Cricket match prediction discussions

[Ayers]

But what's the alternative? There isn't any other solution proposed by any board to replace this non sense DLS. Apart from DLS there are eyebrows on DRS also. Many times board are caught of manipulating the system to have results of there own.

One of the reasons why the BCCI opposed DRS for so long. Previously the Indian team used to get the benefit from umpires, when the matches are being played in India. But with the DRS getting implemented, this advantage evaporated. Still there is a loophole called "umpire's call" which can be manipulated by the home team. I am fully in favor of DRS, but we need to remove this loophole. Otherwise the DRS has done a lot of good things to cricket. Detection of no-ball and reversal of inaccurate decisions help in a big way.

Lol that's a weird one, forgetting neutral umpire's ruling?

Also i do remember famous Bucknor and couple of others who loved to raise fingers at any given time when Indians were batting.

At start BCCI was under impression that it's a flowed tech and locally their players had no experience, it's more similar to their initial reluctance for Day-Night (pink ball) matches.

i would say it was a mix of all, BCCI thought that this might be another trap for the Australians and the England cricket board, and i think it is understandable why they thought like that
in my memory, that was the time when India visited Australia for that infamous test series where the umpiring was absolutely horrible and some decisions were given against India which were not even close to being accurate at all
as well as that, the umpire was seen asking the Australian players if the batsman was out or not and the Australian players replied "yes" and the umpire also raised his finger to show his approval

[TheGreatPython]

I don’t believe that DLS will ever be replaced unless the big 3 collectively put in a request, but since they haven’t made any such requests I feel that it’ll continue as it is. Lastly I feel that DLS adds an sense of excitement especially for me, because I know that teams will now have to go out of their way to win and I understand at times it may not be what fans want, but I yet feel it should be retained despite all the negativity surrounding it.

I agree here with you because it's most balance's system which is working in cricket for long time, and we have no big concern about this from any country, specially after incident which declare England as winner in 1992 Cricket World Cup where South Africa were favorite to win, and they lost their golden chance for winning World Cup.

On other side if they want to end this DLS system we have only one other option which is not going to implement because it needs too much money which is not possible for most of the cricket boards, it's we can play under roof which is only other suitable option but still we can go with this DLS as it's good and fair for all and most of the cricket world is happy with this.

[Haunebu]

If DLS method was able to produce effective results then everyone would have been happy with it and we would not be discussing changing this system.
The problem is that majority of the people agree that DLS does not produce the best results and gives an unfair sort of advantage to one team over the other.

Couple of people in this thread saying that the DLS system is not effective doesn't represent the majority. Fact is that the DLS system would have been replaced if the majority actually didn't like it, but that clearly isn't the case.

I obviously don’t think that is too much to ask. If they want to bring in another suitable solution, it is fine by me but that is going to be time-consuming and with a redesigned system, new problems will rise. But that is not going to be the case if they simply upgrade the DLS system.

Understandable, but the truth is that this isn't really a priority for the ICC especially after the COVID debacle in recent times.

[JSRAW]

Lol that's a weird one, forgetting neutral umpire's ruling?

Also i do remember famous Bucknor and couple of others who loved to raise fingers at any given time when Indians were batting.

At start BCCI was under impression that it's a flowed tech and locally their players had no experience, it's more similar to their initial reluctance for Day-Night (pink ball) matches.

i would say it was a mix of all, BCCI thought that this might be another trap for the Australians and the England cricket board, and i think it is understandable why they thought like that
in my memory, that was the time when India visited Australia for that infamous test series where the umpiring was absolutely horrible and some decisions were given against India which were not even close to being accurate at all
as well as that, the umpire was seen asking the Australian players if the batsman was out or not and the Australian players replied "yes" and the umpire also raised his finger to show his approval

Yeah, one of the disgraceful series in cricket history as far as umpiring and spirit of the game goes.

@Haunebu i don't think anyone remotely understand how this DLS system works. Brain cell starts to die everytime i try to understand it lol

[Sithara007]

Lol that's a weird one, forgetting neutral umpire's ruling?

Also i do remember famous Bucknor and couple of others who loved to raise fingers at any given time when Indians were batting.

At start BCCI was under impression that it's a flowed tech and locally their players had no experience, it's more similar to their initial reluctance for Day-Night (pink ball) matches.

