How many Australian test wins were due to favourable umpiring ?
Villanova
Question for the master statistician Aslam Siddique:
How many Australian test wins were due to favourable umpiring ? :=)
Tony Cozier on Umpiring in Aus vs WI test
The decision that favoured Andrew Symonds on a gloved leg-side catch was
the exact opposite to that against Dwayne Bravo off his thigh pad at the
start of Tiffin's triple intervention. They inevitably raised, once
again, the increasingly debated subject of the use of television
technology to aid umpires for each one was shown, on replay, to be flawed
-------------------------------------------------------
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/wivaus/content/current/story/353436.html
West Indies v Australia, 2nd Test, Antigua, 4th day
A strong case for technology
Tony Cozier
June 3, 2008
That is the nature of the game but West Indies again had more than their
fair share on the fourth day of the second Test on Monday.
The most crippling were three in the space of four balls by Russell
Tiffin that helped Brett Lee's awesome spell of fast swing bowling
before lunch turn a match slowly but surely heading towards a draw into
the probability of an Australian victory.
Another, late in the day by Mark Benson that denied Jerome Taylor a
deserved third wicket, was less significant. But the decision that
favoured Andrew Symonds on a gloved leg-side catch was the exact
opposite to that against Dwayne Bravo off his thigh pad at the start of
Tiffin's triple intervention. They inevitably raised, once again, the
increasingly debated subject of the use of television technology to aid
umpires for each one was shown, on replay, to be flawed.
Last March, the ICC board approved a trial for an umpire-review system
that would allow players to ask the on-field umpire to review any aspect
of a decision, other than line, in consultation with the third umpire.
Each team would be limited to a maximum of three unsuccessful referrals
in an innings. The ICC's cricket committee, comprising eminent former
players along with umpires and media representatives, endorsed the
proposal at its meeting early last month.
Had it been in operation yesterday as many as six decisions would have
been reversed - 4-2 in favour of West Indies - and the Test might have
been in an entirely different state entering the last day with the home
batsmen under pressure to bat out the available 98 overs.
They seemed headed towards safety through the first hour and a half as
Shivnarine Chanderpaul was steadily accumulating another of his now
habitual hundreds and Bravo, intent on not wasting a lifeless pitch and
a sound start, had dug in with him for a partnership of 132. It all
changed when Lee was handed a ball 94 overs old by captain Ricky
Ponting. Immediately, Australia's strike bowler was bending it like
Beckham. In the modern jargon, the ball was "reversing", swinging sharp
and late against the polished side.
Striving for pace and still adjusting his radar, Lee was just off line
with the fourth ball of his second comeback over. Angled down the leg
side, Bravo attempted to turn it off his hip, one of his favoured
strokes. Wicketkeeper Brad Haddin tumbled to gather the ball, Tiffin
raised his finger to verify strong appeals and Bravo threw his head back
in despair before trudging off.
Reason for his reaction was soon evident as TV replays revealed the
deflection was from his thigh, not his bat. Such decisions are difficult
to detect but it is usual that batsmen get the benefit of any doubt.
Denesh Ramdin replaced Bravo and copped an unplayable first ball, fast,
swerving late into his front pad and heading for the off stump. Up went
Tiffin's finger to Lee's insistent appeal for lbw. Darren Sammy let
Lee's - and Tiffin's - hat-trick ball pass dangerously close to off
stump. An intervening over of Andrew Symonds offered brief respite.
Lee's next ball was a repeat of that to Ramdin and the outcome was the
same, crashing into Sammy's front pad for Tiffin to once more raise his
right index finger. In each case, the off stump would have been knocked
back. In each case, the TV replay clearly indicated the pad was struck
outside off stump, geometry that should have negated the lbw decision.
Late in the day, Benson lapsed into errors of his own, giving Symonds in
on his gloved catch and Lee out to a catch off his forearm. In six
hours, the case for the use of technology had been appreciably advanced.
© Trinidad & Tobago Express
--
posted via www.usenetfast.com - Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !
jzfredricks
> hours, the case for the use of technology had been appreciably advanced.
hear hear
Villanova
You deliberately chose to ignore the fact Brett Lee is not
a top order batsman.
Australian team regularly gets more favourable decisions than
any other team in cricket from the umpires.
It was proven in the last Aus vs Ind series and again in
this Aus vs WI series.
draco664
Well, duh. That's what happens when you don't allow the best umpires
to stand in tests which Australia plays. The best umpires are
Australian.
Draco, poking the RSC anthill with a stick
jzfredricks
> >> on his gloved catch and Lee out to a catch off his forearm. In six
> >> hours, the case for the use of technology had been appreciably advanced.
>
> > hear hear
>
> You deliberately chose to ignore the fact Brett Lee is not
> a top order batsman.
????
not sure what you're on about, but I'm pro-technology and anti-crap-
umpiring.
the 'hear hear' was in support of "the case for the use of technology
had been appreciably advanced."
Dave -Turner
just happen because of a few dodgy umpires. Can you say SORE LOSER?
subi...@notmail.com
> Australia has been dominant in the game for many, many years. That doesn't
> just happen because of a few dodgy umpires. Can you say SORE LOSER?
Correct. That has happened because of MANY dodgy decisions over that
period. I have campaigned to bring this to light over the past 3-4
years at rsc. Not only is Aus's winning record is therefore greatly
inflated, but so to the batting records of ponting and hayden, and the
bowling records of mcgrath, warne, lee et al. this is not to say they
are not excellent teams or players: they are. It is just that they are
not so far ahead of the pack. Bring on technology and the gap becomes
smaller still.
Getting Sydneyed: to move quickly from a winning to a losing position
playing against Aus due to bad umpiring decisions.
