for the record quantify how exactly will they not accept being judged by a human they can't trust?
_________________________________________
Quantify? You must use the word "explain" here. Something like this cannot be quantified. Gosh, please learn some English and type it here so that I can read and understand.
And then you question my ability to read!
BCCI opposed to Bucknor standing in the Perth Test of 2008 after his deplorable performance in the Sydney Test of 2008. Bucknor was evicted from the Perth Test by the ICC.
Now that's one example of where an umpire was removed from a Test because he was not trusted by a team.
Another example is that the ICC made sure that Darrell Hair didn't feature in any Test involving Muralitharan/SL after the SL cricket board raised doubts over his impartiality. (I'm not quite sure of it since I don't have the article with me)
Yet another example is that Darrell Hair was removed from the ICC Elite Panel after the Oval Test of 2006 after Pakistan objected to his manner of handling the situation.
_________________________________________
There is as much prediction in hawkeye as there is with a human umpire,
______________________________________
Exactly the point the I, the Indian players and the BCCI are making. Why use another technology that is no better than the umpire? It merely complicates the game. So the predictive ball-tracking should be removed and Hotspot and Snicko put in place- if so, the BCCI would be happy with it.
I have already written an article about it in JA606- look it up for further info.
___________________________________________
and what about the fact that players pretty much the world over want the system introduced.
____________________________
That is irrelevant. The ICC has a veto in place. That means one nation can stand alone and oppose- and others have to listen to it.
Ever heard what veto means?
_______________________________
I did give you a reason for the 3 year question
_____________
Really? Care to type it again?
I believe your reluctance comes from being scared of the answer.
______________
Oh, are you a mind-reader? Why do you choose to speculate on my thinking?
I choose not to answer because it is irrelevant.
_________________________________________
You've already stated you have no problem in spouting lines of text to preach your views on others.
_____________
Really? Care to show where I said that?
I never like to give sermons.
_____________________________
Actually, in fact don't bother if you wish, I don't want to read any more of your biased nonsense..enough for one day.
_______
As you wish. Bye!
What makes you think I am scared to answer the 3 years question?
Kohli, Raina etc are smashing all attacks while Praveen, Ishant Sreesanth etc are bowling out batsmen.
India's spin stock is on the rise- Mishra, Ashwin etc.
India's 2nd XI is winning ODI as well as Test series.
India's future is bright. Besides, there are others waiting in the wings as well and others yet to be discovered in the coming 3 years.
But I don't need to worry about India's future- they have many paid professionals worrying about that.
As a fan, I should live in the present and enjoy whatever success comes my way, since worrying about the future I can't accomplish anything.
Rex, I have the feeling you are on a commission for every line you post. We're helping you get rich.
hopefor:
Still worrying about me, my personality and my life?
Gosh- this is so much fun!
Glad I wound you up so much. Can't believe I'm biting but ok, here we go...
quantify - definition: Define the application of (a term or proposition) by the use of all, some, etc.
(ask google if you wish)
Anyway, fair enough you did that with the Bucknor/Hair waffle, but special circumstances aside what I was actually sarcastically asking was in regard to the competence of Harper and de Silva. You have to admit this pairing, coupled with a lack of DRS is a catalyst for some interesting series sub-plots. Unfair of me to criticise too much, after all they can do the job better than I of course, but it's still their job.
As for : 'Exactly the point the I, the Indian players and the BCCI are making. Why use another technology that is no better than the umpire?' - Simply because it eradicates any obvious mistakes made, and hence why players like it....I'll spell it out simply:
It is better than human umpires, it removes their mistakes, and claiming a predictability excuse is nonsense because the alternative suggested is more flawed by the very same mechanism you defend. Can you, the BCCI or any Indian players possibly understand this?
As for asking if I've heard of ever seen the use of veto before, shall we ignore the sarcastic clever semantics, as you've already made a fool of yourself in this regard.
Reason for the 3 year question (just because you cant read):
Because you're next generation of a currently ageing batting line-up are not exactly setting the world alight against the Windies. In fact it seems they are being saved by the superb Mr. Dravid.
I was only asking an opinion.
Back to semantics and my ability to read your mind, I actually used the word believe, as in have faith in the absence of proof (As in John believes in God, do you understand?) If I could read your mind I would have proof and then would state what I say as categorical fact.
I agree the question is irrelevant to the England-India series, but very much relevant in terms of a game your team is currently (yes, currently) playing, and hence I would say relevant indeed. As I say, I was simply trying to gain your opinion in this matter, don't answer if you wish.