For every one Bucknor, we have 10-15 from the other side. I really don't know what was the issue with Bucknor. He used to hate the Indian players for whatever be the reason. Anyway, when all the other boards were fine with DRS, the BCCI was the only board which opposed it. Naturally that gives rise to suspicion. Whenever a new innovation was proposed in cricket, the BCCI came out against it. Remember their opposition to the T20 format two decades back? We were fortunate that back then they didn't had much power or dominance over the ICC.

[GigaBit]

But I think the DLS system has another flaw. Often times it comes into play because of the rain. And many times after a break in play because of rain the cricket pitch does not stay the same as it did before the rain. That usually has a significant effect on the outcome of the match. That is the biggest and most effective flaw in the DNS system. Other than that I think the system is OK.
But as I have said many times, this is the reason why the result becomes unbelievable. I know that it is better than what we had previously and it is actually good, not gonna lie, but I just think there can be something better.

It will be difficult to take these minute details in to account. DLS comes in to play for a variety of reasons, although rain interruption is the most common one. Sometimes it can be due to bad light and other reasons. What I am saying is that I don't see any concrete reason to dump the DLS method and rely on something else. Losing teams may complain, but they need to accept the results and move on. Sometimes you need a bit of luck on your side as well, when you play international cricket.

Yes, I agree, but I am just trying to point out that things could probably be improved. And by that I mean maybe ICC can always think about how to make the DLS system more effective. I think that it would be helpful to be able to input the weather conditions as well as the pitch condition in order to give a more accurate target. They don’t necessarily have to completely abandon the current DLS method. But they can obviously work on making it better.

I obviously don’t think that is too much to ask. If they want to bring in another suitable solution, it is fine by me but that is going to be time-consuming and with a redesigned system, new problems will rise. But that is not going to be the case if they simply upgrade the DLS system.

If it is reliable and rational then ICC can certainly will accept it. But as far as I know they are not willing to extend the match. It is not possible for them to take a match to another day. Because there are many kinds of expenses and the schedule of cricket has to be changed. For which they may find this method more suitable. Obviously, they are trying to discover better method that will be more reliable for the cricket world.

[DanWalker]

I obviously don’t think that is too much to ask. If they want to bring in another suitable solution, it is fine by me but that is going to be time-consuming and with a redesigned system, new problems will rise. But that is not going to be the case if they simply upgrade the DLS system.

Understandable, but the truth is that this isn't really a priority for the ICC especially after the COVID debacle in recent times.

A lot of things that cricket needs doesn’t seem to be a priority for the ICC right now. It feels like money is the actual priority of ICC. As long as the money is flowing they don’t care about what happens to the game.

~snip~

If it is reliable and rational then ICC can certainly will accept it. But as far as I know they are not willing to extend the match. It is not possible for them to take a match to another day. Because there are many kinds of expenses and the schedule of cricket has to be changed. For which they may find this method more suitable. Obviously, they are trying to discover better method that will be more reliable for the cricket world.

I highly doubt that they are actually trying to discover anything which will be better than the DLS system. And as long as there is not much protesting or anything made against the DLS system, ICC is not even going to improve that system either. And the one thing people have to realize is that when the DLS method was introduced it was very good for that time. But time has changed and the system also needs to be upgraded.

[Ayers]

@Haunebu i don't think anyone remotely understand how this DLS system works. Brain cell starts to die everytime i try to understand it lol

the DLS system is actually good, it takes the net run rate, the required run rate, wickets in hand, overs reduced, and almost everything in two accounts and decides a target, but it does not take into account the situation of the outfield and also the condition of the pitch, that’s the biggest problem

Lol that's a weird one, forgetting neutral umpire's ruling?
Also i do remember famous Bucknor and couple of others who loved to raise fingers at any given time when Indians were batting.
At start BCCI was under impression that it's a flowed tech and locally their players had no experience, it's more similar to their initial reluctance for Day-Night (pink ball) matches.

For every one Bucknor, we have 10-15 from the other side. I really don't know what was the issue with Bucknor. He used to hate the Indian players for whatever be the reason. Anyway, when all the other boards were fine with DRS, the BCCI was the only board which opposed it. Naturally that gives rise to suspicion. Whenever a new innovation was proposed in cricket, the BCCI came out against it. Remember their opposition to the T20 format two decades back? We were fortunate that back then they didn't had much power or dominance over the ICC.

i don’t think they could have done anything even if they had the power that they have right now over ICC, because i believe that every other team would have actually excepted that T20 format like they did and India actually could have become an outcast, but it’s good that anything like this didn’t happen, and ironically India is generating the most revenue through IPL which is based on the T20 format

[JSRAW]

Lol that's a weird one, forgetting neutral umpire's ruling?