The Old Fellow
Hey, Hey, Hey, be careful what you poke that anthill with.
Villanova
From what I read on rsc Andrew Dunfords opinions are well regarded.
He said Darrel Hair gave bad LBW decisions.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/aca93e640e44d300
> Draco, poking the RSC anthill with a stick
No need to change your daily habit of poking all your orifices
with that same stick.
--
posted via www.usenetfast.com - Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !
Villanova
Old fellow,
Your buddy Draco missed poking all your orifices today with his
god given tiny biological stick.
You better hurry up before he starts screaming and crying
after having lunch and dinner. lol
--
posted via www.usenetfast.com - Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !
Villanova
> On Jun 4, 11:19 am, Villanova <Villan...@VillanovaUniv.Com> wrote:
>> jzfredricks wrote:
>>>> on his gloved catch and Lee out to a catch off his forearm. In six
>>>> hours, the case for the use of technology had been appreciably advanced.
>>> hear hear
>> You deliberately chose to ignore the fact Brett Lee is not
>> a top order batsman.
>
> ????
>
> not sure what you're on about, but I'm pro-technology and anti-crap-
> umpiring.
You chose to leave Brett Lee's bad decision comment while leaving
out others.
> the 'hear hear' was in support of "the case for the use of technology
> had been appreciably advanced."
You did a great job but fact is Australia gets majority of favourable
umpiring decisions as has been shown in the last Aus vs India
and the current Aus vs WI series.
Villanova
Getting Sydneyed !!!
Great one.
It should become the standard cricket term to describe
bad umpiring in the future.
Villanova
> On Jun 4, 11:19 am, Villanova <Villan...@VillanovaUniv.Com> wrote:
>> jzfredricks wrote:
>>>> on his gloved catch and Lee out to a catch off his forearm. In six
>>>> hours, the case for the use of technology had been appreciably advanced.
>>> hear hear
>> You deliberately chose to ignore the fact Brett Lee is not
>> a top order batsman.
>
> ????
>
> not sure what you're on about, but I'm pro-technology and anti-crap-
> umpiring.
>
You chose to leave Brett Lee's bad decision comment while "snipping"
bad decisions given to WI players.
> the 'hear hear' was in support of "the case for the use of technology
> had been appreciably advanced."
You did a great job but fact is Australia gets majority of favourable
umpiring decisions as has been shown in the last Aus vs India
and the current Aus vs WI series.
jzfredricks
> bad decisions given to WI players.
no point quoting the whole post. I wanted to address techology.
check this post out;
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/browse_thread/thread/eaf89435a9650773#
John Dennis
Of course, back in thre 60s it would probably have been "Getting
Bombayed"
subi...@notmail.com
>
> Of course, back in thre 60s it would probably have been "Getting
> Bombayed"
how times have changed
dechucka
"subi...@notmail.com" <sub...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6ff5901-2734-406e...@l17g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
how times have changed
not overly you are FUCKED in the BRAIN now as you would have been in the
past
subi...@notmail.com
> "subi...@notmail.com" <subi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d6ff5901-2734-406e...@l17g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 4, 9:49 am, John Dennis <denj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 4, 5:04 pm, Villanova <Villan...@VillanovaUniv.Com> wrote:
>
> > > subi...@notmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Jun 4, 4:05 am, "Dave -Turner" <ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> > > >> Australia has been dominant in the game for many, many years. That
> > > >> doesn't
> > > >> just happen because of a few dodgy umpires. Can you say SORE LOSER?
>
> > > > Correct. That has happened because of MANY dodgy decisions over that
> > > > period. I have campaigned to bring this to light over the past 3-4
> > > > years at rsc. Not only is Aus's winning record is therefore greatly
> > > > inflated, but so to the batting records of ponting and hayden, and the
> > > > bowling records of mcgrath, warne, lee et al. this is not to say they
> > > > are not excellent teams or players: they are. It is just that they are
> > > > not so far ahead of the pack. Bring on technology and the gap becomes
> > > > smaller still.
>
> > > > Getting Sydneyed: to move quickly from a winning to a losing position
> > > > playing against Aus due to bad umpiring decisions.
>
> > > Getting Sydneyed !!!
>
> > > Great one.
>
> > > It should become the standard cricket term to describe
> > > bad umpiring in the future.
>
> > > --
>
> > Of course, back in thre 60s it would probably have been "Getting
> > Bombayed"
>
> how times have changed
>
> not overly you are FUCKED in the BRAIN now as you would have been in the
> past
thanks for acknowledging that i have a brain to get fucked. i am
afraid i cannot say the same for you after your cultish and
fundamentalist defense of hair. and no i was not around 'back in the
60s' to have a yearning for the good old days of yore.
guyan...@yahoo.com
82.7% Oz gmet a favorable decision from the [f]u[ck]mpires
R. Spanditt
> The Old Fellow wrote:
> > draco664 wrote:
> >> On Jun 4, 11:19 am, Villanova <Villan...@VillanovaUniv.Com> wrote:
> >>> jzfredricks wrote:
> >>>>> on his gloved catch and Lee out to a catch off his forearm. In six
> >>>>> hours, the case for the use of technology had been appreciably
> >>>>> advanced.
> >>>> hear hear
> >>> You deliberately chose to ignore the fact Brett Lee is not
> >>> a top order batsman.
>
> >>> Australian team regularly gets more favourable decisions than
> >>> any other team in cricket from the umpires.
>
> >>> It was proven in the last Aus vs Ind series and again in
> >>> this Aus vs WI series.
>
> >>> --
>
> >> Well, duh. That's what happens when you don't allow the best umpires
> >> to stand in tests which Australia plays. The best umpires are
> >> Australian.
