The Ashes 2017-18

Addick Addict

Riviera said:

Kids!

Sorry Dad.

cantersaddick

Addick Addict said:

As for DRS as I have already indicated, if we think as some of us do that it is 100% accurate, I would like us to do away with "Umpires call".

Umpires are as good and as "thick skinned" as they have ever been in the history of the game and in restricting teams to two per innings we should only get reviews of blatant bad decisions e.g. when a batsman knows that he has edged a given LBW or a short leg knows that the bat has got an inside edge on a catch that hasn't been given. And that is what DRS was originally designed for.

But it's not 100% accurate for the prediction after impact. It's as close as is possible to 100%. And is accurate to a couple of millimetres. The just clippings go to umpires call precisely because they aren't howlers and that isnt what the process is there to do.

It is only 100% accurate for where the ball actually went. So where it pitched and where impact was. Hence no umpires call on them.

The_President

cantersaddick said:

Addick Addict said:

As for DRS as I have already indicated, if we think as some of us do that it is 100% accurate, I would like us to do away with "Umpires call".

Umpires are as good and as "thick skinned" as they have ever been in the history of the game and in restricting teams to two per innings we should only get reviews of blatant bad decisions e.g. when a batsman knows that he has edged a given LBW or a short leg knows that the bat has got an inside edge on a catch that hasn't been given. And that is what DRS was originally designed for.

But it's not 100% accurate for the prediction after impact. It's as close as is possible to 100%. And is accurate to a couple of millimetres. The just clippings go to umpires call precisely because they aren't bowlers and that isnt what the process is there to do.

It is only 100% accurate for where the ball actually went. So where it pitched and where impact was. Hence no umpires call on them.

Also they are human, and prone to mistakes, which fortunately machines arent (well, less often)

The_President

You know what, Canters, If i owned Hawkeye, i would tell HR to give you a job, salary negotiable to whatever you want.

Callumcafc

cantersaddick said:

Addick Addict said:

As for DRS as I have already indicated, if we think as some of us do that it is 100% accurate, I would like us to do away with "Umpires call".

Umpires are as good and as "thick skinned" as they have ever been in the history of the game and in restricting teams to two per innings we should only get reviews of blatant bad decisions e.g. when a batsman knows that he has edged a given LBW or a short leg knows that the bat has got an inside edge on a catch that hasn't been given. And that is what DRS was originally designed for.

But it's not 100% accurate for the prediction after impact. It's as close as is possible to 100%. And is accurate to a couple of millimetres. The just clippings go to umpires call precisely because they aren't bowlers and that isnt what the process is there to do.

It is only 100% accurate for where the ball actually went. So where it pitched and where impact was. Hence no umpires call on them.

Don't they do umpires call on impact?

Apart from that I 100% agree with you.

Cricket's been a much better spectacle since the introduction of DRS.

Addick Addict

cantersaddick said:

Addick Addict said:

As for DRS as I have already indicated, if we think as some of us do that it is 100% accurate, I would like us to do away with "Umpires call".

Umpires are as good and as "thick skinned" as they have ever been in the history of the game and in restricting teams to two per innings we should only get reviews of blatant bad decisions e.g. when a batsman knows that he has edged a given LBW or a short leg knows that the bat has got an inside edge on a catch that hasn't been given. And that is what DRS was originally designed for.

But it's not 100% accurate for the prediction after impact. It's as close as is possible to 100%. And is accurate to a couple of millimetres. The just clippings go to umpires call precisely because they aren't bowlers and that isnt what the process is there to do.

It is only 100% accurate for where the ball actually went. So where it pitched and where impact was. Hence no umpires call on them.

Yes but by definition it has to be more accurate than an umpire who does not have the benefits that technology has.

The_President

Addick Addict said:

cantersaddick said:

Addick Addict said:

As for DRS as I have already indicated, if we think as some of us do that it is 100% accurate, I would like us to do away with "Umpires call".

Umpires are as good and as "thick skinned" as they have ever been in the history of the game and in restricting teams to two per innings we should only get reviews of blatant bad decisions e.g. when a batsman knows that he has edged a given LBW or a short leg knows that the bat has got an inside edge on a catch that hasn't been given. And that is what DRS was originally designed for.

