 3 separate squads for 3 different formats: they’d arrive, play the World Series cup, play their test matches, then be back a few years later with 50-80 per cent similar players so you’d be familiar with a lot of them and know who they were.

Now nobody knows one player from the next when they get here. I follow cricket as close as most and beyond Babar, Rizwan, Abbas - and I didn’t even realise he was back in the team - and 1-2 others - I would be f**ked trying to recognise anyone in the Pakistan team that played the other night
I can remember when the scoreboard operators used to put a dot or a dash next to the fielders name on the scoreboard so you could tell who it was when you were at the ground.
 
DRS.

So much annoys me about DRS I hardly know where to begin. For a start, the system was implemented to eradicate the "howler". All very good, but we rarely see that. In the case of Jaiswal's not out being overturned, terrific. Cummins KNEW it was out and called for the review immediately. No discussion necessary.

However, I detest these 15 second committee meetings trying to decide whether the umpire MAY have got it wrong. I'd give them 5 seconds to decide, not 15. Then we see the ridiculous situation where a team has 3 reviews, they get it wrong but retain the review. WTF? They got it wrong, why should they retain it?

IMHO, Ball tracking is nothing more than an educated guess. It should be scrapped and only used for edges, stumpings, run outs, etc. Make the umpires get it right. Ball tracking is not proof, I've seen way too many times where the ball behaved like the magic bullet. We've all seen them. The ball is pitching in line, hits the batsman on the back foot playing from the crease, then mysteriously takes off and missing leg stump by a margin or bouncing over the top? WTF?

I feel too many umpires use it as a security blanket, waiting for players to do their job for them. Ridiculous calls for run outs when the batsman has passed the crease and almost past the stumps. Umpires should be making those calls themselves, otherwise why are they even out there?

And finally, 9 wickets down, a plumb LBW or clear catch to win the Test match, players jumping around celebrating, and the No.11 calls for the review and just annoys the crap out of everyone.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

One small part of the traditionalist in me agrees but the rest doesn’t: well the names anyway.

Numbers yes I think they’re pointless, but what’s wrong with the names?
Found the names useful on Monday trying to identify some of the sub fielders through the binoculars.

Numbers are unnecessary though I agree.
 
DRS.

So much annoys me about DRS I hardly know where to begin. For a start, the system was implemented to eradicate the "howler". All very good, but we rarely see that. In the case of Jaiswal's not out being overturned, terrific. Cummins KNEW it was out and called for the review immediately. No discussion necessary.

However, I detest these 15 second committee meetings trying to decide whether the umpire MAY have got it wrong. I'd give them 5 seconds to decide, not 15. Then we see the ridiculous situation where a team has 3 reviews, they get it wrong but retain the review. WTF? They got it wrong, why should they retain it?

IMHO, Ball tracking is nothing more than an educated guess. It should be scrapped and only used for edges, stumpings, run outs, etc. Make the umpires get it right. Ball tracking is not proof, I've seen way too many times where the ball behaved like the magic bullet. We've all seen them. The ball is pitching in line, hits the batsman on the back foot playing from the crease, then mysteriously takes off and missing leg stump by a margin or bouncing over the top? WTF?

I feel too many umpires use it as a security blanket, waiting for players to do their job for them. Ridiculous calls for run outs when the batsman has passed the crease and almost past the stumps. Umpires should be making those calls themselves, otherwise why are they even out there?

And finally, 9 wickets down, a plumb LBW or clear catch to win the Test match, players jumping around celebrating, and the No.11 calls for the review and just annoys the crap out of everyone.
It has improved the game.

When people complain that it "was supposed to get rid of the howler" guess what, it has.

Of course it brings with it it's own peculiarities , but overall the game is in a good place with it. Perfectionists will never be pleased.
 
Found the names useful on Monday trying to identify some of the sub fielders through the binoculars.

Numbers are unnecessary though I agree.
Besides Root (66) I wouldn’t know a player around the world on number, not even a wild guess.

Maybe kids minds adapt to it? I remember a few from the ODI days in the 90’s as a kid, only the Aussies though. If that’s the case I don’t have a problem with it.
 
One small part of the traditionalist in me agrees but the rest doesn’t: well the names anyway.