"comment by Rex (U3513) posted 43 minutes ago
Hoggy:
"in their last series against SA England's bowler performed as well as India's and in their last series against Australia England's bowlers performed better."
Really? How so?
India in full strength (with Zaheer Khan) bowled out SA twice in 2 Tests and in all occasions lesser than 375.
A full strength England took 20 wickets against SA only once in 4 Tests, and conceded 400+ in one innings in all the other 3 Tests.
As for Australia, like I said before, conditions were different and so was the opposition, to an extent, so it cannot be directly compared. Besides, India won the two Tests they faced against Aus, so what's there to criticize about that?"
And conditions, personnel, form etc. differed between England's series with SA and India's.
Thing is, just as you can't extrapolate anything from England's performance in SA and against Oz in comparison to India's, you can't do the opposite either, so none of these facts actually prove anything.
So what we're left with is opinion.
You have yours, I have mine,
Even the upcoming series possibly won't answer the question, because it could be argued that India's bowling has the easier task, but, having watched both attacks over the last couple of years, I'll stand by my opinion that, in most conditions, England's current attack is better than India's. Not by a huge amount, but better all the same.
"And conditions, personnel, form etc. differed between England's series with SA and India's."
This supposedly major point of yours is answered by another sentence of your own.
"Not by a huge amount, but better all the same."
Conditions and personnel in England's series vis-a-vis India's series differed, but only made the task easier for England.
Yet they fared worse than India.
I was not extrapolating anything- I was merely discussing facts.
Is it a fact or not that England failed to bowl out SA in 3 of 4 Tests they played against SA?
Is it a fact or not that they failed to restrict SA to less than 400 in any of those 3 Tests?
Is it a fact or not that a full-strength India did better on that account? Bowl out SA twice in 2 Tests, and also restrict them to less than 375 in those two Tests?
There's no speculation or extrapolation here. Just pure hard facts.
India haven't faced Australia in Australia since 4 yrs ago.
But both India and England faced SA in SA in less than 2 years time.
So there's a lot of scope for comparison there.
______________________________________
______________________________________
danny:
You have to admit this pairing, coupled with a lack of DRS is a catalyst for some interesting series sub-plots.
************
I know that these umpires have a poor track record and the presence to question their judgment will be most useful in eliminating the howlers. I quite understand this and I strongly believe the UDRS must be swiftly introduced in all forms of the game.
But be as it may, neither I nor India should agree to an unfair UDRS and thereby cement its existence, for as long as the present DRS is opposed, the ICC will look to perfect it.
If it is accepted in its imperfect form, it shall never be changed. India will take any poor decisions that come their way as a consequence.
But really, if players have to fear that two umpires in the field without cameras will give poor decisions, then cricket must cease to exist.
Might I remind you that cricket has been in existence even before the presence of DRS and all that?
Not all technology is progress.
Like I have written in the UDRS article in JA606, the ICC must simply stop using Hawkeye for anything more than line decisions (that is deciding on point of impact or point where the ball pitched) rather than predicting the path of the ball.
If that happens, I, the Indian players and the BCCI will be happy to accept the DRS.
I don't know what the BCCI want, but what I stated above is what I want in the game.
Stop using the Hawkeye predictive mechanism. Use hotspot and Snicko for edges and Hawkeye for verifying point of pitching and impact, NOT the prediction after impact.
__________________________________________
"for the record quantify how exactly will they not accept being judged by a human they can't trust?"
Give me an example of how I could have "quantified" here?
Should I say some? All? A few? Most?
I didn't ask for the definition of quantify, but rather asked for the justification of its use in your sentence.
Giving me English lessons are you? Well two can play this game- and let me tell you- checking up definition on google will not help you communicate in English.
You have yet to learn how to use the word.
______________________________
Because you're next generation of a currently ageing batting line-up are not exactly setting the world alight against the Windies. In fact it seems they are being saved by the superb Mr. Dravid.
*************************************
You have only stated the reason now. Nowhere in this article have you stated this before, hence the reason I kept asking you for this.
I have already stated my reasons to believe India's future is bright.
In the same Test which you are looking at, India was saved in the 1st innings by Raina- who top-scored with 82.
Then India's young new ball bowlers took 6 wickets between them to skittle WI out for 173.
Did you just switch on in the 2nd innings? Well wait until India's young bowlers finish off the WI and you shall see why I say India's future is bright.
"I was not extrapolating anything- I was merely discussing facts."
And extrapolating from those facts the idea that India's bowlers are as good as England's.