But it's not 100% accurate for the prediction after impact. It's as close as is possible to 100%. And is accurate to a couple of millimetres. The just clippings go to umpires call precisely because they aren't bowlers and that isnt what the process is there to do.

It is only 100% accurate for where the ball actually went. So where it pitched and where impact was. Hence no umpires call on them.

Yes but by definition it has to be more accurate than an umpire who does not have the benefits that technology has.

Isnt that a given?

bobmunro

cantersaddick said:

The_President said:

Am i (and maybe Canters), one of the few that thinks that DRS is brilliant? - it adds another angle to a cricket match - and , in this match, has resolveded so many incorrect 'eyeball' decisions. It has added to the spectacle and made cricket better for it. Actually, that would be a good company for you to work for, Canters, Hawkeye, they are based in Hampshire somewhere.
Be interesting what people think - i promise not to slag you off like Riv - but he does get on my tits at times !.

I would love to work on something as interesting as cricket. There are a few analyst roles out there but they are pretty niche and I'm not really qualified/experienced. Maybe one day.

Sports analysis eh?

Advanced maths skilled are essential to enable models and algorithms to be produced, but there’s plenty of scope in the betting industry for Sports Analysts

cantersaddick

Addick Addict said:

cantersaddick said:

Addick Addict said:

As for DRS as I have already indicated, if we think as some of us do that it is 100% accurate, I would like us to do away with "Umpires call".

Umpires are as good and as "thick skinned" as they have ever been in the history of the game and in restricting teams to two per innings we should only get reviews of blatant bad decisions e.g. when a batsman knows that he has edged a given LBW or a short leg knows that the bat has got an inside edge on a catch that hasn't been given. And that is what DRS was originally designed for.

But it's not 100% accurate for the prediction after impact. It's as close as is possible to 100%. And is accurate to a couple of millimetres. The just clippings go to umpires call precisely because they aren't bowlers and that isnt what the process is there to do.

It is only 100% accurate for where the ball actually went. So where it pitched and where impact was. Hence no umpires call on them.

Yes but by definition it has to be more accurate than an umpire who does not have the benefits that technology has.

Yes. So the ones where the decision could go either way within the built in margin for error stick with the initial decision.

I think we are agreeing with each other.

Addick Addict

The_President said:

Addick Addict said:

cantersaddick said:

Addick Addict said:

As for DRS as I have already indicated, if we think as some of us do that it is 100% accurate, I would like us to do away with "Umpires call".

Umpires are as good and as "thick skinned" as they have ever been in the history of the game and in restricting teams to two per innings we should only get reviews of blatant bad decisions e.g. when a batsman knows that he has edged a given LBW or a short leg knows that the bat has got an inside edge on a catch that hasn't been given. And that is what DRS was originally designed for.

But it's not 100% accurate for the prediction after impact. It's as close as is possible to 100%. And is accurate to a couple of millimetres. The just clippings go to umpires call precisely because they aren't bowlers and that isnt what the process is there to do.

It is only 100% accurate for where the ball actually went. So where it pitched and where impact was. Hence no umpires call on them.

Yes but by definition it has to be more accurate than an umpire who does not have the benefits that technology has.

Isnt that a given?

Yes so why are we accepting the call of an umpire who is less certain that a ball is going to hit the stumps than technology which is more accurate?

As I've also said, if it is 100% accurate where the ball pitched why does are we saying "more than half of the ball" has to pitch in line to make it a legitimate delivery?

Addick Addict

bobmunro said:

cantersaddick said:

The_President said:

Am i (and maybe Canters), one of the few that thinks that DRS is brilliant? - it adds another angle to a cricket match - and , in this match, has resolveded so many incorrect 'eyeball' decisions. It has added to the spectacle and made cricket better for it. Actually, that would be a good company for you to work for, Canters, Hawkeye, they are based in Hampshire somewhere.
Be interesting what people think - i promise not to slag you off like Riv - but he does get on my tits at times !.

I would love to work on something as interesting as cricket. There are a few analyst roles out there but they are pretty niche and I'm not really qualified/experienced. Maybe one day.

Sports analysis eh?

Advanced maths skilled are essential to enable models and algorithms to be produced, but there’s plenty of scope in the betting industry for Sports Analysts

What you need Canters is someone in the betting industry who can pull a few strings? If I know of any I'll let you know.

cantersaddick

Addick Addict said:

cantersaddick said:

Addick Addict said:

As for DRS as I have already indicated, if we think as some of us do that it is 100% accurate, I would like us to do away with "Umpires call".

