Cricket match prediction discussions

[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.

[1714980086]

1714980086

[1714980086]

1714980086

[1714980086]

1714980086

[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.

[crunck]

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.

Yes, it is understandable that it is going to be able to generate an addition of jobs. But the problem is I don’t think BCCI is ready to spend so much money in the domestic field. I mean if they are investing in something there are going to expect some return. And we have seen them implementing the technology in IPL because they have a really good amount of revenue in return. But in the domestic field, they are not going to get anything except probably some good umpiring and some actual decisions which will never be questioned with match-fixing Or umpire fixing. And we all know BCCI really cares about money.

[wiss19]

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.

It's all about colonial mindset because they have mentality when you are in power than do your own things and as you lost power then go beside most powerful so England and Australia doing same business they are having good relationship with India due to their big influence in cricket market, and also they are taking their share as well through ICC and IPL both are giving them profit, so they never go against India in any way and these three are completely controlling this ICC and cricket which is not good sign for this game as we are not doing anything positive for the development of this game and losing patience and few other markets which can play a good role for more profit and better ideas in this game.

We need equal rights for all boards even someone is having big share in market because this will bring better fair policy in game and surely going to help for development of this game.

[BobK71]

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.

It's all about colonial mindset because they have mentality when you are in power than do your own things and as you lost power then go beside most powerful so England and Australia doing same business they are having good relationship with India due to their big influence in cricket market, and also they are taking their share as well through ICC and IPL both are giving them profit, so they never go against India in any way and these three are completely controlling this ICC and cricket which is not good sign for this game as we are not doing anything positive for the development of this game and losing patience and few other markets which can play a good role for more profit and better ideas in this game.

We need equal rights for all boards even someone is having big share in market because this will bring better fair policy in game and surely going to help for development of this game.

The term dominance is well known. We see it's implications at every level of the world. Whenever someone speaks out against it, he is being dealt with in various ways. This is the current condition of the world.

But when we talk about the world of cricket, the first thing that comes to mind is the ICC. The organization that should have been impartial but today it is behaving in a biased manner. Especially one word utter over and over again that the influence of the Big 3 which is now known all over the world. Today, some cricket boards are on the verge of extinction due to their corruption and irregularities.

[JSRAW]

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.

Excessive and unnecessary appeals happen all the time and umpires do have complete control over it as they have the right to penalize players or captains, given they have been warned once.

Also when the captains do take review it doesn't take much time as they have only 15 secs to take a DRS call, problems come with the 3rd umpire cause sometimes in pressure moments they even take 2-3 mins.

This is a good video on umpire's call https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MfLv9hqYXM

[Ayers]

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.

Excessive and unnecessary appeals happen all the time and umpires do have complete control over it as they have the right to penalize players or captains, given they have been warned once.
Also when the captains do take review it doesn't take much time as they have only 15 secs to take a DRS call, problems come with the 3rd umpire cause sometimes in pressure moments they even take 2-3 mins.
This is a good video on umpire's call https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MfLv9hqYXM

as far as i am aware, those two or three minutes are not added to the bowling side of the game to penalize the players, it does not take too much time for any team to take the decision of the review because they only have 15 seconds in hand for that

it is also important to note that each team is only allowed two reviews per half, the process should not take too long, so that shouldn't take too much time
as a matter of fact, i think that the DRS system is very important and very well executed, but the umpire's call should not be in the system, if the ball is clipping the stumps it’s out no matter what

[JSRAW]

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.

Excessive and unnecessary appeals happen all the time and umpires do have complete control over it as they have the right to penalize players or captains, given they have been warned once.
Also when the captains do take review it doesn't take much time as they have only 15 secs to take a DRS call, problems come with the 3rd umpire cause sometimes in pressure moments they even take 2-3 mins.
This is a good video on umpire's call https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MfLv9hqYXM

as far as i am aware, those two or three minutes are not added to the bowling side of the game to penalize the players, it does not take too much time for any team to take the decision of the review because they only have 15 seconds in hand for that

it is also important to note that each team is only allowed two reviews per half, the process should not take too long, so that shouldn't take too much time
as a matter of fact, i think that the DRS system is very important and very well executed, but the umpire's call should not be in the system, if the ball is clipping the stumps it’s out no matter what

Yeah, reviews etc don't add up to the timeline for any team but it does take time and it's added to the overall 8 hours gameplan as test cricket still sticks to a clear 8 hours deadline, we hardly see any extended session unless there were rain, light or outfield problems.

