Raghav_12 Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 Ok' date=' tell me which Indian appeals that were plumb were turned down, and i'll upload them. Put up or shut up. Cricinfo has written so many ridiculously wrong articles, they have even taken a few down after i have provided video proof to them that they were wrong. That Indian test was marred by pathetic Indian batting and bowling, not the umpiring. watch the video, i don't need some biased cricinfo article.[/quote'] FYI.. These are not cricinfo's comments. Cricinfo quotes Wisden over there ,which is much less likely to be biased that too in India's favour.
Lurker Posted January 24, 2012 Author Posted January 24, 2012 Ok' date=' tell me which Indian appeals that were plumb were turned down, and i'll upload them. Put up or shut up. Cricinfo has written so many ridiculously wrong articles, they have even taken a few down after i have provided video proof to them that they were wrong. That Indian test was marred by pathetic Indian batting and bowling, not the umpiring. watch the video, i don't need some biased cricinfo article.[/quote'] I looked that up mate, and its not Cricinfo suggesting that, but a direct rip-off from the Wisden article of the year. http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/152075.html Now unless you are suggesting Wisden was wrong as well....:blink:
Robelinda Posted January 25, 2012 Posted January 25, 2012 Did you watch the match? Not the first time a match report was wrong, having been written by someone who watched highlights only. Show me how many of the lbw's weren't out, in the video, sure wasn't all 8 of them. You can't get any more proof than the actual match footage, which will always be 100% more accurate than some article.
Lurker Posted January 25, 2012 Author Posted January 25, 2012 Did you watch the match? Not the first time a match report was wrong' date=' having been written by someone who watched highlights only. Show me how many of the lbw's weren't out, in the video, sure wasn't all 8 of them. You can't get any more proof than the actual match footage, which will always be 100% more accurate than some article.[/quote'] Well no non-Aussie would have watched the match I would think. This was pre-cable era. All we got to see was 45 minutes highlights at the end of the day/night. By all accounts it was a pretty well contested match, a pretty remarkable media (Widen) has been mentioned that umpiring was doubtful, so it is hard to simply agree by what you might be suggesting here. But yeah if you have the clips you may want to put it up some place folks can go to.
Robelinda Posted January 25, 2012 Posted January 25, 2012 Scroll up, i already posted the video. Scroll up..... I also should add, i didn't respect that umpire at all, hated him. But there were a few tests where he was unfairly canned in the press, and others where he was quite outstanding. he also wasn't biased, he gave many ridiculous decisions against Australia, mostly just incompetent umpiring, but i don't think that Adelaide test vs India was all that bad. A few in the 80's were awful.
Lurker Posted January 25, 2012 Author Posted January 25, 2012 Scroll up, i already posted the video. Scroll up..... I also should add, i didn't respect that umpire at all, hated him. But there were a few tests where he was unfairly canned in the press, and others where he was quite outstanding. he also wasn't biased, he gave many ridiculous decisions against Australia, mostly just incompetent umpiring, but i don't think that Adelaide test vs India was all that bad. A few in the 80's were awful. I think you are getting riled up for no reason. What you have posted is one side of the story. Where is the missing piece? Of Indian lbws shout being rejected. Maybe you can scroll up too mate? And see your ignorance yourself? Kinda surprised to see you get defensive for no reason. More so when what has been quoted here is perhaps the most reputed cricketing journal around the world. You do not agree with it, fair enough but whats with the extra aggro??? And here I was thinking you would maybe post longer shoots, as you seem to have a good stack of those...
Robelinda Posted January 25, 2012 Posted January 25, 2012 I haven't even been able to find the 2 Indian appeals that were rejected, and I don't even remember them, the 'report' doesn't say the two appeals should've been given out, just that there were two appeals. There were actually a few appeals against the Indian batsmen that were plumb but not given. and whats a longer shoot???
Lurker Posted January 25, 2012 Author Posted January 25, 2012 I haven't even been able to find the 2 Indian appeals that were rejected, and I don't even remember them, the 'report' doesn't say the two appeals should've been given out, just that there were two appeals. There were actually a few appeals against the Indian batsmen that were plumb but not given. and whats a longer shoot??? Actually what the article suggests is that only 2 Indian lbws were given. In other words many, perhaps most, of the Indian lbw shouts were not given while Aussies had 8 of these. Longer shot was meant to see if you could have other shots aside from the wickets. Would be nice to see the 8 wickets of Kapil from the same match and his 50. Incidentally do you have your hands on 85-86 test series between India and Australia down under when India came close to winning 2 tests? Both ended in draw of course.
Robelinda Posted January 25, 2012 Posted January 25, 2012 And I posted that video AGES ago, i can't read peoples minds you know, someone asked for the Indian LBW's so i posted them, there was no reason to include two random Indian bowlers appeals that may or may not exist from an innings earlier in the test. I didn't make that video in preparation for this exact thread, OBVIOUSLY. If anyone knows when the Indian appeals happened i will find them and upload them, there is zero evidence by anyone that the appeals should've been upheld, pretty obvious that the author may also have known they were probably not out because he didn't go any further in describing them, just merely stated that India got "all but two appeals rejected". So reading that, there was an undetermined amount of appeals rejected, no number is given, pretty crappy journalism really, if they were THAT plumb and there was so many of them (which there wasn't ) then why not say how many should've been given out, rather he says 2 were given out. Sounds like very dodgy writing to me, with the purpose to rile up the visiting teams fans.
Lurker Posted January 25, 2012 Author Posted January 25, 2012 And I posted that video AGES ago, i can't read peoples minds you know, someone asked for the Indian LBW's so i posted them, there was no reason to include two random Indian bowlers appeals that may or may not exist from an innings earlier in the test. I didn't make that video in preparation for this exact thread, OBVIOUSLY. If anyone knows when the Indian appeals happened i will find them and upload them, there is zero evidence by anyone that the appeals should've been upheld, pretty obvious that the author may also have known they were probably not out because he didn't go any further in describing them, just merely stated that India got "all but two appeals rejected". So reading that, there was an undetermined amount of appeals rejected, no number is given, pretty crappy journalism really, if they were THAT plumb and there was so many of them (which there wasn't ) then why not say how many should've been given out, rather he says 2 were given out. Sounds like very dodgy writing to me, with the purpose to rile up the visiting teams fans. In that case you have your work cut out then. Please take it with Cricinfo, dont shoot the messenger(s) who are quoting, and referencing a link from a well respected journal. :winky:
bulbul Posted January 25, 2012 Posted January 25, 2012 We are getting hammered there and people cry about wrong umpiring decisions happened 20 years back :hysterical:
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