Umpires are as good and as "thick skinned" as they have ever been in the history of the game and in restricting teams to two per innings we should only get reviews of blatant bad decisions e.g. when a batsman knows that he has edged a given LBW or a short leg knows that the bat has got an inside edge on a catch that hasn't been given. And that is what DRS was originally designed for.

But it's not 100% accurate for the prediction after impact. It's as close as is possible to 100%. And is accurate to a couple of millimetres. The just clippings go to umpires call precisely because they aren't bowlers and that isnt what the process is there to do.

It is only 100% accurate for where the ball actually went. So where it pitched and where impact was. Hence no umpires call on them.

Yes but by definition it has to be more accurate than an umpire who does not have the benefits that technology has.

Yes. More accurate than the umpire. But the technology can sit on the fence hiding behind margin for error or confidence intervals. An umpire can't they have to go one way or the other so the umpire is effectively a tie breaker in those situations.

cantersaddick

Callumcafc said:

cantersaddick said:

Addick Addict said:

As for DRS as I have already indicated, if we think as some of us do that it is 100% accurate, I would like us to do away with "Umpires call".

Umpires are as good and as "thick skinned" as they have ever been in the history of the game and in restricting teams to two per innings we should only get reviews of blatant bad decisions e.g. when a batsman knows that he has edged a given LBW or a short leg knows that the bat has got an inside edge on a catch that hasn't been given. And that is what DRS was originally designed for.

But it's not 100% accurate for the prediction after impact. It's as close as is possible to 100%. And is accurate to a couple of millimetres. The just clippings go to umpires call precisely because they aren't bowlers and that isnt what the process is there to do.

It is only 100% accurate for where the ball actually went. So where it pitched and where impact was. Hence no umpires call on them.

Don't they do umpires call on impact?

Apart from that I 100% agree with you.

Cricket's been a much better spectacle since the introduction of DRS.

Thought they didn't. May be wrong. Wouldnt make sense to given what I've read about it and the reasons for it

cantersaddick

The_President said:

You know what, Canters, If i owned Hawkeye, i would tell HR to give you a job, salary negotiable to whatever you want.

Haha thanks. But seriously I can understand the principles and how they apply to Hawkeye. I am seriously underqualified and under experienced to work for them. Still if I get to watch cricket as part of my job I'd probably be content.

bobmunro said:

cantersaddick said:

The_President said:

Am i (and maybe Canters), one of the few that thinks that DRS is brilliant? - it adds another angle to a cricket match - and , in this match, has resolveded so many incorrect 'eyeball' decisions. It has added to the spectacle and made cricket better for it. Actually, that would be a good company for you to work for, Canters, Hawkeye, they are based in Hampshire somewhere.
Be interesting what people think - i promise not to slag you off like Riv - but he does get on my tits at times !.

I would love to work on something as interesting as cricket. There are a few analyst roles out there but they are pretty niche and I'm not really qualified/experienced. Maybe one day.

Sports analysis eh?

Advanced maths skilled are essential to enable models and algorithms to be produced, but there’s plenty of scope in the betting industry for Sports Analysts

Have a moral objection to working in betting for various boring reasons I won't go into.

A sports analyst role would be the dream.

Addick Addict

cantersaddick said:

Addick Addict said:

cantersaddick said:

Addick Addict said:

As for DRS as I have already indicated, if we think as some of us do that it is 100% accurate, I would like us to do away with "Umpires call".

Umpires are as good and as "thick skinned" as they have ever been in the history of the game and in restricting teams to two per innings we should only get reviews of blatant bad decisions e.g. when a batsman knows that he has edged a given LBW or a short leg knows that the bat has got an inside edge on a catch that hasn't been given. And that is what DRS was originally designed for.

But it's not 100% accurate for the prediction after impact. It's as close as is possible to 100%. And is accurate to a couple of millimetres. The just clippings go to umpires call precisely because they aren't bowlers and that isnt what the process is there to do.

It is only 100% accurate for where the ball actually went. So where it pitched and where impact was. Hence no umpires call on them.