>
> >> Draco, poking the RSC anthill with a stick
>
> > Hey, Hey, Hey, be careful what you poke that anthill with.
>
> Old fellow,
>
> Your buddy Draco missed poking all your orifices today with his
> god given tiny biological stick.
>
> You better hurry up before he starts screaming and crying
> after having lunch and dinner. lol
>
> --
>
Sounding more like the Indian StraightDrive lunatic with every post
Villanova
Spanditt,
I never stopped you from killfiling me and that other "Indian lunatic"
StraightDrive.
It is not surprising that you do not have any problems with "Australian"
and "English" lunatics Paul Bailey, Paul Robson, Mike Holmans.
You sure are a synonym for hypocrisy.
Villanova
>> You chose to leave Brett Lee's bad decision comment while "snipping"
>> bad decisions given to WI players.
>
> no point quoting the whole post.
You don't have to quote the whole post as long as you
do not snip the real facts in Aus vs WI test that Aussies get
all the critical favourable umpiring decisions.
>I wanted to address techology.
Check the subject title of this thread.
> check this post out;
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/browse_thread/thread/eaf89435a9650773#
>
--
jzfredricks
> do not snip the real facts in Aus vs WI test that Aussies get
> all the critical favourable umpiring decisions.
Do you realise how stupid you look when you say;
1) I have to quote stuff not relevant to what I want to talk about
2) that the 'real facts' were that the aussies got 'all the critical
decisions in their favour'
I'll say for the last time (in this thread), my snipped quote
contained all I wanted - that there WERE bad umpiring mistakes that I
think more technology would solve.
I don't need some racist, paranoid, conspiracy, bullshit, mad and
juvenile theory about all elite umpires cheating to help Australia.
I feel sorry for you. So much hate. For no reason. Or sadly, for
possibly very good reasons. Whatever turned you into the fucked up
person that you are must have been terrible, and beyond healing.
will_s
"subi...@notmail.com" <sub...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4a201ade-54a3-4271...@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Well what you need to do is to go back over all the Tests for the last 10
years and go through them ball by ball and then convert the number of leg
mate appeals against decisions given in favour.
The go back to the studios involved and confirm the calibration of their
devices like hawkeye etc
Then go and have a course in 2d v 3d animations etc so you understand the
difference between a TV view and a 3d view
Now go and do all this and come back in 10 years or so with all the figures
subi...@notmail.com
> "subi...@notmail.com" <subi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
all this just to please you when easy evidence is available in any
test match featuring oz? no, thanks.
what you need to do, simply, is to get spectacles and see a shrink to
deal with your lunatic hyper-nationalism. come back later in the
afternoon, the world will look different, literally.
Villanova
>> You don't have to quote the whole post as long as you
>> do not snip the real facts in Aus vs WI test that Aussies get
>> all the critical favourable umpiring decisions.
>
> Do you realise how stupid you look when you say;
I do realize you are very deceptive.
> 1) I have to quote stuff not relevant to what I want to talk about
You did not have to leave the comment about only Brett Lee's decision.
> 2) that the 'real facts' were that the aussies got 'all the critical
> decisions in their favour'
That is the fact in Aus vs WI test. Majority of umpiring errors were
in favor of Australia.
> I'll say for the last time (in this thread), my snipped quote
> contained all I wanted - that there WERE bad umpiring mistakes that I
> think more technology would solve.
I will say it for the last time too.
Read this threads subject title.
You deliberately chose to leave the umpiring error of Brett Lee and
snip the bad umpiring decisions against WI players.
> I don't need some racist, paranoid, conspiracy, bullshit, mad and
> juvenile theory about all elite umpires cheating to help Australia.
There you go. I do not post comments for "you".
Your needs are your problem.
> I feel sorry for you. So much hate. For no reason. Or sadly, for
> possibly very good reasons. Whatever turned you into the fucked up
> person that you are must have been terrible, and beyond healing.
You are angry, upset and went berserk because I exposed your
deception of snipping the decisions against WI players and leaving
the decision against Brett Lee in your comment.
I feel really sorry for your pathetic life full of deception and
lies.
jzfredricks
> > decisions in their favour'
>
> That is the fact in Aus vs WI test. Majority of umpiring errors were
> in favor of Australia.
I'm glad you've finally seen the light and changed from 'all' to 'the
majority'
about time
Villanova
Both "All" and "Majority" are correct in the context of the
comment and Aus vs WI test that ended yesterday.
I really feel sorry for you are nit picking on some silly word
to misdirect the cricket lovers on rsc away from your deception.
You are a poor cretin like your fellow ozzy friends Spanditt,
dechuka and the rest.
jzfredricks
> comment and Aus vs WI test that ended yesterday.
when mistakes favoured both teams 'all' and 'majority' are two very
different things
you seem to be changing your mind back and forth so I'll let you talk
to yourself for a bit
Villanova
>> Both "All" and "Majority" are correct in the context of the
>> comment and Aus vs WI test that ended yesterday.
>
> when mistakes favoured both teams 'all' and 'majority' are two very
> different things
They are not two different things when "All crictical" and "Majority"
of decisions went in favor of Australia and against West Indies.
> you seem to be changing your mind back and forth so I'll let you talk
> to yourself for a bit
Your mentality reminds me of John Travolta character in Swordfish movie,
you know the "misdirection mastery"
Richard Dixon
> Australia has been dominant in the game for many, many years. That doesn't
> just happen because of a few dodgy umpires. Can you say SORE LOSER?
This thread is load of whiny nonsense and sour grapes. I should spot
whining a mile off, I'm a pom.
Richard
Cicero
> You did a great job but fact is Australia gets majority of favourable
> umpiring decisions as has been shown in the last Aus vs India
> and the current Aus vs WI series.