Also i do remember famous Bucknor and couple of others who loved to raise fingers at any given time when Indians were batting.

At start BCCI was under impression that it's a flowed tech and locally their players had no experience, it's more similar to their initial reluctance for Day-Night (pink ball) matches.

For every one Bucknor, we have 10-15 from the other side. I really don't know what was the issue with Bucknor. He used to hate the Indian players for whatever be the reason. Anyway, when all the other boards were fine with DRS, the BCCI was the only board which opposed it. Naturally that gives rise to suspicion. Whenever a new innovation was proposed in cricket, the BCCI came out against it. Remember their opposition to the T20 format two decades back? We were fortunate that back then they didn't had much power or dominance over the ICC.

I guess you are indicating towards a pre-90s era when there was no concept of neutral umpiring in cricket but again back then every cricket playing nation had this problem.

In the early 90s neutral umpires started featuring in test cricket, also i don't remember any major instance where umpires were deliberately helping the Indian team.

But i do agree that BCCI do have a habit of being reluctant on adopting tech at the start or any new things, although it's changing nowadays, not fast enough but it's going forward as they recently announced the adoption of more technical stuff in Ranji like DRS etc

[Sithara007]

I guess you are indicating towards a pre-90s era when there was no concept of neutral umpiring in cricket but again back then every cricket playing nation had this problem.

In the early 90s neutral umpires started featuring in test cricket, also i don't remember any major instance where umpires were deliberately helping the Indian team.

But i do agree that BCCI do have a habit of being reluctant on adopting tech at the start or any new things, although it's changing nowadays, not fast enough but it's going forward as they recently announced the adoption of more technical stuff in Ranji like DRS etc

Well.. now neutrality of umpires doesn't matter much, because we have the option of DRS. But still, there is a need to eliminate the "umpire's call" loophole. The fact that BCCI don't want to use latest technology in domestic cricket may have something to do with financial reasons. Indian domestic cricket consists of 38 first class teams, and a huge number of matches are being played every year. Implementing technology such as DRS will require additional manpower, and extra funds. And I am sure that the BCCI guys may not be happy with this requirement.

[JSRAW]

I guess you are indicating towards a pre-90s era when there was no concept of neutral umpiring in cricket but again back then every cricket playing nation had this problem.

In the early 90s neutral umpires started featuring in test cricket, also i don't remember any major instance where umpires were deliberately helping the Indian team.

But i do agree that BCCI do have a habit of being reluctant on adopting tech at the start or any new things, although it's changing nowadays, not fast enough but it's going forward as they recently announced the adoption of more technical stuff in Ranji like DRS etc

Well.. now neutrality of umpires doesn't matter much, because we have the option of DRS. But still, there is a need to eliminate the "umpire's call" loophole. The fact that BCCI don't want to use latest technology in domestic cricket may have something to do with financial reasons. Indian domestic cricket consists of 38 first class teams, and a huge number of matches are being played every year. Implementing technology such as DRS will require additional manpower, and extra funds. And I am sure that the BCCI guys may not be happy with this requirement.

I've said a few times that the "Umpire Calls" rule should be scrapped, IMO if a ball is touching the stumps even for 10% or even clipping it (the current rule is for more than 50%) then it should be out but I guess ICC willingly leaving some scope for human error in umpiring despite tech is available there to use.

Yeah, a huge number of matches in the domestic circuit could create a financial burden but we can't deny the fact that it does help players immensely. I think they will use this according to grouping (relegation). Also, I'm in favor of using full fledge technical/technique analysis for players so that BCCI can identify and tackle their weaknesses at a domestic level, shouldn't cost more than $10-15 Million per season for satisfactory results. 

[Marvell1]

I guess you are indicating towards a pre-90s era when there was no concept of neutral umpiring in cricket but again back then every cricket playing nation had this problem.
In the early 90s neutral umpires started featuring in test cricket, also i don't remember any major instance where umpires were deliberately helping the Indian team.
But i do agree that BCCI do have a habit of being reluctant on adopting tech at the start or any new things, although it's changing nowadays, not fast enough but it's going forward as they recently announced the adoption of more technical stuff in Ranji like DRS etc

Well.. now neutrality of umpires doesn't matter much, because we have the option of DRS. But still, there is a need to eliminate the "umpire's call" loophole. The fact that BCCI don't want to use latest technology in domestic cricket may have something to do with financial reasons. Indian domestic cricket consists of 38 first class teams, and a huge number of matches are being played every year. Implementing technology such as DRS will require additional manpower, and extra funds. And I am sure that the BCCI guys may not be happy with this requirement.