Yes but by definition it has to be more accurate than an umpire who does not have the benefits that technology has.

cantersaddick said:

Addick Addict said:

cantersaddick said:

Addick Addict said:

As for DRS as I have already indicated, if we think as some of us do that it is 100% accurate, I would like us to do away with "Umpires call".

Umpires are as good and as "thick skinned" as they have ever been in the history of the game and in restricting teams to two per innings we should only get reviews of blatant bad decisions e.g. when a batsman knows that he has edged a given LBW or a short leg knows that the bat has got an inside edge on a catch that hasn't been given. And that is what DRS was originally designed for.

But it's not 100% accurate for the prediction after impact. It's as close as is possible to 100%. And is accurate to a couple of millimetres. The just clippings go to umpires call precisely because they aren't bowlers and that isnt what the process is there to do.

It is only 100% accurate for where the ball actually went. So where it pitched and where impact was. Hence no umpires call on them.

Yes but by definition it has to be more accurate than an umpire who does not have the benefits that technology has.

Yes. More accurate than the umpire. But the technology can sit on the fence hiding behind margin for error or confidence intervals. An umpire can't they have to go one way or the other so the umpire is effectively a tie breaker in those situations.

And the umpire shouldn't be for the reasons I've stated.

I suppose I'm sort of half way between Riv who can't stand the use of technology and those who enjoy the spectacle of a review. I want technology to do what is was meant to do and get rid of the blatant mistakes and not a tool that is utilised by teams to suit their purposes thus causing unnecessary delays to the game.

cantersaddick

Addick Addict said:

cantersaddick said:

Addick Addict said:

cantersaddick said:

Addick Addict said:

As for DRS as I have already indicated, if we think as some of us do that it is 100% accurate, I would like us to do away with "Umpires call".

Umpires are as good and as "thick skinned" as they have ever been in the history of the game and in restricting teams to two per innings we should only get reviews of blatant bad decisions e.g. when a batsman knows that he has edged a given LBW or a short leg knows that the bat has got an inside edge on a catch that hasn't been given. And that is what DRS was originally designed for.

But it's not 100% accurate for the prediction after impact. It's as close as is possible to 100%. And is accurate to a couple of millimetres. The just clippings go to umpires call precisely because they aren't bowlers and that isnt what the process is there to do.

It is only 100% accurate for where the ball actually went. So where it pitched and where impact was. Hence no umpires call on them.

Yes but by definition it has to be more accurate than an umpire who does not have the benefits that technology has.

cantersaddick said:

Addick Addict said:

cantersaddick said:

Addick Addict said:

As for DRS as I have already indicated, if we think as some of us do that it is 100% accurate, I would like us to do away with "Umpires call".

Umpires are as good and as "thick skinned" as they have ever been in the history of the game and in restricting teams to two per innings we should only get reviews of blatant bad decisions e.g. when a batsman knows that he has edged a given LBW or a short leg knows that the bat has got an inside edge on a catch that hasn't been given. And that is what DRS was originally designed for.

But it's not 100% accurate for the prediction after impact. It's as close as is possible to 100%. And is accurate to a couple of millimetres. The just clippings go to umpires call precisely because they aren't bowlers and that isnt what the process is there to do.

It is only 100% accurate for where the ball actually went. So where it pitched and where impact was. Hence no umpires call on them.

Yes but by definition it has to be more accurate than an umpire who does not have the benefits that technology has.

Yes. More accurate than the umpire. But the technology can sit on the fence hiding behind margin for error or confidence intervals. An umpire can't they have to go one way or the other so the umpire is effectively a tie breaker in those situations.

And the umpire shouldn't be for the reasons I've stated.

I suppose I'm sort of half way between Riv who can't stand the use of technology and those who enjoy the spectacle of a review. I want technology to do what is was meant to do and get rid of the blatant mistakes and not a tool that is utilised by teams to suit their purposes thus causing unnecessary delays to the game.

Yes same and I think umpires call does that. It isn't a howler although the technology could argue it's right or wrong. So we stick with the original decision.

bobmunro

cantersaddick said:

The_President said:

You know what, Canters, If i owned Hawkeye, i would tell HR to give you a job, salary negotiable to whatever you want.

