The age old question...

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Lurker]

What i mean by that.. is not that the losing team would win' date=' but i mean that the end result would be different. If aus was going to win.. instead of winnning by 300 runs, they would win by 326. But yes, it would make a difference[/quote'] And what I mean is how come you have Indians coming up with umpiring every now and then? And why is our voice not heard? Simple. Cos we lose and it comes across as whining. Of course you will have people suggesting we dont compain cos we beleive in SKC whatever that means. But to come to crux of your point, that every little decision, good or bad, will affect the game if not the end result. Thats a fair argument but I must say all this leads to the uncertainty in cricket. There is no other game that is called, "game of uncertainty" now is it? The game is good, the umpires are good lets just get along with it. If we get too caught in technology whats next? Having a closed stadium so that we cut off natural air and wind that alters the direction of ball? xx

[yoda]

The game is good, the umpires are good lets just get along with it.

they absolutely are not. the likes of jerkling are a disgrace.

[Holysmoke]

have to go.. will be happy to continue this tomo, lurks.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Predator_05]

Lurks stay tuned for stats on spectacular collapses.

Yaar, why let FACTS get in the way of what is DESTINED to happen. Australia were DESTINED to score 350, even if Ponting would have been out for 46. It was THEIR DESTINY. Seriously, how can you top high-calibre qualitative analysis such as this ?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[MundaPakistani]

You can't go by whatever you want. Remember the batsmen are playing according to the rules. What does 'defeated' mean? Some could say being hit in the chin by a bouncer is 'defeated'.

off course there should be some guide lines but i have a problem when the rules are followed literally from the book. Secondly i don't think by hitting a bowler becomes a winner by hitting the batsman on the head...it only shows that the bowler has the potential to defeat the batsman.

[Lurker]

Okay there have been 424 occasions when the side has lost the last 7 wkts (4-10) for less than 50 runs

BB I am sure thats a lot of work but frankly it would be useless unless it is done in proper context. Since we are talking specifically about Ponting's innings and you have surfaced I am assuming you are trying to show collapse in the light of that(let me know if I am mistaken). That said the contexts that should define the collapses should be: 1) Collapse should happen for Australian team, specifically in the period of 1995-2005. 2) Collapse should happen against Indian team, specifically in the period of 1995-2005. 3) Collapse should happen after a team has been scoring at 6 runs an over for 37 overs(lets role it to 30 overs or so for simplicity) and loss of 2(or thereabouts) wickets. My point being there is no point in showing how India has collapsed against Australia, when actually we are trying to show Australian (possible) collapse against India. I am the first to concede it would be rather cumbersome, see what you can come up with. xxx

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Lurker]

That criteria right there narrows it down to about 15 tests and the others narrow it down furher ... Whats the point of this exercise ?

The point of this exercise is to nail the issue at hand and not move the goalposts. Unless you are talking of completely different thing the issue at hand here is Ponting's innings in 2003 WC finals. The two teams in question are India and Australia and the era is 2000's. So obviously I have little interest in an England-West Indies Test match that happened in 1902. If we can get a few games like that then that would make for a valid example else this whole exercise is futile, hard work not withstanding. I shall ignore your rants about Ponting dump etc. xx

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Lurker]

I dont even need to look for such an instance (If it wasnt obvious to you)... as you clearly dont seem to grasp the point. The point is a Team losing 7 or 8 wkts for 50 runs has a much larger probablity of happening than a Tied test match or winning after being asked to follow on. If those two can happen so can a team lose 8 wkts. Thats the beauty of Test Match cricket the propensity to throw up the most unexpected U-Turn and umpires are not allowed to alter the natural course by making howlers never mind those that involve bias.

Well then you butt in the wrong party(and please watch your arse on the way out). Read up this thread. The point of the collapse has origins about Ponting's innings. If you can't grasp that dont take it out on me with a "it was not obvious to you" blah blah. Show me what I am looking for else dont butt in uninvited. Sounds fair? xxx

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Lurker]

Whats with Agro .... ? Last time I checked there were no rules on who comments on what .... if my comment bothers you soo much feel free to ignore it .... sheeesh

Huh? You jump in a discussion with stats about collapses and turns out your work was for a complete different universe. To top that you have the galls to suggest Ponting dump and that it was "not obvious to you". Would have been much better if you followed the crux of this thread rather than butt in and then accuse me of aggro. Anyway seems we are speaking different language so lets call quits on that. xxx

[The Outsider]

Didn't Austrlaia lose their last 8-9 wickets for 70-80 runs at Calcutta in '01 and then in the Chennai test again their last 7 wickets for 50-60 runs when Hayden scored his double century or again at Adelaide losing the last 7 for 80-90 runs or at Chennai in '04 lost the last 8 for 40-50 runs? Not saying it would have happened in the WC final but chances were certainly higher of it happening if Ponting was given out than when he wasn't.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

A question to those who feel further technology should not be introduced - do you support revoking technology for run outs and stumpings. If yes why, if no why not?