In the test it's 3 reviews per inning for each team, there are no time restrictions for reviews. 2 reviews per innings is for limited overs cricket only.

[Haunebu]

Excessive and unnecessary appeals happen all the time and umpires do have complete control over it as they have the right to penalize players or captains, given they have been warned once.

Also when the captains do take review it doesn't take much time as they have only 15 secs to take a DRS call, problems come with the 3rd umpire cause sometimes in pressure moments they even take 2-3 mins.

Cricket umpires are easily one of the most controversial aspects of the game which is actually understandable since they are humans who make mistakes now and then.

What truly pisses me off is when they waste time checking stuff which is 100% unnecessary across all formats of the game(Mostly 3rd umpires). Their idiotic commentary on top of all that makes it worse.

[WatChe]

Cricket umpires are easily one of the most controversial aspects of the game which is actually understandable since they are humans who make mistakes now and then.

What truly pisses me off is when they waste time checking stuff which is 100% unnecessary across all formats of the game(Mostly 3rd umpires). Their idiotic commentary on top of all that makes it worse.

I think umpires in all games can become controversial, there are many incidents in FIFA where umpires gave controversial decisions. The introduction of DRS is a great way to reduce pressure from umpires as now decisions can go upstairs and chances of error are zero in that case. DRS is not welcomed in start by BCCI but with time they have embraced that change.

[Rigon]

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.

It's all about colonial mindset because they have mentality when you are in power than do your own things and as you lost power then go beside most powerful so England and Australia doing same business they are having good relationship with India due to their big influence in cricket market, and also they are taking their share as well through ICC and IPL both are giving them profit, so they never go against India in any way and these three are completely controlling this ICC and cricket which is not good sign for this game as we are not doing anything positive for the development of this game and losing patience and few other markets which can play a good role for more profit and better ideas in this game.

We need equal rights for all boards even someone is having big share in market because this will bring better fair policy in game and surely going to help for development of this game.

The term dominance is well known. We see it's implications at every level of the world. Whenever someone speaks out against it, he is being dealt with in various ways. This is the current condition of the world.

But when we talk about the world of cricket, the first thing that comes to mind is the ICC. The organization that should have been impartial but today it is behaving in a biased manner. Especially one word utter over and over again that the influence of the Big 3 which is now known all over the world. Today, some cricket boards are on the verge of extinction due to their corruption and irregularities.

What else can I say, the whole world is now full of corruption. Revenge has crept into people's minds.But they don't realize that their exploits will earn them a well-known reputation all over the world and the reputation of the country.What kind of thinking no native is doing now. They are thinking that corruption is the solution to everything.But the ICC hates it a lot for corruption.Various countries have brought the cricket board to corruption and irregularities, and it is really on the way to disappear from the whole world today.

[romero121]

Excessive and unnecessary appeals happen all the time and umpires do have complete control over it as they have the right to penalize players or captains, given they have been warned once.

Also when the captains do take review it doesn't take much time as they have only 15 secs to take a DRS call, problems come with the 3rd umpire cause sometimes in pressure moments they even take 2-3 mins.

Cricket umpires are easily one of the most controversial aspects of the game which is actually understandable since they are humans who make mistakes now and then.

What truly pisses me off is when they waste time checking stuff which is 100% unnecessary across all formats of the game(Mostly 3rd umpires). Their idiotic commentary on top of all that makes it worse.

Humans make mistakes, usage of technology to overcome the mistakes is the third umpire. While watching on television we easily conclude it isn't a wicket. But, the third umpire cannot do the same as we do. He needs to look it upon various dimensions, because the same will term to be controversial. Some even change the result of the match.

Just think of the matches during the lockdown, we heard fake claps and cheer sound. Those are really bad and makes us stop watching the match. Commentary is needed, at times it might be worse. Just ignore the worse and enjoy the rest.

[Sithara007]

Excessive and unnecessary appeals happen all the time and umpires do have complete control over it as they have the right to penalize players or captains, given they have been warned once.

Also when the captains do take review it doesn't take much time as they have only 15 secs to take a DRS call, problems come with the 3rd umpire cause sometimes in pressure moments they even take 2-3 mins.

This is a good video on umpire's call https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MfLv9hqYXM

My concern is that sometimes the momentum is lot when the third umpire spends 2-3 minutes to take the decision. For the viewers who are closely following the match, the flow will be lost. But also, excessive appealing from the part of the players is another issue. I agree that the umpires should be given more powers to deal with it. But in the end, none of us want inaccurate decisions from the umpires to be retained. Overall, the implementation of the DRS has worked wonders in international cricket.