And extrapolating from those facts the idea that India's bowlers are as good as England's.
____________________________________
That is not extrapolation.
That is conclusion. You make a premise and use a fact to arrive at a conclusion.
Gosh I have been teaching English on here.
Tell me how do you rate athletes? Using statistics is the most common method.
The Test ranking uses the same method too.
If Ind-Aus is 2-0 and SA-Aus is 1-0, then India is a better team than SA and both India and SA are a better team than Aus.
Where is the extrapolation here? This is merely comparison and conclusion!
"comment by Rex (U3513) posted 1 hour, 44 minutes ago
And extrapolating from those facts the idea that India's bowlers are as good as England's.
____________________________________
That is not extrapolation.
That is conclusion. You make a premise and use a fact to arrive at a conclusion.
Gosh I have been teaching English on here."
Definition of extrapolation:
1. To infer or estimate by extending or projecting known information.
That's precisely what you are doing here.
Estimating England and India's relative bowling strength by extending or projecting known information.
"extending or projecting known information."
I am not extending or projecting any of the information. I am only looking at the facts as is.
That is not extrapolation.
Let me give you an example of extrapolation.
Harbhajan took 15 wickets at 29.6 against SA in 5 innings.
Anderson took 16 wickets at 34.25 against SA in 7 innings
To say Harbhajan will take 30 wickets at 29.6 in 10 innings in SA would be extrapolation.
But to compare Anderson's and Harbhajan's stats against the same batsmen in the same conditions and say that Harbhajan was the better bowler would not be extrapolation.
India and England have both played against the same top team in the same conditions. That gives a lot of room and reason for valid comparison and arrive at conclusions.
How else can you compare two teams to arrive at a conclusion?
One thing you fail to admit over all this debate is that it is true that England haven't quite faced a top team in recent years and come out with their heads held high.
They barely escaped destruction against SA, got lucky over SL, and beat up a poor Australia and a Pakistan that did more fixing than playing matches.
England are a very good side, but stop hyping them up to be some invincible unit.
India, meanwhile has been involved in some titanic battles against SA- 5 of it actually, out of which they won 2, SL (with Murali and 6 batsmen) at their home, Aus and NZ at India's home etc.
I still quite remember all the talk about how India were supposed to be destroyed in SA in 2010, yet the South Africans were the ones running for cover by the end of the series.
hmmm lots of words I got bored of reading heres my opinion on the forth coming series.
India are currently the better side they are rightly number one in the world have an exceptional deep batting line-up and good bowlers.
England also have a very strong batting line-up but our players are less established as world class players. We have a potentially brilliant bowling attack Swing, pace, bounce, spin.
I think the series will come down to the things that usually settle close series. Player form, good preparation, conditions, score board pressure, weather.
To close to call cant wait for it to start hope the sunshines (when England are batting anyway)
"But to compare Anderson's and Harbhajan's stats against the same batsmen in the same conditions and say that Harbhajan was the better bowler would not be extrapolation."
A) Were conditions exactly the same?
B) To use the 'fact' that India's bowlers bowled as well or better than England's in one set of circumstances as the basis of a conclusion that they are as good or better in different circumstances certainly is extrapolation.
hey i am new to this site and i thank the OP for a great article. I will give my comments on this later.
Rex ( U3513)
"An out-of-form Ganguly has now been replaced by an in-form Raina"
Who said ganguly was out of form? he was the second highest scorer of the series behind kartik in 2007!!!! and wait , even in the south africa series where all the superstars felled he was the man who saved the team with an average of 53.95 and helped in winning the johannesburg test along with sreesanth.
But for a poor decision from the world's best umpire, he should have had a century at Trent Bridge, and at The Oval he played the most fluent innings of the series after coming in at 11 for three. Not bad for a has-been, a man consigned to Indian cricket's dustbin 18 months ago. He even retired with a first innings score of 85 during his last test against australia after which he was forced to retire... but baggyman dravid went on going without any credible score for 7 months. I think that even gavaskar was out for 0 during his last innings.
Other than this error the article is superb and 'tongue-in-cheek" for english fans.Sorry, couldn't resist a dig !!!!!
what a patronisng heading anyway.. Good on England.. wow well done England you may have a good chance against the mighty Indians who have only been at the top of the rankings a mere year and half..
'None of Cook's double tons in Aus could equal Tendulkar's 146 at Cape Town and I don't know any of Trott's innings that could be as good as Laxman's 96 at Durban'
frazer:
It may be true that Ganguly was having an excellent comeback in 2006/07, but the reason why I said he was out-of-form is because he was inconsistent- that is some good innings followed by poor performances, that it was hard to be reliant on him.