I've said a few times that the "Umpire Calls" rule should be scrapped, IMO if a ball is touching the stumps even for 10% or even clipping it (the current rule is for more than 50%) then it should be out but I guess ICC willingly leaving some scope for human error in umpiring despite tech is available there to use.
Yeah, a huge number of matches in the domestic circuit could create a financial burden but we can't deny the fact that it does help players immensely. I think they will use this according to grouping (relegation). Also, I'm in favor of using full fledge technical/technique analysis for players so that BCCI can identify and tackle their weaknesses at a domestic level, shouldn't cost more than $10-15 Million per season for satisfactory results. 

I’m fired call is still in the game just because technology can also be wrong. So, they tried to make the best out of both parties. And through that way even though the technology is the best idea, they decided to keep the umpire's call so that if there is any fault in the technology, the on field umpire is the one to finalize the decision. But to me, this is just a bunch of bullshit. If you have the technology available and also true science you can understand and see in the trajectory the ball is going, why would you go against it just by keeping the umpire's call?

We all know that the DRS system is quite expensive to have. All the cricket boards don’t even have the luxury of the system. So, it is obvious that India, in the state level cricket, will not be able to implement the DRS system. I’m quite sure they can if they want to. But that is obviously going to take a toll on the finance of BCCI.

[wiss19]

If it is reliable and rational then ICC can certainly will accept it. But as far as I know they are not willing to extend the match. It is not possible for them to take a match to another day. Because there are many kinds of expenses and the schedule of cricket has to be changed. For which they may find this method more suitable. Obviously, they are trying to discover better method that will be more reliable for the cricket world.

I highly doubt that they are actually trying to discover anything which will be better than the DLS system. And as long as there is not much protesting or anything made against the DLS system, ICC is not even going to improve that system either. And the one thing people have to realize is that when the DLS method was introduced it was very good for that time. But time has changed and the system also needs to be upgraded.

If someone personally or any institute or their students doing anything for this then surely no one can give updates because this will come when they will launch this all and if we expect from ICC then I am sure it's 100% they are doing nothing about this because they have no enough time for this all.

DRS is surely a good idea and nothing complicated happening with this all even we still need few things to implement in this technology era, but these all depend on approval from BCCI which is currently controlling all main points for this sports authority as they are currently not implementing any technology related thing in their domestic set up even they are most rich in cricket world due to expenses so how can we expect more changes and thing related to cricket can part of this without their approval as they are now looking for just own profit.

[Haunebu]

A lot of things that cricket needs doesn’t seem to be a priority for the ICC right now. It feels like money is the actual priority of ICC. As long as the money is flowing they don’t care about what happens to the game.

It's not just the ICC which functions in this manner. Other big organizations like FIFA, NFL, NBA etc also function in a similar manner. It all comes down to money at the end of the day.

These all depend on approval from BCCI which is currently controlling all main points for this sports authority as they are currently not implementing any technology related thing in their domestic set up even they are most rich in cricket world due to expenses so how can we expect more changes and thing related to cricket can part of this without their approval as they are now looking for just own profit.

It's not completely upto the BCCI though. The Australian and England boards also have a lot of power over the ICC since they are part of the Big-3.

[coinerer]

It's not completely upto the BCCI though. The Australian and England boards also have a lot of power over the ICC since they are part of the Big-3.

Although Australia and England are in the Big 3, ICC earns the most from the Indian market. As a result, ICC flexibility towards India is more than others. Yes, they also have value as Big 3 countries but comparatively India dominates the most in world cricket and also in ICC.

[n0ne]

It's not completely upto the BCCI though. The Australian and England boards also have a lot of power over the ICC since they are part of the Big-3.

Although Australia and England are in the Big 3, ICC earns the most from the Indian market. As a result, ICC flexibility towards India is more than others. Yes, they also have value as Big 3 countries but comparatively India dominates the most in world cricket and also in ICC.

We can't term it to be flexibility, because these three countries always make a combined decision. Because, moving ahead with a self plans could countries togo against the board and unite the rest of the cricketing boards that are just with ICC for name sake. The small boards need to unite to make some changes.

[Sithara007]

I've said a few times that the "Umpire Calls" rule should be scrapped, IMO if a ball is touching the stumps even for 10% or even clipping it (the current rule is for more than 50%) then it should be out but I guess ICC willingly leaving some scope for human error in umpiring despite tech is available there to use.