If you create more chances you are going to get more appeals dufus- Law of
averages?
Anyway, I hope it does happen so all the whingers can hang their collective
hats on "We wuz robbed"
guyan...@yahoo.com
Apart from their claiming dropped catches, off pads etc, which makes
up for the remaining 11%!
Mike Holmans
<rdng...@yahoo.co.uk> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
Maybe so, but we've never been as good at whingeing as the
Australians. World champs at whingeing, the Aussies, although recently
challenged in rsc by the Indians.
Cheers,
Mike
--
Fish Womper
<Vill...@VillanovaUniv.Com> wrote:
>jzfredricks wrote:
>>> Both "All" and "Majority" are correct in the context of the
>>> comment and Aus vs WI test that ended yesterday.
>>
>> when mistakes favoured both teams 'all' and 'majority' are two very
>> different things
>
>
>They are not two different things when "All crictical" and "Majority"
>of decisions went in favor of Australia and against West Indies.
All= 100%
Majority= >50%.
Quite a difference I'd suggest, so which is it?
fish
Villanova
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 00:42:07 -0700, Villanova
> <Vill...@VillanovaUniv.Com> wrote:
>
>> jzfredricks wrote:
>>>> Both "All" and "Majority" are correct in the context of the
>>>> comment and Aus vs WI test that ended yesterday.
>>> when mistakes favoured both teams 'all' and 'majority' are two very
>>> different things
>>
>> They are not two different things when "All crictical" and "Majority"
>> of decisions went in favor of Australia and against West Indies.
>
> All= 100%
> Majority= >50%.
>
> Quite a difference I'd suggest, so which is it?
>
> fish
"All Critical"
"Majority"
I pray to God to enlighten all you English native language speakers.
dechucka
"Mike Holmans" <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4rrf44paeq9oq2f7b...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 02:32:02 -0700 (PDT), Richard Dixon
> <rdng...@yahoo.co.uk> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>>On 4 Jun, 04:05, "Dave -Turner" <ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>> Australia has been dominant in the game for many, many years. That
>>> doesn't
>>> just happen because of a few dodgy umpires. Can you say SORE LOSER?
>>
>>This thread is load of whiny nonsense and sour grapes. I should spot
>>whining a mile off, I'm a pom.
>
> Australians. World champs at winning, the Aussies,
typos fixed
prab...@gmail.com
> On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 02:32:02 -0700 (PDT), Richard Dixon
I would say attributing a 3-0 thrashing( 2 of them innings defeats, 1
eight-wicket loss, lasting 12 out of 15 days) to a plate of prawns at
Madras and the Calcutta smog is no small whinge.
Trust Emburey, Salisbury and Jarvis to skittle out a Sidhu, Azhar,
Tendulkar, Kambli, Kapil line-up if not for the smog.
R. Spanditt
> R. Spanditt wrote:
> > On Jun 4, 4:59 pm, Villanova <Villan...@VillanovaUniv.Com> wrote:
> >> The Old Fellow wrote:
> >>> draco664 wrote:
> >>>> On Jun 4, 11:19 am, Villanova <Villan...@VillanovaUniv.Com> wrote:
> >>>>> jzfredricks wrote:
> >>>>>>> on his gloved catch and Lee out to a catch off his forearm. In six
> >>>>>>> hours, the case for the use of technology had been appreciably
> >>>>>>> advanced.
> >>>>>> hear hear
> >>>>> You deliberately chose to ignore the fact Brett Lee is not
> >>>>> a top order batsman.
> >>>>> Australian team regularly gets more favourable decisions than
> >>>>> any other team in cricket from the umpires.
> >>>>> It was proven in the last Aus vs Ind series and again in
> >>>>> this Aus vs WI series.
> >>>>> --
> >>>> Well, duh. That's what happens when you don't allow the best umpires
> >>>> to stand in tests which Australia plays. The best umpires are
> >>>> Australian.
> >>>> Draco, poking the RSC anthill with a stick
> >>> Hey, Hey, Hey, be careful what you poke that anthill with.
> >> Old fellow,
>
> >> Your buddy Draco missed poking all your orifices today with his
> >> god given tiny biological stick.
>
> >> You better hurry up before he starts screaming and crying
> >> after having lunch and dinner. lol
>
> >> --
>
> > Sounding more like the Indian StraightDrive lunatic with every post
>
> Spanditt,
>
> I never stopped you from killfiling me and that other "Indian lunatic"
> StraightDrive.
>
> It is not surprising that you do not have any problems with "Australian"
> and "English" lunatics Paul Bailey, Paul Robson, Mike Holmans.
>
> You sure are a synonym for hypocrisy.
>
1. I can't killfile,
2. I couldn't care less where you're from, nor any of the other names
you mentioned,
3. If i did care where you were from, how on earth would i know you're
not Australian?
If hypocrisy is telling you that you don't have any idea, so be it.
Your argument came straight back like a fart in a head wind.
Villanova
"Your" problem.
> 2. I couldn't care less where you're from, nor any of the other names
> you mentioned, 3. If i did care where you were from, how on earth would i know you're
> not Australian?
Then you have no business to refer to StraightDrive as "Indian lunatic"
in your comments.
When will you grow up and take responsibility for "your" actions ?
> If hypocrisy is telling you that you don't have any idea, so be it.
Hypocrisy is abusing and calling a poster "Indian lunatic" while
simulataneously loving your fellow Australian lunatics Paul Bailey,
will_s, dechuka, jzfredericks, fish womper etc.
StraightDrive
"Villanova" <Vill...@VillanovaUniv.Com> wrote in message
news:48480ca4$0$7345$805e...@news.usenetfast.com...