I guess his numbers are much better than I thought and truth be told I didn't follow his career much- so I can't be sure.
As for Dravid playing for 18 months woefully out of form, he had earned that time considering the fact that he was the golden batsman for India from 2000 to 2006.
_____________________________________
sport:
It wasn't patronizing at all. I am a big fan of KP and have recently become a fan of Morgan as well.
There was talk in the English papers that KP should be dropped and that Morgan should be replaced by Bopara. I was worried that England would take such knee-jerk reactions. But thankfully they didn't and this sets up the series against India nicely since KP seems to be back in form.
________________________________________
As for series result, I too believe it will be close and I reckon India's aging superstars will prevail against England's rising stars but only just. That's why I said India will win by a 1 Test margin.
Let's hope we get a series like the one WI-Aus played 50 years ago in Australia that rejuvenated Test cricket (also had the first Tie in Test Cricket history).
England have an excellent side that bodes very well for their future, but India's galaxy of stars is stronger. That is my opinion and they have deserved that opinion by their recent results.
_________________________________________
As for your crack about how India have been No.1 for just a year an half, well they have never been beaten in a series for the last 3 years, and have lost only 3 Tests during that period, all of which have been answered immediately with a stinging riposte of a victory.
That shows how quickly India bounce back- and will come in handy when playing in a 4-Test series.
What's more, so far they have not lost a single final/deciding Test of a series during those 3 yrs.
India is closing in on a test win in a foreign land without their 4 first choice players - sachin, gambhir, sehwag and zahir.
Compare this against a 1-0 win at home (with some stroke of luck at cardiff) against SL without Malinga.
Agreed India's opposition is a bottom team but they have other disadvantages of away and less than full strength team. This shows a big, not small, gap exists in quality between india and eng.
How it translates into victory margin is hard to guess - english weather, injuries etc.
rising:
That is cruel.
The whole series lost about 369 overs it seems- that is almost an entire Test.
How are England supposed to win a Test with so many overs lost due to rain?
Even India drew a Test against Bangladesh in 2007 due to rain.
so england bowling out a side for 80 odd is lucky?
Our 1 - 0 over a team ranked 3 in the world is a fine performance. All the tests were heavily effected by rain and we had the upper hand in the 2 draws.
India are going to beat WI away without 4 starters players thats grand.
However neither performance or result has any bearing on the England India series.
yes but if I remember right, Eng had more than a full day in the final test to make it 2-0 which they could not, never in the sight of victory.
the luck of the cardiff test was evident in contrast to the final match where bowlers had all the time to show up their skills which came to nothing.
SL is 4th ranked. beating a lower ranked team 1-0 at home with full strength vs beating full strength no.1 team.
eng are a very good team but overhyped which is the point of this article.
how many points would england gain after 1-0?
however had england had all 5 days to develop a position they would have had longer to bowl sri lanka out and the pitch would have been a 5th day pitch rather than trying to get 10 wickets on the equivilant of good 3rd day pitches. Lords was flat and difficult to get a result however we tried, hampshire was a 3rd day pitch due to weather and Sangakkara played well.
cardiff was an unbelievable performance which will not be repeated any time soon, however that doesnt make it lucky its just not a regular accurance
I dont know whose 'overhyping' england from what i read and hear most experts talk about the need for improvement and out of form players.
I presume your an Indian fan why not just enjoy your no 1 ranking and world cup win. I would be, not getting upset because England are doing alright at the moment
to call australia's batting line up "paper thin" does a gross injustice to them. watson is a good batsman and ponting, clarke and hussey are still world class. what let aus down in the ashes was their lackluster bowling, and also how well england's bowlers played.
i think the win in aus against a strong australian batting line up (except hughes and smith) shows just how good england's bowlers are. if there had not been rain, i think england would have won 3-0 against sri lanka. the series against india will be close but i'm predicting an england win justnon the strength of the bowling attack. underestimate them at your peril! also, if the selectors played finn over broad, i think the bowling line up would be even more effective.
Sign in if you want to comment
Good on England! A cracking series ahead
Page 2 of 3
posted on 22/6/11
for the record quantify how exactly will they not accept being judged by a human they can't trust?
_________________________________________
Quantify? You must use the word "explain" here. Something like this cannot be quantified. Gosh, please learn some English and type it here so that I can read and understand.
And then you question my ability to read!