Yeah, a huge number of matches in the domestic circuit could create a financial burden but we can't deny the fact that it does help players immensely. I think they will use this according to grouping (relegation). Also, I'm in favor of using full fledge technical/technique analysis for players so that BCCI can identify and tackle their weaknesses at a domestic level, shouldn't cost more than $10-15 Million per season for satisfactory results. 

I don't think that if the ball is just clipping the stumps, the batsmen should be given out. It will put the batsmen in a disadvantage. I would go with the 50% rule. But then the loophole needs to go away. The umpire should not be given the leeway to decide whether the batsmen is out or not. That decision should be made by the DRS. And on the second topic, if it is just $10-15 million, then I am fine with it. And it is going to generate additional jobs as well. So there is no excuse for the BCCI to not to implement DRS in domestic circuit.

[JSRAW]

I've said a few times that the "Umpire Calls" rule should be scrapped, IMO if a ball is touching the stumps even for 10% or even clipping it (the current rule is for more than 50%) then it should be out but I guess ICC willingly leaving some scope for human error in umpiring despite tech is available there to use.

Yeah, a huge number of matches in the domestic circuit could create a financial burden but we can't deny the fact that it does help players immensely. I think they will use this according to grouping (relegation). Also, I'm in favor of using full fledge technical/technique analysis for players so that BCCI can identify and tackle their weaknesses at a domestic level, shouldn't cost more than $10-15 Million per season for satisfactory results. 

I don't think that if the ball is just clipping the stumps, the batsmen should be given out. It will put the batsmen in a disadvantage. I would go with the 50% rule. But then the loophole needs to go away. The umpire should not be given the leeway to decide whether the batsmen is out or not. That decision should be made by the DRS. And on the second topic, if it is just $10-15 million, then I am fine with it. And it is going to generate additional jobs as well. So there is no excuse for the BCCI to not to implement DRS in domestic circuit.

This 50% rule is the main loophole in DRS or umpire call.

It's not a disadvantage to batters imo, it's just you are empowering the toothless bowlers. When the ball actually kisses the stumps, bails get dislodged it doesn't matter if it's 1%-10$ or so on. You don't say that it's just clipping or batters are in a disadvantage.

So why give benefit of the doubt to umpires and batters when it comes to LBW?

[DanWalker]

I highly doubt that they are actually trying to discover anything which will be better than the DLS system. And as long as there is not much protesting or anything made against the DLS system, ICC is not even going to improve that system either. And the one thing people have to realize is that when the DLS method was introduced it was very good for that time. But time has changed and the system also needs to be upgraded.

If someone personally or any institute or their students doing anything for this then surely no one can give updates because this will come when they will launch this all and if we expect from ICC then I am sure it's 100% they are doing nothing about this because they have no enough time for this all.

DRS is surely a good idea and nothing complicated happening with this all even we still need few things to implement in this technology era, but these all depend on approval from BCCI which is currently controlling all main points for this sports authority as they are currently not implementing any technology related thing in their domestic set up even they are most rich in cricket world due to expenses so how can we expect more changes and thing related to cricket can part of this without their approval as they are now looking for just own profit.

The BCCI is controlling the most important part of cricket, the ICC. But before when BCCI said that they don’t want to implement new technology, it was understandable. Because they didn’t have a good grasp and control over ICC.
But now they basically know almost everything that the ICC is doing.

So, now they should not have any problems accepting the new technology. So I don’t see why they are going to oppose this idea. But that’s after something actually develops. And I don’t think there is anything being developed by the ICC in this DRS matter.

For me, DRS is quite simple but the problem is it does not take into account some important matters. If they somehow are able to implement those into the DRS system, I don’t think anyone will have any problems with the system anymore.

[Sithara007]

This 50% rule is the main loophole in DRS or umpire call.

It's not a disadvantage to batters imo, it's just you are empowering the toothless bowlers. When the ball actually kisses the stumps, bails get dislodged it doesn't matter if it's 1%-10$ or so on. You don't say that it's just clipping or batters are in a disadvantage.

So why give benefit of the doubt to umpires and batters when it comes to LBW?

OK.. then maybe we can agree on that. But time is also important. As you mentioned, the bowlers are feeling toothless these days. I just hope that the players will not waste too much time in appealing and reviewing the decisions. From my perspective, the only disadvantage with DRS which I have observed till now is the wastage of time in reviewing the decisions. And in some cases, the players just review them, just for the sake of it. Finding the right balance between 100% accuracy and finishing the matches on time is very important.