> Fish Womper wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 00:42:07 -0700, Villanova
>> <Vill...@VillanovaUniv.Com> wrote:
>>
>>> jzfredricks wrote:
>>>>> Both "All" and "Majority" are correct in the context of the
>>>>> comment and Aus vs WI test that ended yesterday.
>>>> when mistakes favoured both teams 'all' and 'majority' are two very
>>>> different things
>>>
>>> They are not two different things when "All crictical" and "Majority"
>>> of decisions went in favor of Australia and against West Indies.
>>
>> All= 100%
>> Majority= >50%.
>>
>> Quite a difference I'd suggest, so which is it?
>>
>> fish
>
>
>
> "All Critical"
>
> "Majority"
>
> I pray to God to enlighten all you English native language speakers.
>
>
Lord Jesus failed miserably to give common sense to the
westerners.
Read how this German guy Brad couldn't find one with a bit of
"common sense".....LOL
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/d2e5e7f4999dd7a5?hl=en
StraightDrive
"Villanova" <Vill...@VillanovaUniv.Com> wrote in message
R Spanditt also posts by the name R Shakey.
"Its" cricket knowledge is "ZERO" and its only expertize is
in abusing Indian posters on rsc.
jzfredricks
> in your comments.
but.. but... it's true :(
will_s
"subi...@notmail.com" <sub...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a166d0ae-f034-40c7...@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 5, 2:45 am, "will_s" <los...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "subi...@notmail.com" <subi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:4a201ade-54a3-4271...@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 4, 4:05 am, "Dave -Turner" <ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>> >> Australia has been dominant in the game for many, many years. That
>> >> doesn't
>> >> just happen because of a few dodgy umpires. Can you say SORE LOSER?
>>
>> > Correct. That has happened because of MANY dodgy decisions over that
>> > period. I have campaigned to bring this to light over the past 3-4
>> > years at rsc. Not only is Aus's winning record is therefore greatly
>> > inflated, but so to the batting records of ponting and hayden, and the
>> > bowling records of mcgrath, warne, lee et al. this is not to say they
>> > are not excellent teams or players: they are. It is just that they are
>> > not so far ahead of the pack. Bring on technology and the gap becomes
>> > smaller still.
>>
>> > Getting Sydneyed: to move quickly from a winning to a losing position
>> > playing against Aus due to bad umpiring decisions.
>>
>> Well what you need to do is to go back over all the Tests for the last 10
>> years and go through them ball by ball and then convert the number of leg
>> mate appeals against decisions given in favour.
>>
>> The go back to the studios involved and confirm the calibration of their
>> devices like hawkeye etc
>>
>> Then go and have a course in 2d v 3d animations etc so you understand
>> theSo you are to scared
>> difference between a TV view and a 3d view
>>
>> Now go and do all this and come back in 10 years or so with all the
>> figures
>
> all this just to please you when easy evidence is available in any
> test match featuring oz? no, thanks.
just plain scared are u ?
Scared that your pathetic little fantasies will go up in smoke
You made the allegations so its up to you to provide true facts and not
pathetic whinges
Villanova
but....but....it is also true you are a deception and
misdirection expert.
Villanova
You mean Tony Cozier the cricket columnist and Andrew Dunford the rsc
cricket expert are also whiners ?
Tony Cozier
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/9eff7ce438e59de0?hl=en
Andrew Dunford on Darrel Hair's umpiring in Aus vs WI test
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/aca93e640e44d300?hl=en
subi...@notmail.com
scared of stating the blindingly obvious? scared that you lot might
commit mass harakiri when faced with the facts? you call sydney and
antigua 'pathetic little fantasies'? goes to show who really is
delusional. ozzie ozzie ozzie oi oi oi.
jzfredricks
> commit mass harakiri when faced with the facts? you call sydney and
> antigua 'pathetic little fantasies'? goes to show who really is
> delusional. ozzie ozzie ozzie oi oi oi.
here's the delusion test;
do u think the favourable umpiring in Syd+Ant+any-other-test-you-want
was due to crap, yet honest, umpiring... or due to a bias* favouring
australia?
*in my books if an ump is knowingly biased then baised == cheating
Calvin
All of them?
--
cheers,
calvin
Villanova
>
> All of them?
>
Calvin,
I can't say no if a cricket genius like you says "yes
all of them".
Terry Scott
"Villanova" <Vill...@VillanovaUniv.Com> wrote in message
> Calvin wrote:
>>
>> All of them?
>>
>
>
>
> Calvin,
>
> I can't say no if a cricket genius like you says "yes
> all of them".
>
>
Though I bet you have heard the word often when with a female.
subi...@notmail.com
here is one for you: if, over a 15 year period, one team gets
'favourable umpiring' (including not calling for 3rd umps, 3rd umps
ruling not out even when the whole world can see it was; all benefits
of the doubts going to one team and not one to another, one team has
players given out when obviously not, the other team has players given
not out when they are obviously are), what do you call it?
if he incompetence was evenly spread, i would have nothing to whine
about. was that the case in sydney, antigua etc? why did lara get
given out on so many occasions in aus when he was not? where does
'playing the umpire' (warne) or 'theatrics' (langer)? why do aus
players who abuse on the field, show dissent, hang around after being
caught at second slip etc never get pulled up for dissent?
you tell me boss, i don't know.
jzfredricks
is there a clear line between the umpires KNOWINGLY cheating and them
being bad?
'bad' includes non-deliberate stuff like; letting pressure/reputation/
crowds effect your calls
If you agree there's a difference between cheating and being
bad...again i ask...what side are you on?
That's my delusion test, and it'd be nice if you took it
ben.g...@hotmail.com
What's more believable... you have a victim mentality further enhanced
by your blatant nationality or that there is a secret conspiracy
amongst the elite umpires and cricket organisations that has continued
undetected by the press and public for 15 years to aid the Australian
team and disparrage any opposition?