Haha thanks. But seriously I can understand the principles and how they apply to Hawkeye. I am seriously underqualified and under experienced to work for them. Still if I get to watch cricket as part of my job I'd probably be content.

bobmunro said:

cantersaddick said:

The_President said:

Am i (and maybe Canters), one of the few that thinks that DRS is brilliant? - it adds another angle to a cricket match - and , in this match, has resolveded so many incorrect 'eyeball' decisions. It has added to the spectacle and made cricket better for it. Actually, that would be a good company for you to work for, Canters, Hawkeye, they are based in Hampshire somewhere.
Be interesting what people think - i promise not to slag you off like Riv - but he does get on my tits at times !.

I would love to work on something as interesting as cricket. There are a few analyst roles out there but they are pretty niche and I'm not really qualified/experienced. Maybe one day.

Sports analysis eh?

Advanced maths skilled are essential to enable models and algorithms to be produced, but there’s plenty of scope in the betting industry for Sports Analysts

Have a moral objection to working in betting for various boring reasons I won't go into.

A sports analyst role would be the dream.

I have little contact in professional cricket, but do in football, The FA, the Premier League and a lot of clubs.

If interested I can ask the right people some questions - no promises of course.

kentaddick

I’m convinced the pink ball isn’t picked up correctly by DRS. Apart from that I think it’s brilliant

cantersaddick

bobmunro said:

cantersaddick said:

The_President said:

You know what, Canters, If i owned Hawkeye, i would tell HR to give you a job, salary negotiable to whatever you want.

Haha thanks. But seriously I can understand the principles and how they apply to Hawkeye. I am seriously underqualified and under experienced to work for them. Still if I get to watch cricket as part of my job I'd probably be content.

bobmunro said:

cantersaddick said:

The_President said:

Am i (and maybe Canters), one of the few that thinks that DRS is brilliant? - it adds another angle to a cricket match - and , in this match, has resolveded so many incorrect 'eyeball' decisions. It has added to the spectacle and made cricket better for it. Actually, that would be a good company for you to work for, Canters, Hawkeye, they are based in Hampshire somewhere.
Be interesting what people think - i promise not to slag you off like Riv - but he does get on my tits at times !.

I would love to work on something as interesting as cricket. There are a few analyst roles out there but they are pretty niche and I'm not really qualified/experienced. Maybe one day.

Sports analysis eh?

Advanced maths skilled are essential to enable models and algorithms to be produced, but there’s plenty of scope in the betting industry for Sports Analysts

Have a moral objection to working in betting for various boring reasons I won't go into.

A sports analyst role would be the dream.

I have little contact in professional cricket, but do in football, The FA, the Premier League and a lot of clubs.

If interested I can ask the right people some questions - no promises of course.

Mate that's really kind of you.

As I said above I don't feel like I have anything like the experience or qualifications to be comfortable taking on that sort of role.

I have about 18 months experience of what I do. I am less than a year into a good graduate scheme with good progression and opportunities. It's not sport but it is an interesting area. I have ambitions to buy a house within 5 years with my girlfiend and need to stick with the safe and well paying option with progression.

One day I would love to work in sport. Can't really risk it bow but may well contact you at some point in the future.

Thanks again.

cantersaddick

Anyway less about me more about the man-god that is Joe Root.

The_President

kentaddick said:

I’m convinced the pink ball isn’t picked up correctly by DRS. Apart from that I think it’s brilliant

Interesting, what makes you say that about Pink ball?
Must admit, dont think the Oz equivalent is as good as Sky (not sure why).

AshBurton

Blimey! When I saw all these new posts I thought the last day’s play must have started early. But no, it’s a technology and data analytics fest...

The_President

cantersaddick said:

Anyway less about me more about the man-god that is Joe Root.

Must admit, Joe seemed to have that look in his eyes last night that i used to see in Martin Johnson's when England won the World Cup - keep it going Joe, we need you, make yourself a hero.

jamescafc

I think the odds on England winning are longer than they should be. I guess market sentiment is that we don't have the balls to see this out.

Not sure if it's arrogance or blind faith but the Aussie lads at work have no doubt in their mind they'll still win this comfortably.

golfaddick

Addick Addict said:

As for DRS as I have already indicated, if we think as some of us do that it is 100% accurate, I would like us to do away with "Umpires call".