BCCI opposed to Bucknor standing in the Perth Test of 2008 after his deplorable performance in the Sydney Test of 2008. Bucknor was evicted from the Perth Test by the ICC.
Now that's one example of where an umpire was removed from a Test because he was not trusted by a team.
Another example is that the ICC made sure that Darrell Hair didn't feature in any Test involving Muralitharan/SL after the SL cricket board raised doubts over his impartiality. (I'm not quite sure of it since I don't have the article with me)
Yet another example is that Darrell Hair was removed from the ICC Elite Panel after the Oval Test of 2006 after Pakistan objected to his manner of handling the situation.
_________________________________________
There is as much prediction in hawkeye as there is with a human umpire,
______________________________________
Exactly the point the I, the Indian players and the BCCI are making. Why use another technology that is no better than the umpire? It merely complicates the game. So the predictive ball-tracking should be removed and Hotspot and Snicko put in place- if so, the BCCI would be happy with it.
I have already written an article about it in JA606- look it up for further info.
___________________________________________
and what about the fact that players pretty much the world over want the system introduced.
____________________________
That is irrelevant. The ICC has a veto in place. That means one nation can stand alone and oppose- and others have to listen to it.
Ever heard what veto means?
_______________________________
I did give you a reason for the 3 year question
_____________
Really? Care to type it again?
I believe your reluctance comes from being scared of the answer.
______________
Oh, are you a mind-reader? Why do you choose to speculate on my thinking?
I choose not to answer because it is irrelevant.
_________________________________________
You've already stated you have no problem in spouting lines of text to preach your views on others.
_____________
Really? Care to show where I said that?
I never like to give sermons.
_____________________________
Actually, in fact don't bother if you wish, I don't want to read any more of your biased nonsense..enough for one day.
_______
As you wish. Bye!
posted on 22/6/11
What makes you think I am scared to answer the 3 years question?
Kohli, Raina etc are smashing all attacks while Praveen, Ishant Sreesanth etc are bowling out batsmen.
India's spin stock is on the rise- Mishra, Ashwin etc.
India's 2nd XI is winning ODI as well as Test series.
India's future is bright. Besides, there are others waiting in the wings as well and others yet to be discovered in the coming 3 years.
But I don't need to worry about India's future- they have many paid professionals worrying about that.
As a fan, I should live in the present and enjoy whatever success comes my way, since worrying about the future I can't accomplish anything.
posted on 22/6/11
Rex, I have the feeling you are on a commission for every line you post. We're helping you get rich.
posted on 22/6/11
hopefor:
Still worrying about me, my personality and my life?
Gosh- this is so much fun!
posted on 22/6/11
Glad I wound you up so much. Can't believe I'm biting but ok, here we go...
quantify - definition: Define the application of (a term or proposition) by the use of all, some, etc.
(ask google if you wish)
Anyway, fair enough you did that with the Bucknor/Hair waffle, but special circumstances aside what I was actually sarcastically asking was in regard to the competence of Harper and de Silva. You have to admit this pairing, coupled with a lack of DRS is a catalyst for some interesting series sub-plots. Unfair of me to criticise too much, after all they can do the job better than I of course, but it's still their job.
As for : 'Exactly the point the I, the Indian players and the BCCI are making. Why use another technology that is no better than the umpire?' - Simply because it eradicates any obvious mistakes made, and hence why players like it....I'll spell it out simply:
It is better than human umpires, it removes their mistakes, and claiming a predictability excuse is nonsense because the alternative suggested is more flawed by the very same mechanism you defend. Can you, the BCCI or any Indian players possibly understand this?
As for asking if I've heard of ever seen the use of veto before, shall we ignore the sarcastic clever semantics, as you've already made a fool of yourself in this regard.
Reason for the 3 year question (just because you cant read):
Because you're next generation of a currently ageing batting line-up are not exactly setting the world alight against the Windies. In fact it seems they are being saved by the superb Mr. Dravid.
I was only asking an opinion.
Back to semantics and my ability to read your mind, I actually used the word believe, as in have faith in the absence of proof (As in John believes in God, do you understand?) If I could read your mind I would have proof and then would state what I say as categorical fact.
I agree the question is irrelevant to the England-India series, but very much relevant in terms of a game your team is currently (yes, currently) playing, and hence I would say relevant indeed. As I say, I was simply trying to gain your opinion in this matter, don't answer if you wish.
posted on 22/6/11
"comment by Rex (U3513) posted 43 minutes ago
Hoggy:
"in their last series against SA England's bowler performed as well as India's and in their last series against Australia England's bowlers performed better."