The only reason people notice the bad decisions against the opposition
is because Australia wins. It's no surprise that when Australia loses
people suddenly notice the bad decisions against them (a series of bad
decisions against Australia in India a few years back comes to mind).
subi...@notmail.com
to my knowledge, i have not called the umpires crooks or cheats, i
have called aussies crooks and cheats for playing the umpires,
theatrics, and so on. i feel some umpires are biased in favour of oz.
if they were uniformly bad, i'd understand. when their mistakes favour
one team overwhelmingly, then they have let those extraneous factors
affect their judgement and should be removed. all umpires make
mistakes but they should not make mistakes favouring one team only. i
don't think any current umpire is a cheat. hope that clarifies my
position.
jzfredricks
> have called aussies crooks and cheats for playing the umpires,
> theatrics, and so on. i feel some umpires are biased in favour of oz.
> if they were uniformly bad, i'd understand. when their mistakes favour
> one team overwhelmingly, then they have let those extraneous factors
> affect their judgement and should be removed. all umpires make
> mistakes but they should not make mistakes favouring one team only. i
> don't think any current umpire is a cheat. hope that clarifies my
> position.
I agree with you that the aussies pressure/persuade the umpires better
than any other team around. I won't call this cheating or being a
crook, though, even though i don't like this part of the game. You
have to realise that EVERY international team does this - it's just
that the aussies are better than most teams (like most facets of their
game).
The mistake you are making is using the word 'biased', especially when
you agree it is NOT deliberate, but rather a mistake by the umpires.
By common definition 'biased' means prejudice and deliberate, which IS
cheating when it comes to umpiring.
Blame the aussies as much as you want, and say the umps are bad at
their jobs, but you really should stop calling them biased or cheats.
Cicero
here is one for you: if, over a 15 year period, one team gets
'favourable umpiring' (including not calling for 3rd umps, 3rd umps
ruling not out even when the whole world can see it was; all benefits
of the doubts going to one team and not one to another, one team has
players given out when obviously not, the other team has players given
not out when they are obviously are), what do you call it?
if he incompetence was evenly spread, i would have nothing to whine
about. was that the case in sydney, antigua etc? why did lara get
given out on so many occasions in aus when he was not? where does
'playing the umpire' (warne) or 'theatrics' (langer)? why do aus
players who abuse on the field, show dissent, hang around after being
caught at second slip etc never get pulled up for dissent?
you tell me boss, i don't know.
Could you please give some stats to prove this. Remember, anecdotes are not
data.
John Dennis
You could perhaps try to present some facts too. Your comments are
purely anecdotal.
Cicero
"John Dennis" <den...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:94d878fa-66c5-4806...@p39g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
If you could name the comments I have made it would be a starting point.
guyan...@yahoo.com
It is cheating, like McEnroe yelling at the linesmen, gamesmanship,
cheating all the same Oz is the best in that and cricket too as proved
in the IPL!!
jzfredricks
> cheating all the same Oz is the best in that and cricket too
Then every international team cheats. They all do it. Some teams are
just better at it.
Villanova
I am sure Calvin is intelligent enough to reply to my response.
He does not need your fag help.
So many Australian fags on rsc........Jeeeeeeez
will_s
"subi...@notmail.com" <sub...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:03198dc4-3322-45ee...@v1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
the blatant obvious is that you are a whining prat who whinges constantly
but wont provide proof to back up your allegations
will_s
"Mike Holmans" <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4rrf44paeq9oq2f7b...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 02:32:02 -0700 (PDT), Richard Dixon
> <rdng...@yahoo.co.uk> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>>On 4 Jun, 04:05, "Dave -Turner" <ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>> Australia has been dominant in the game for many, many years. That
>>> doesn't
>>> just happen because of a few dodgy umpires. Can you say SORE LOSER?
>>
>>This thread is load of whiny nonsense and sour grapes. I should spot
>>whining a mile off, I'm a pom.
>
> Maybe so, but we've never been as good at whingeing as the
> Australians. World champs at whingeing, the Aussies, although recently
> challenged in rsc by the Indians.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
> --
rofllmao
how do they describe the English in Australia ? Whinging
poms....................
Now that term has been around since there has been an Australia
And you known something Mike....... It is just as relevant today as ever
will_s
>
> 82.7% Oz gmet a favorable decision from the [f]u[ck]mpires
How many close appeals in the match were there ? How many appeals in total
?
John Dennis
> "John Dennis" <denj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Let's start with this, which as far as I can tell, was made by you:
"if, over a 15 year period, one team gets 'favourable
umpiring' (including not calling for 3rd umps, 3rd umps ruling not out
even when the whole world can see it was; all benefits of the doubts
going to one team and not one to another, one team has players given
out when obviously not, the other team has players given not out when
they are obviously are), what do you call it? "
Have you gone back over the 15 years and analysed all of the
decisions? There has been 650 tests or so played over that period,
but unless you can point to some hard, unbiased, evidence - rather
than relying on hysterical ramblings of rsc posters - that has counted
all of the bad or near things, then your statement is nothing more
than something based on anecdotal evidence.
Don't just concentrate on the Australia games, look at all 650 of
them. Otherwise you might be missing some blatant examples of whatever-
it-is-you-are-trying-to-prove in games not involving Australia,
When you have analysed all of the decisions, come back to us, and then
we might be able to determine the affect the umpires have on results
over that period.
subi...@notmail.com
> The mistake you are making is using the word 'biased', especially when
> you agree it is NOT deliberate, but rather a mistake by the umpires.
> By common definition 'biased' means prejudice and deliberate, which IS
> cheating when it comes to umpiring.
actually, and i have said this before, i use the word bias purely in
its statistical meaning, without attributing motive. hope that
clarifies things.
