Jump to content

 

 

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 27/02/21 in all areas

  1. Atherton, who maybe knows a thing or two, and certainly more than me, puts most of the blame on DRS Technology. I wonder what he makes of VAR? https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/blame-technology-for-games-lost-weekend-hfvm380rv Blame technology for game’s lost weekend Mike Atherton Chief Cricket Correspondent Saturday February 27 2021, 12.01am, The Times Among a generation of older batsmen, there are some who would encourage you to believe that the past two Tests have finished so quickly partly because of the degradation of the modern batsman’s technique against spin. Don’t count me among their number. Cricket is a fascinating game that can be confusing. Above all, our readers probably want to try to understand why the third Test finished in such short time — the quickest since 1935 and the first two-day Test for England for more than 20 years. A weekend on the sofa watching Test cricket has gone up in smoke. Was it a bad pitch, bad batting, good bowling, the pink ball, or a combination? The pitch — “challenging”, “poor”, “tricky”, use whichever term you want — was clearly a key factor. Frankly, though, we’ve heard enough about pitches; I’ve written enough about them, and I’m not going to batter you further. My opinion, contrary to many readers, is that the past two surfaces have been extremely challenging (and prepared to suit) but they were not unplayable nor, according to ICC guidelines which state that danger is the only factor, unfit for purpose. But the conditions only really explain why the matches have been low-scoring. Two generations ago, these games would have been low-scoring, but would likely have lasted far longer (thereby provoking less anguished comment). To understand why, you have to move away from the narrative that England’s/India’s batsmen are now no good against spin. It was a narrative that was widely expressed after a game in which 20 wickets fell to leg-before and bowled dismissals. They kept missing straight balls was the simple criticism, but it is one that lacks context. That Joe Root took five quick wickets was another false narrative used to criticise the pitch. Root is a better off spinner than some think — better than Dom Bess, in my view — and he got the last five wickets to fall, three of whom were trying to chance their arm during a collapse. Rohit Sharma and Shubman Gill put it into proper context in the second innings, when they breezed to the victory target with no problems. Instead, we need to focus upon ball-tracking technology, which has had the most profound influence on the way the modern game is played, and has made life doubly tricky for batsmen in these type of conditions. When you add DRS (the decision review system that was introduced in 2008) to a challenging surface, you now get not only low-scoring games, but low-scoring games that finish in double-quick time. Before ball-tracking technology, if a batsman was unsure which way the ball was spinning, or unsure how it would react off the pitch, he could simply thrust his pad at the line of the ball, with his bat alongside. Batsmen, therefore, had two lines of defence side by side, the bat and the pad; he could obscure the stumps, taking out bowled, and umpires would generally not give leg-befores on the front foot. Crucially, it gave a batsman breathing space at the start of his innings; time to survive for a while and take stock. Look at the statistics of leg-before decisions given for any spinner of yesteryear. Bishan Bedi, the great Indian left-armer, took six per cent of his dismissals that way — only 16 leg-before out of 266 Test wickets. Ok, you might say he was a left-arm flight bowler, unlikely to get that many lbws. John Emburey, then, who bowled flatter, quicker, off breaks for England? Emburey’s lbw tally was higher, 11 per cent of his Test wickets came this way. Tim May, another fine off spinner of the pre-DRS generation? Only eight per cent of his dismissals were lbw. It was in around 2001 that ball-tracking technology debuted as a way of adding to the interest for television viewers. Although initially only a televisual and entertainment aide, umpires suddenly had a little more technology to learn from rather than simply relying on their eyes and experience. They began to see and understand that more balls than imagined were hitting the stumps. DRS came into being for the first time in 2008 and has been a fixture in Test matches ever since. The consequences have been a startling increase in the number of leg-before decisions for spinners. Let’s compare the numbers for some modern-day giants. Rangana Herath? 25 per cent of dismissals given lbw. Ravichandran Ashwin? 21 per cent. Graeme Swann? 27 per cent. Monty Panesar? 25 per cent. Ravindra Jadeja? 20 per cent. I could go on, but you get the drift. Between 1983 and 1995, all spinners received around 12 per cent of wickets leg-before; since DRS that has increased to 21 per cent — a massive change. That has had a significant impact on the way batsmen play. Instead of being a batsman’s friend, the pad is now his enemy. A batsman cannot get his pad in the way of the ball, nor use it as a second line of defence, as before. That means he must play the line of the ball with his bat not pad, which means, in turn, a spinner need turn it less to take the edge and, crucially, that the stumps are more in play than before. In effect, it has given the modern spinner a broader set of stumps to aim at. It also means any misjudgment in line — which is more likely to come right at the start of an innings — is so much more costly, because even if an umpire says not out, a fielding captain can refer the appeal to the third umpire. The breathing space that batsmen would have at the start of their innings once upon a time is no