Really? How so?
India in full strength (with Zaheer Khan) bowled out SA twice in 2 Tests and in all occasions lesser than 375.
A full strength England took 20 wickets against SA only once in 4 Tests, and conceded 400+ in one innings in all the other 3 Tests.
As for Australia, like I said before, conditions were different and so was the opposition, to an extent, so it cannot be directly compared. Besides, India won the two Tests they faced against Aus, so what's there to criticize about that?"
And conditions, personnel, form etc. differed between England's series with SA and India's.
Thing is, just as you can't extrapolate anything from England's performance in SA and against Oz in comparison to India's, you can't do the opposite either, so none of these facts actually prove anything.
So what we're left with is opinion.
You have yours, I have mine,
Even the upcoming series possibly won't answer the question, because it could be argued that India's bowling has the easier task, but, having watched both attacks over the last couple of years, I'll stand by my opinion that, in most conditions, England's current attack is better than India's. Not by a huge amount, but better all the same.
posted on 22/6/11
"And conditions, personnel, form etc. differed between England's series with SA and India's."
This supposedly major point of yours is answered by another sentence of your own.
"Not by a huge amount, but better all the same."
Conditions and personnel in England's series vis-a-vis India's series differed, but only made the task easier for England.
Yet they fared worse than India.
I was not extrapolating anything- I was merely discussing facts.
Is it a fact or not that England failed to bowl out SA in 3 of 4 Tests they played against SA?
Is it a fact or not that they failed to restrict SA to less than 400 in any of those 3 Tests?
Is it a fact or not that a full-strength India did better on that account? Bowl out SA twice in 2 Tests, and also restrict them to less than 375 in those two Tests?
There's no speculation or extrapolation here. Just pure hard facts.
India haven't faced Australia in Australia since 4 yrs ago.
But both India and England faced SA in SA in less than 2 years time.
So there's a lot of scope for comparison there.
______________________________________
______________________________________
danny:
You have to admit this pairing, coupled with a lack of DRS is a catalyst for some interesting series sub-plots.
************
I know that these umpires have a poor track record and the presence to question their judgment will be most useful in eliminating the howlers. I quite understand this and I strongly believe the UDRS must be swiftly introduced in all forms of the game.
But be as it may, neither I nor India should agree to an unfair UDRS and thereby cement its existence, for as long as the present DRS is opposed, the ICC will look to perfect it.
If it is accepted in its imperfect form, it shall never be changed. India will take any poor decisions that come their way as a consequence.
But really, if players have to fear that two umpires in the field without cameras will give poor decisions, then cricket must cease to exist.
Might I remind you that cricket has been in existence even before the presence of DRS and all that?
Not all technology is progress.
Like I have written in the UDRS article in JA606, the ICC must simply stop using Hawkeye for anything more than line decisions (that is deciding on point of impact or point where the ball pitched) rather than predicting the path of the ball.
If that happens, I, the Indian players and the BCCI will be happy to accept the DRS.
I don't know what the BCCI want, but what I stated above is what I want in the game.
Stop using the Hawkeye predictive mechanism. Use hotspot and Snicko for edges and Hawkeye for verifying point of pitching and impact, NOT the prediction after impact.
__________________________________________
"for the record quantify how exactly will they not accept being judged by a human they can't trust?"
Give me an example of how I could have "quantified" here?
Should I say some? All? A few? Most?
I didn't ask for the definition of quantify, but rather asked for the justification of its use in your sentence.
Giving me English lessons are you? Well two can play this game- and let me tell you- checking up definition on google will not help you communicate in English.
You have yet to learn how to use the word.
______________________________
Because you're next generation of a currently ageing batting line-up are not exactly setting the world alight against the Windies. In fact it seems they are being saved by the superb Mr. Dravid.
*************************************
You have only stated the reason now. Nowhere in this article have you stated this before, hence the reason I kept asking you for this.
I have already stated my reasons to believe India's future is bright.
In the same Test which you are looking at, India was saved in the 1st innings by Raina- who top-scored with 82.
Then India's young new ball bowlers took 6 wickets between them to skittle WI out for 173.
Did you just switch on in the 2nd innings? Well wait until India's young bowlers finish off the WI and you shall see why I say India's future is bright.
posted on 22/6/11
"I was not extrapolating anything- I was merely discussing facts."
And extrapolating from those facts the idea that India's bowlers are as good as England's.
posted on 22/6/11
And extrapolating from those facts the idea that India's bowlers are as good as England's.
