Vijay.Sharma Posted July 30, 2011 Posted July 30, 2011 Post Match talk show and the mention of Nass saying BCCI's decision of no LBW for UDRS is disgraceful comes up. Shaz goes bonkers and boy did I love it or what? Shaz sez something like: "Who the hell is Nasser to say BCCI is disgraceful Both teams get the same thing Basically, England are jealous of the BCCI They are jealous that BCCI is strong They are jealous that the IPL is a success They are jealous India is the number 1 They are jealous India won the WC" I tell you, enough of trying to get back at them with sarcasm and just get confrontational and give it back to the bast@rds, sorry "love children". One of these fellows must engage them with a direct question like the way Warnie did with Athers and Athers went silent and shut his trap and didn't open his mouth or go to that topic at all. And Warnie did it in defense of India's IPL. Come on Shaz, Dada, and Gavva just fu
Misu243 Posted July 30, 2011 Posted July 30, 2011 Nasser will shut up for good after the Trent Bridge test...loss definitely on its way to England.
surajmal Posted July 30, 2011 Posted July 30, 2011 I think it was unnecessary. English are cvnts. As the elder statesman of cricket, India needn't acknowledge cvnts. It will only increase their chewtiyapa.
surajmal Posted July 30, 2011 Posted July 30, 2011 Again I think we take the English too seriously. Its one thing for the Aussies to take a dig at India. Afterall they were the champs for 10+ years. But English? Come on. As King Julian said in Madagascar: "They just a bunch of pansies"
Ramzz Posted July 30, 2011 Posted July 30, 2011 I saw it, awesome Ravi! I hate your repetitive commentary but did I love this part. Should be interesting days play tomorrow.
Vijay.Sharma Posted July 30, 2011 Author Posted July 30, 2011 Oh yeah I forgot, Shaz said one other thing "They have never been number 1...at the top. Let them get there first and then talk" Gold! Platinum! Diamond! I saw the Shaz of 1984/85 today. He got heavy criticism for playing tukku tukku in a Test against England. In the very next game...twas a Ranji trophy match...the way he blasted was just awesome. The 6 sixes in an over came in that game. Today he looked similarly poked and annoyed.
Blue Panther Posted July 30, 2011 Posted July 30, 2011 IMG handled logistics in the first four seasons of the IPL. Yesterday, the ED had summoned former Indian cricket captain Ravi Shastri for questioning in connection with alleged financial irregularities in the IPL.Shastri, who is out of the country currently, has been asked to help the ED in answering certain questions related to the Twenty20 league as he was on the IPL Governing Council. Shastri has been called to be present at the ED's office here next week to speed up the probe into the case. The ED is also probing the role of Modi, who is currently in London, for alleged contraventions of foreign exchange rules http://sports.in.msn.com/cricket/article.aspx?cp-documentid=5309965 Is he trying to show to bcci that he is still bcci's loyalist although he had good relationship with modi? Whatever it is, its great to hear that from ravi.
jaggadaku Posted July 30, 2011 Posted July 30, 2011 damn, missed it btw what did warnie say to ahterton
darkknight Posted July 30, 2011 Posted July 30, 2011 When power come to undeserved, wait for the hour.
apeeman Posted July 30, 2011 Posted July 30, 2011 came across this post today. interesting read. credit to the author http://cricketingview.blogspot.com/2011/07/on-being-reflexively-anti-bcci-and-anti.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CricketingView+(A+Cricketing+View) On Being Reflexively Anti-BCCI And Anti-anti-BCCI About DRS he DRS debate has been held hostage by the reflexively anti-BCCI attitudes taken by most of the English Press. Apparently, Nasser Hussein referred to the inability of Harbhajan Singh to refer his LBW decision (there was an inside edge) as a "disgrace". Ravi Shastri took issue with that during his post match conversation with Harsha Bhogle and Sourav Ganguly. He may be guilty of overusing cliches (please forgive the tautology) on commentary, but this was a palpable display of fury. "What right does he have to call it a 'disgrace'?" asked Shastri, and went on to paint the English attitude to this DRS issue as a furiously anti-BCCI one. He then went on to accuse England of being "jealous" of everything BCCI does, and everything the Indian Cricket team has achieved. He ended his rant, curiously enough by saying "Lets face it, England have never been the World No 1 Test team". In about 30 seconds, Ravi Shastri went from taking clear aim at an English attitude that he apparently hates, to throwing that very same attitude back at England with plenty of interest and a little bit of khadoosgiri thrown in. While this sounds great in the moment, it serves no actual purpose. I have no idea why Hussein thinks its a "disgrace" that DRS is not used for LBWs, and why he thinks this is BCCI's fault. But I am intrigued by the deal struck between BCCI and ECB about DRS. Both BCCI and DRS had no trouble with hotspot. Both BCCI and ECB had no trouble with using DRS to eliminate obvious howlers (they are using it for caught decisions). So why was DRS not allowed for LBW decisions, without the use of ball tracking? How did the negotiation go? For what it is worth, the ECB are equally to blame for DRS not being used in LBWs. It is preposterous that, having agreed to this design of DRS for this series, they can then continue to complain about it. Andy Flower and Andrew Strauss have stated on the record that they are not happy with DRS. If they don't like it, why did they agree to it? And having agreed to it, why are they now criticizing it? Assuming there was an actual negotiation, it is reasonable to assume that the ECB's starting position would have been for LBWs to be fully within the purview of the DRS with full use of ball tracking and hotspot. BCCI must have started from the position that ball tracking should be kept out of LBW decisions. How then, did both sides arrive at a conclusion where LBWs are excluded altogether? Was it England who said that if they couldn't have ball tracking, they'd rather not use reviews for LBWs in any way? Or was it BCCI who said that there should be no hotspot? It is extremely difficult to arrive at the conclusion that BCCI and ECB did with regard to LBW decisions in DRS, based on their respective arguments about the technology. Ravi Shastri was absolutely clear that the purpose of DRS was to eliminate howlers (and he's a member of the ICC's Cricket Committee). He also made the eminently sensible point that with all the noise at cricket grounds, the Umpire can occasionally miss inside edges, and that batsmen can actually know whether or not they've hit the ball. If Player Reviews are the way to go, then it makes sense to allow batsmen to request reviews in case where they actually some definite information to base their review on. If howlers are the issue, then surely, the third umpire is best equipped to deal with them. The simplest solution would be to let the TV Umpire correct howlers without the players being required to ask for them to be reviewed. But we are getting ahead of ourselves here. The most serious problem with DRS is that the agencies charged with making decisions about it seem incapable of making coherent arguments about it. The BCCI has at least been clear about its reservations, ball tracking wise. The ECB and the ICC, as proponents of technology, have not had to make a single argument to support their positions. But getting them to argue about it and present their arguments to the cricket watching public seems, how shall I put it, impossibly adult at the moment.
darkknight Posted July 30, 2011 Posted July 30, 2011 came across this post today. interesting read. credit to the author http://cricketingview.blogspot.com/2011/07/on-being-reflexively-anti-bcci-and-anti.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CricketingView+(A+Cricketing+View) I agree with him, Shastri is an idiot to say something like that. Thers's nothing great about it, except making fool of himself.
julianlev Posted July 30, 2011 Posted July 30, 2011 I think it was unnecessary. English are cvnts. As the elder statesman of cricket' date=' India needn't acknowledge cvnts. It will only increase their chewtiyapa.[/quote'] their what?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now