Numbers yes I think they’re pointless, but what’s wrong with the names?

the numbers are probably more for the kids - merchandise etc and to align with white ball and keep the kids interested in keeping test cricket alive as well - it's all i've got.

i guess based on the below, there really isn't a need for numbers - all it is, is dressing up the players shirt.

the numbers can be irrelevant as there's been numerous examples of players changing:

gillespie went from 13 to 4
lehmann 25 to 10
clarke 49 to 23
symonds 39 to 63

the '99 world cup saw numbers first used in a world cup where the captains wore #1 and the shirt numbers were all 1-15 so warne wore 5 instead of 23, waugh wore 1 instead of 5 etc.

another notable change was gayle from 45 to 333.

i'm sure players wear different numbers in all these franchise 20/20 leagues at times.

the double digit numbers seem to be popular as well 33.marnus, 77 abbott, 88 zampa

some shield examples are head wears 34 for SA, and 63 for aust, carey wears 5 for SA and 4 for aust.
 
It has improved the game.

When people complain that it "was supposed to get rid of the howler" guess what, it has.

Of course it brings with it it's own peculiarities , but overall the game is in a good place with it. Perfectionists will never be pleased.
But that's the problem: it only gets rid of the howler if there are reviews left.

Joel Wilson goes down in history because of a howler of a decision he made with no reviews left turning the result of an Ashes test and thus that specific Ashes series. All because the broadcasters don't need the decisions to be correct; what they need/want is the drama, the tension of waiting for a decision to be handed down, the awfulness of it being now the captain's fault for misusing their reviews earlier, the tragedy that turned a match on its head.

DRS - specifically on LBW's - is a time wasting piece of shit that is built in such a way as to allow the illusion of 'getting it right' when in fact creating heightened drama to sell the sport.
 
It has improved the game.

When people complain that it "was supposed to get rid of the howler" guess what, it has.

Of course it brings with it it's own peculiarities , but overall the game is in a good place with it. Perfectionists will never be pleased.
Cannot agree. It has brought in more controversy we could do without.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

I actually like the "retains review" when 1%-50% of the ball is hitting/missing (opposite to umpires decision).

My only issue with DRS (apart from when the 3rd ump gets it wrong!) is the 51% of the ball to overturn a decision. I know this is due to the 'dot' the software uses (then a ball is extrapolated around the dot), but feel at least in Australia we have enough cameras/graphics/data points to narrow the margin considerably, with perhaps 25% or even 10% of the ball hitting being sufficient.

How often do we see someone bowled by hitting the bail or outside edge of the stump? How often are the stumps hit, yet the bails stay on? At the moment, DRS is saying it's 50/50, when it's probably 99% of the time it is out.
 
I actually like the "retains review" when 1%-50% of the ball is hitting/missing (opposite to umpires decision).

My only issue with DRS (apart from when the 3rd ump gets it wrong!) is the 51% of the ball to overturn a decision. I know this is due to the 'dot' the software uses (then a ball is extrapolated around the dot), but feel at least in Australia we have enough cameras/graphics/data points to narrow the margin considerably, with perhaps 25% or even 10% of the ball hitting being sufficient.

How often do we see someone bowled by hitting the bail or outside edge of the stump? How often are the stumps hit, yet the bails stay on? At the moment, DRS is saying it's 50/50, when it's probably 99% of the time it is out.

I understand what you’re trying to say, the relevance to an ACTUAL ball clipping the stumps doesn’t matter though because the Hawkeye projections are all about what Hawkeye says MIGHT happen but acknowledges isn’t certain; so when it says ‘look we think it would probably clip the bails which we know would be out, we also know that the projection is imperfect, THATS why there’s a margin of error.’ But to avoid ONLY batsmen benefitting from that margin of error they have ensured that if the bowler has already had the decision go their way, the decision doesn’t get overturned when the ball is clipping during the batsman’s review.

I think that’s fair enough.
 
The umpires call on DRS.
Example a. Jaiswal for one example is hit plumb in front = not out. Australia review. 49% of ball hit. Umpires call due to hawke eye margin for error. Decision remains
B. Boland hit in front. Out . Boland as batsman reviews Hawkeye says ball missing by 1mm Decesion over turned.

Why is umpires call applied for example a but not example b. Shouldn't a of margin of error exist for both scenarios with umpires call? Otherwise ditch it all together.
Another example of obvious bias to batsmen
 
I understand what you’re trying to say, the relevance to an ACTUAL ball clipping the stumps doesn’t matter though because the Hawkeye projections are all about what Hawkeye says MIGHT happen but acknowledges isn’t certain; so when it says ‘look we think it would probably clip the bails which we know would be out, we also know that the projection is imperfect, THATS why there’s a margin of error.’ But to avoid ONLY batsmen benefitting from that margin of error they have ensured that if the bowler has already had the decision go their way, the decision doesn’t get overturned when the ball is clipping during the batsman’s review.

I think that’s fair enough.
This
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Cricket things that annoy you


Write your reply...

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top