Cicero
Sorry- that is not me. My comments are normally not that long.
I assume that I will get an apology?
John Dennis
Absolutely. With no indication that your post, to which I was
replying, had any quoted text, it was quite an easy mistake to make. I
have searched through the thread and found that the text I quoted was
originally posted by "subi...@notmail.com".
It looks like you and I are in agreement.
Apologies once more...
John
Cicero
No worries- you just had me a little confused there :)
kevin....@gmail.com
What is wrong in umpires making favorable decisions for Aussies?
Umpiring is part of the strategy too! Aussies bought, manipulates and
put biased umpires as planned move. What is wrong in it? Other teams
could have done it too ..
Most of the brown skinned players look at white skinned people with
reverence. And aussies manipulated it to their advantage. There is
nothing wrong in it. Brown/Black skinned have got only themselves to
blame. Remember how much aussies abused Murali. What did spineless Sri
Lankans do ? Nothing .. Sri Lankans got what deserved.
Jimmy
an Australian wicket is more valuable than any other wicket in the world.
its like scoring goals against man united.
maybe umpires are scrutinised more than usual ..
<kevin....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ca1d0bfb-f064-4731...@f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Richard Dixon
> "Mike Holmans" <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:4rrf44paeq9oq2f7b...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 02:32:02 -0700 (PDT), Richard Dixon
>
> >>On 4 Jun, 04:05, "Dave -Turner" <ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> >>> Australia has been dominant in the game for many, many years. That
> >>> doesn't
> >>> just happen because of a few dodgy umpires. Can you say SORE LOSER?
>
> >>This thread is load of whiny nonsense and sour grapes. I should spot
> >>whining a mile off, I'm a pom.
>
> > Maybe so, but we've never been as good at whingeing as the
> > Australians. World champs at whingeing, the Aussies, although recently
> > challenged in rsc by the Indians.
>
> > Cheers,
>
> > Mike
> > --
>
> rofllmao
>
> how do they describe the English in Australia ? Whinging
> poms....................
>
> Now that term has been around since there has been an Australia
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hence my prior comment "I should spot whining a mile off, I'm a pom".
Never mind.
Richard
Walter Mitty
Yes. For a reason. It's the old case of projection.
> And you known something Mike....... It is just as relevant today as
> ever
In that it shows Australians up as the bad sports and whiners they are
whenever things do not go their way. England receives more "fair play"
awards than pretty much anyone else. It is most certainly not an English
trait to whine and whinge - hence the fabled stiff upper lip.
jzfredricks
> whenever things do not go their way. England receives more "fair play"
> awards than pretty much anyone else. It is most certainly not an English
> trait to whine and whinge - hence the fabled stiff upper lip.
The thing is the Aussies would happily trade a few fair play awards
for all the comps they've won.
England? One major since 1966?
Australia? Did everyone lose count?
I've lived in both countries, and in my experience there's very little
difference in the level of whinging. Aussies do seem HARDER, though.
The grassroots cricket sledging is definitely worse in Oz :)
R. Spanditt
>
> > If hypocrisy is telling you that you don't have any idea, so be it.
>
> Hypocrisy is abusing and calling a poster "Indian lunatic" while
> simulataneously loving your fellow Australian lunatics Paul Bailey,
> will_s, dechuka, jzfredericks, fish womper etc.
Oh okay, took me a while to work it out but you're obviously the same
person (how stupid of me). Not many people are stupid enough to state
that i love people i've hardly heard of - i have heard of will s and
dechucka and usually i'm telling them to stop being idiots, but let's
not let the facts into this one, will we StraightDrive? It's hilarious
you can be bothered logging out and back in under so many different
names.
Calvin
<Vill...@VillanovaUniv.Com> wrote:
> Calvin wrote:
>> All of them?
>>
>
>
>
> Calvin,
>
> I can't say no if a cricket genius like you says "yes
> all of them".
That gives me an idea...
--
cheers,
calvin
Villanova
You are a genius with a trillion ideas.
Villanova
>
>>> If hypocrisy is telling you that you don't have any idea, so be it.
>> Hypocrisy is abusing and calling a poster "Indian lunatic" while
>> simulataneously loving your fellow Australian lunatics Paul Bailey,
>> will_s, dechuka, jzfredericks, fish womper etc.
>
> Oh okay, took me a while to work it out but you're obviously the same
> person (how stupid of me). Not many people are stupid enough to state
> that i love people i've hardly heard of - i have heard of will s and
> dechucka and usually i'm telling them to stop being idiots, but let's
> not let the facts into this one, will we StraightDrive?
I am a baseball fan and I throw curve balls. Apparently StraightDrive
hates baseball. So much for your logic and intelligence.
> It's hilarious
> you can be bothered logging out and back in under so many different
> names.
Is there any Australian cricket fan on rsc who is not a lunatic ?
The answer is a resounding NO.
StraightDrive
"R. Spanditt" <dnarm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7a92d620-8abb-404d...@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
R Spanditt aka R Shakey or whatever shit you call yourself today,
What is so hilarious about logging out and back in under different names ?
You folks are born to AMUSE me.
Do you mean I have to spend $30 bil and 30 years of work assembling
all kinds of scientists to create a network to cheat and deceive the
6.6 bil earthlings like your friend bhandava bragged ?
1000 Software Engineers working for 1000 years to deceive the public
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/bdd4802d0b3921b9
jzfredricks
nothing, so why do u do it?
StraightDrive
"jzfredricks" <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4cdc716c-b593-41b7...@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>> What is so hilarious about logging out and back in under different names
>> ?