____________________________________
That is not extrapolation.
That is conclusion. You make a premise and use a fact to arrive at a conclusion.
Gosh I have been teaching English on here.
Tell me how do you rate athletes? Using statistics is the most common method.
The Test ranking uses the same method too.
If Ind-Aus is 2-0 and SA-Aus is 1-0, then India is a better team than SA and both India and SA are a better team than Aus.
Where is the extrapolation here? This is merely comparison and conclusion!
posted on 23/6/11
"comment by Rex (U3513) posted 1 hour, 44 minutes ago
And extrapolating from those facts the idea that India's bowlers are as good as England's.
____________________________________
That is not extrapolation.
That is conclusion. You make a premise and use a fact to arrive at a conclusion.
Gosh I have been teaching English on here."
Definition of extrapolation:
1. To infer or estimate by extending or projecting known information.
That's precisely what you are doing here.
Estimating England and India's relative bowling strength by extending or projecting known information.
posted on 23/6/11
"extending or projecting known information."
I am not extending or projecting any of the information. I am only looking at the facts as is.
That is not extrapolation.
Let me give you an example of extrapolation.
Harbhajan took 15 wickets at 29.6 against SA in 5 innings.
Anderson took 16 wickets at 34.25 against SA in 7 innings
To say Harbhajan will take 30 wickets at 29.6 in 10 innings in SA would be extrapolation.
But to compare Anderson's and Harbhajan's stats against the same batsmen in the same conditions and say that Harbhajan was the better bowler would not be extrapolation.
India and England have both played against the same top team in the same conditions. That gives a lot of room and reason for valid comparison and arrive at conclusions.
How else can you compare two teams to arrive at a conclusion?
One thing you fail to admit over all this debate is that it is true that England haven't quite faced a top team in recent years and come out with their heads held high.
They barely escaped destruction against SA, got lucky over SL, and beat up a poor Australia and a Pakistan that did more fixing than playing matches.
England are a very good side, but stop hyping them up to be some invincible unit.
India, meanwhile has been involved in some titanic battles against SA- 5 of it actually, out of which they won 2, SL (with Murali and 6 batsmen) at their home, Aus and NZ at India's home etc.
I still quite remember all the talk about how India were supposed to be destroyed in SA in 2010, yet the South Africans were the ones running for cover by the end of the series.
posted on 23/6/11
hmmm lots of words I got bored of reading heres my opinion on the forth coming series.
India are currently the better side they are rightly number one in the world have an exceptional deep batting line-up and good bowlers.
England also have a very strong batting line-up but our players are less established as world class players. We have a potentially brilliant bowling attack Swing, pace, bounce, spin.
I think the series will come down to the things that usually settle close series. Player form, good preparation, conditions, score board pressure, weather.
To close to call cant wait for it to start hope the sunshines (when England are batting anyway)
posted on 23/6/11
"But to compare Anderson's and Harbhajan's stats against the same batsmen in the same conditions and say that Harbhajan was the better bowler would not be extrapolation."
A) Were conditions exactly the same?
B) To use the 'fact' that India's bowlers bowled as well or better than England's in one set of circumstances as the basis of a conclusion that they are as good or better in different circumstances certainly is extrapolation.
posted on 23/6/11
hey i am new to this site and i thank the OP for a great article. I will give my comments on this later.
posted on 23/6/11
Rex ( U3513)
"An out-of-form Ganguly has now been replaced by an in-form Raina"
Who said ganguly was out of form? he was the second highest scorer of the series behind kartik in 2007!!!! and wait , even in the south africa series where all the superstars felled he was the man who saved the team with an average of 53.95 and helped in winning the johannesburg test along with sreesanth.
But for a poor decision from the world's best umpire, he should have had a century at Trent Bridge, and at The Oval he played the most fluent innings of the series after coming in at 11 for three. Not bad for a has-been, a man consigned to Indian cricket's dustbin 18 months ago. He even retired with a first innings score of 85 during his last test against australia after which he was forced to retire... but baggyman dravid went on going without any credible score for 7 months. I think that even gavaskar was out for 0 during his last innings.
Other than this error the article is superb and 'tongue-in-cheek" for english fans.Sorry, couldn't resist a dig !!!!!
posted on 23/6/11
what a patronisng heading anyway.. Good on England.. wow well done England you may have a good chance against the mighty Indians who have only been at the top of the rankings a mere year and half..
posted on 23/6/11
'None of Cook's double tons in Aus could equal Tendulkar's 146 at Cape Town and I don't know any of Trott's innings that could be as good as Laxman's 96 at Durban'
posted on 23/6/11
frazer:
It may be true that Ganguly was having an excellent comeback in 2006/07, but the reason why I said he was out-of-form is because he was inconsistent- that is some good innings followed by poor performances, that it was hard to be reliant on him.