Umpires are as good and as "thick skinned" as they have ever been in the history of the game and in restricting teams to two per innings we should only get reviews of blatant bad decisions e.g. when a batsman knows that he has edged a given LBW or a short leg knows that the bat has got an inside edge on a catch that hasn't been given. And that is what DRS was originally designed for.

THIS. DRS is a great system but the way it is being used is fundamentally flawed. The whole point is to eradicate the errors but if you've used up your reviews & then suffer a howler what's the point ?? I would like to see unlimited reviews but any convenient or "might as well" ones being penalised by a deduction or addition of runs. Would Smith have reviewed those yesterday if he'd known that if they were wrong we would have been given an extra 10 runs ? Also, if a batsman knows he's got a knick when given LBW or not touched one when given caught behind then they review it immediately - its embarrassing when there is a committee meeting or takes an age to decide whether to review a decision.

jamescafc

golfaddick said:

Addick Addict said:

As for DRS as I have already indicated, if we think as some of us do that it is 100% accurate, I would like us to do away with "Umpires call".

Umpires are as good and as "thick skinned" as they have ever been in the history of the game and in restricting teams to two per innings we should only get reviews of blatant bad decisions e.g. when a batsman knows that he has edged a given LBW or a short leg knows that the bat has got an inside edge on a catch that hasn't been given. And that is what DRS was originally designed for.

THIS. DRS is a great system but the way it is being used is fundamentally flawed. The whole point is to eradicate the errors but if you've used up your reviews & then suffer a howler what's the point ?? I would like to see unlimited reviews but any convenient or "might as well" ones being penalised by a deduction or addition of runs. Would Smith have reviewed those yesterday if he'd known that if they were wrong we would have been given an extra 10 runs ? Also, if a batsman knows he's got a knick when given LBW or not touched one when given caught behind then they review it immediately - its embarrassing when there is a committee meeting or takes an age to decide whether to review a decision.

Same with goal line technology in football though - where do you draw the line?

Conetentious offside decisions when through on goal could be argued as almost being as good as a goal (read approx 75% of 1 on 1s are now converted).

What about contentious red cards?

Agree with your point but it's hard for authorities to draw the line as we all know the competing teams will push the boundaries.

killerandflash

golfaddick said:

Addick Addict said:

As for DRS as I have already indicated, if we think as some of us do that it is 100% accurate, I would like us to do away with "Umpires call".

Umpires are as good and as "thick skinned" as they have ever been in the history of the game and in restricting teams to two per innings we should only get reviews of blatant bad decisions e.g. when a batsman knows that he has edged a given LBW or a short leg knows that the bat has got an inside edge on a catch that hasn't been given. And that is what DRS was originally designed for.

THIS. DRS is a great system but the way it is being used is fundamentally flawed. The whole point is to eradicate the errors but if you've used up your reviews & then suffer a howler what's the point ?? I would like to see unlimited reviews but any convenient or "might as well" ones being penalised by a deduction or addition of runs. Would Smith have reviewed those yesterday if he'd known that if they were wrong we would have been given an extra 10 runs ? Also, if a batsman knows he's got a knick when given LBW or not touched one when given caught behind then they review it immediately - its embarrassing when there is a committee meeting or takes an age to decide whether to review a decision.

I'm happy with the way it is, if you waste your reviews (especially as you now don't get penalised for Umpires Call) then tough

I can understand not getting them back on 80 overs now, but it seems a bit tough if a team bats a long time to only have 2 reviews for say 200 overs

I'm sure at some point there will be a video ref referral system in football, the only way I can imagine this working would be if each team had 1 referral each

Blackheathen

If we can win this one it must surely compare with Beefy Botham's heroics of the '70s when we followed on in an Ashes Test in England and won.

Heard on the telly last night that no team has successfully chased over 250 in a Test against Australia since 1928. History in the making.

Blackheathen

Ben Stokes batting number 4 for Canterbury v Auckland today with Auckland wannabe fast bowler Lockie Ferguson looking to impress and get back in the NZ Test team.

Addick Addict

Blackheathen said:

If we can win this one it must surely compare with Beefy Botham's heroics of the '70s when we followed on in an Ashes Test in England and won.

Heard on the telly last night that no team has successfully chased over 250 in a Test against Australia since 1928. History in the making.

And only one team has ever lost having not enforced the follow on. Let's hope Smith is still smiling when he becomes the leader of the second to do so.