>
> nothing, so why do u do it?
jzfredricks,
You just proved
Australia = Nation of Fags
StraightDrive
"jzfredricks" <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4cdc716c-b593-41b7...@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>> ?
>
> nothing, so why do u do it?
Genius jzfredericks,
1) I never said I do it
2) You never had problems with rsc posters bragging they do it all the time
1000 Software Engineers worked for 1000 years to deceive the public
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/bdd4802d0b3921b9
3) You folks are born to amuse me
4) Your existence is useless
jzfredricks
> 4) Your existence is useless
lol, that pretty much sums up your personalities to a T
StraightDrive
>> 3) You folks are born to amuse me
>> 4) Your existence is useless
>
> lol, that pretty much sums up your personalities to a T
>
Genius jzfredericks,
As Villanova proved, you are a misdirection expert like John Travolta's
character
in Swordfish movie.
You never had problems with rsc posters bragging they do it all the time
1000 Software Engineers worked for 1000 years to deceive the public
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/bdd4802d0b3921b9
You folks suffer from the disease of hypocrisy......you know your philosophy
since time immemorial.
If I do it I am smart, If you do it you are a criminal
If I do it it is collateral damage, if you do it you are a terrorist
If I do it I am civilized, if you do it you are backward and uncivilized
If I do it I am playing hard, If you do it you are a cheat
StraightDrive
>> 3) You folks are born to amuse me
>> 4) Your existence is useless
>
> lol, that pretty much sums up your personalities to a T
>
Still struggling with that psychoanalysis, ha genius jzfredericks ??
I warned you years ago you will never finish it and whatever you did
so far is utter garbage.
Roflmao
To reiterate, you folks are born to amuse me.
subi...@notmail.com
here is proof, bozo, but you would know it if it hit you in the face.
once again mr integrity gestures that he was not out when he was, and
benson accepts that. it is not just the biased umpiring, it is the
blatant attempts by crooks such as symonds to mislead the umpire,
something that a strict application of the rules would not allow for.
but he is ozzie, he will never be reprimanded. had benson ruled
correctly, aus would be all out by now, or at least in a much worse
position. another example of biased umpiring inflating the record of
an aussie players (symonds is usually out a few times before he is
actually given) and an insight into aus's 'dominance'.
34.2 Bravo to Symonds, no run, what's this now? Bravo slips in another
short one down leg stump, Symonds shapes to half-leave, half-tickle it
fine and the ball clips the inside of his glove before Ramdin takes a
good catch down the leg side, they all ask the question but umpire
Benson is unmoved ... oh ho ho, replays show ball did indeed make
contact with the gloves, and Symonds stands his ground, much to the
crowd's displeasure, so West Indies can feel hard done
StraightDrive
"will_s" <los...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6au9flF...@mid.individual.net...
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/wivaus/content/current/story/354618.html
West Indies v Australia, 3rd Test, Barbados, 1st day
All the luck to Symonds
Tony Cozier
June 13, 2008
Rod Stewart would have had something entirely different in mind when writing
the lyrics to one of his several hits but they are equally applicable to
cricket, especially in the present series. The chorus line went:
"Some guys have all the luck
Some guys have all the pain
Some guys get all the breaks
Some guys do nothing but complain".
From the second day of the first Test at Sabina Park to the first day of the
third at Kensington Oval yesterday, Andrew Symonds has been the guy with all
the luck, the West Indies bowlers those with all the pain. The dreadlocked
Australian has got all the breaks and, although they haven't, West Indies
have every right to complain. Three times, the umpires have been involved.
Occasionally, fielders have given him the chance. And so it was again
yesterday. Symonds has always been good enough to take advantage and to
change the course of an innings that was in danger of imploding.
In the first innings at Sabina, Australia had slid from the first-day
security of 301 for 4 to 372 for 7 at lunch. First ball on resumption, Fidel
Edwards bent a late inswinger into Symonds' pads and only umpire Russell
Tiffin could not detect that the ball was zeroing in on middle and leg
stumps. Symonds was on 18 at the time. He proceeded to carry Australia to
431, unbeaten on 70 when the last wicket fell.
In the second innings in Antigua, unconvinced umpire Mark Benson ruled him
not out on his leg-side catch off the glove to Denesh Ramdin off Dwayne
Bravo when still in single figures. He finished unbeaten on 43.
On Thursday, Chris Gayle's catch off Simon Katich's swirling top-edged hook
off Edwards left Australia lurching at 111 for 5 in the fifth over after
lunch. As Symonds entered the arena, arms swinging in preparation for
battle, West Indies might have had troubling memories of recent escapes.
Their fears were quickly realised.
He was on seven when he cut fiercely at Bravo. The bounce from a sprightlier
surface than Sabina and the graveyard in Antigua sent the ball flying off
the top edge and through the right hand of the flying Xavier Marshall at
second slip.
From the start, West Indies had identified Symonds' weakness as an
uncontrolled glide off his hip. To exploit it, Chris Gayle posted a fielder
at leg-slip. Bravo soon sprung the trap, inducing a deflection from the
glove, just as he had done in Antigua. The outcome was the same, Benson
again failing to be convinced of the claim for Denesh Ramdin's catch.
Symonds was on 14, Australia 133 for 5.
One reprieve was as crucial as the other. On previous evidence, West Indies
would have known what would follow. Symonds, undeterred by the booing of the
few West Indians scattered among the hundreds of touring Australian
supporters, took control in a partnership of 87 with Brad Haddin that
shifted the direction of the innings.
Eventually, Symonds drove loosely at the persevering Bravo and Sewnarine
Chattergoon pouched the catch at extra cover. The damage was not as major as
it might have been but it made the difference between the end of play total
and an all-out 170 or so. Yes, some guys have all the luck and others have
all the pain.