I guess his numbers are much better than I thought and truth be told I didn't follow his career much- so I can't be sure.
As for Dravid playing for 18 months woefully out of form, he had earned that time considering the fact that he was the golden batsman for India from 2000 to 2006.
_____________________________________
sport:
It wasn't patronizing at all. I am a big fan of KP and have recently become a fan of Morgan as well.
There was talk in the English papers that KP should be dropped and that Morgan should be replaced by Bopara. I was worried that England would take such knee-jerk reactions. But thankfully they didn't and this sets up the series against India nicely since KP seems to be back in form.
________________________________________
As for series result, I too believe it will be close and I reckon India's aging superstars will prevail against England's rising stars but only just. That's why I said India will win by a 1 Test margin.
Let's hope we get a series like the one WI-Aus played 50 years ago in Australia that rejuvenated Test cricket (also had the first Tie in Test Cricket history).
England have an excellent side that bodes very well for their future, but India's galaxy of stars is stronger. That is my opinion and they have deserved that opinion by their recent results.
_________________________________________
As for your crack about how India have been No.1 for just a year an half, well they have never been beaten in a series for the last 3 years, and have lost only 3 Tests during that period, all of which have been answered immediately with a stinging riposte of a victory.
That shows how quickly India bounce back- and will come in handy when playing in a 4-Test series.
What's more, so far they have not lost a single final/deciding Test of a series during those 3 yrs.
posted on 23/6/11
India is closing in on a test win in a foreign land without their 4 first choice players - sachin, gambhir, sehwag and zahir.
Compare this against a 1-0 win at home (with some stroke of luck at cardiff) against SL without Malinga.
Agreed India's opposition is a bottom team but they have other disadvantages of away and less than full strength team. This shows a big, not small, gap exists in quality between india and eng.
How it translates into victory margin is hard to guess - english weather, injuries etc.
posted on 23/6/11
rising:
That is cruel.
The whole series lost about 369 overs it seems- that is almost an entire Test.
How are England supposed to win a Test with so many overs lost due to rain?
Even India drew a Test against Bangladesh in 2007 due to rain.
posted on 23/6/11
so england bowling out a side for 80 odd is lucky?
Our 1 - 0 over a team ranked 3 in the world is a fine performance. All the tests were heavily effected by rain and we had the upper hand in the 2 draws.
India are going to beat WI away without 4 starters players thats grand.
However neither performance or result has any bearing on the England India series.
posted on 23/6/11
yes but if I remember right, Eng had more than a full day in the final test to make it 2-0 which they could not, never in the sight of victory.
the luck of the cardiff test was evident in contrast to the final match where bowlers had all the time to show up their skills which came to nothing.
SL is 4th ranked. beating a lower ranked team 1-0 at home with full strength vs beating full strength no.1 team.
eng are a very good team but overhyped which is the point of this article.
how many points would england gain after 1-0?
posted on 23/6/11
however had england had all 5 days to develop a position they would have had longer to bowl sri lanka out and the pitch would have been a 5th day pitch rather than trying to get 10 wickets on the equivilant of good 3rd day pitches. Lords was flat and difficult to get a result however we tried, hampshire was a 3rd day pitch due to weather and Sangakkara played well.
cardiff was an unbelievable performance which will not be repeated any time soon, however that doesnt make it lucky its just not a regular accurance
I dont know whose 'overhyping' england from what i read and hear most experts talk about the need for improvement and out of form players.
I presume your an Indian fan why not just enjoy your no 1 ranking and world cup win. I would be, not getting upset because England are doing alright at the moment
posted on 24/6/11
to call australia's batting line up "paper thin" does a gross injustice to them. watson is a good batsman and ponting, clarke and hussey are still world class. what let aus down in the ashes was their lackluster bowling, and also how well england's bowlers played.
posted on 24/6/11
i think the win in aus against a strong australian batting line up (except hughes and smith) shows just how good england's bowlers are. if there had not been rain, i think england would have won 3-0 against sri lanka. the series against india will be close but i'm predicting an england win justnon the strength of the bowling attack. underestimate them at your peril! also, if the selectors played finn over broad, i think the bowling line up would be even more effective.
Page 2 of 3