longer available. It is a better game as a result — the game after all was intended for batsmen to use their bats not pads to hit the ball — but occasionally, a more brutal one for batsmen. If ball-tracking technology has impacted upon the frequency of leg-before decisions and the way batsmen play as a result, it has also influenced the way spinners bowl. There are now fewer flighty bowlers of the type that Bedi was. Spinners bowl more quickly, generally, and at the stumps. They look less for wickets caught at cover, taken through deception of flight and guile, and instead hunt for the stumps and the pads. On pitches where some balls spin and some don’t, as in the last Test, this is much harder to counter. So I have a lot more sympathy for the modern batsman than some, and it helps to explain why, when you put a very difficult surface together with DRS, you get matches that finish far more quickly than they would in days gone by. A wide-ranging post-match piece about batting techniques against spin on the website ESPN Cricinfo was subtitled, “England could do well to listen to voices from the past”. The problem is that ball-tracking technology and its effects have rendered much of the way batsmen played in the past irrelevant. On pitches such as the one in Ahmedabad, it is a far harder challenge than players of the past either had to cope with, or that some understand.
    3 points
  2. Fat Eck rendered. From today's Times. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/what-alex-salmond-said-and-what-he-meant-jl5mkxnxv ALEX SALMOND INQUIRY What Alex Salmond said and what he meant Alex Massie Saturday February 27 2021, 12.01am, The Times What Alex Salmond said: “I know that the first minister asserts that I have to prove a case. I don’t. That has already been done. There have been two court cases, two judges, one jury.” What he meant: Like me or loathe me, this is not about me. If the government had not acted unlawfully this inquiry would not be taking place. If anyone has been treated unfairly, I have. What he said: “Collectively these events shine a light on a government whose actions are no longer true to the principles of openness, accountability and transparency — the core principles on which this Scottish parliament was founded.” What he meant: If I say this is a conspiracy you might think me mad. Instead I suggest only that this committee has not received the co-operation it might have. Each piece may seem minor; the picture when they are put together is not. What he said: “If you’re going to do something, do it properly. The question for this committee is why [the new complaints policy] was done in the way it was done. What was the extraordinary rush to get it through in November 2017? . . . Does it not strike you as somewhat curious the first minister is not involved with [complaints made against] current ministers but is involved with former ministers?” What he meant: Too many committee members are wasting time asking inane or irrelevant questions. Look at the detail. Look at the timeline. Look at who is attending meetings. Can I be any less subtle? What he said: “In November 2018 the hope was . . . that the judicial review would be taken over by the criminal case . . . Many people seem to have hoped the criminal case would ride to the rescue like the cavalry coming over the hill.” What he meant: If you want motive, here it is: officials believed they could avoid embarrassment over their unlawfulness if the criminal case advanced and the judicial review was paused. What he said: “The meeting on 29th March has been effectively written out of history . . . If the March 29 meeting is admitted it makes if very difficult to argue the April 2 meeting was on party business.” What he meant: Nicola Sturgeon misled parliament. I can’t supply documents that determine whether she did so knowingly or inadvertently but I know which I would bet on. What he said: “I believe the first minister has broken the ministerial code . . . [but] it’s not the case that every minister who breaks the ministerial code resigns.” What he meant: I won’t give you the headline you want.
    3 points
  3. St Pauli weirdos versus HSV is on BT Sport at 1930 on Monday, if anyone's interested. ?⬜⬛ with a hint of ?
    2 points
  4. Should start a petition that gets debated in the Commons. "We believe that under SNP stewardship, Scotland has become a failed state and we request that the UK Government take control until such time that a responsible administration can be formed. Or better still just do away with the SGov and save us all shitloads. Whatever floats your boat.
    2 points
  5. A fantastic watch as always. A couple of things I thought were interesting from it, firstly the ref saying thank you to Alfie when he stopped the game to allow treatment to the defender who pulled up injured. Secondly, the ref telling the keeper to stay on his line at the pens, but the speech play from one of the defenders trying to put Borna, and Ced the Ted, off just as they are about to hit it. Lastly, a lovely shot of Borna and their keeper smiling and chatting on the way off, no doubt discussing last weeks stare-off! Obviously it is so much better with no crowd noise as the mics pick up all the players shouts, coaches instructions, yelps from players kicked (and also when hardly touched!) and it won’t quite be the same when crowds are back, but it is going to be a marvellous series in our history to look back on a number of years from now.
    2 points
  6. When overt dishonesty becomes political currency the result is, de facto, a failed state.
    1 point
  7. Salmond has thrown the kitchen sink, but has still not actually apologised to the affected women for the unacceptable behaviour which led him to the court rooms of Edinburgh in the first place. A measure of the man? I t is clear to me,after some thought, that if Salmond had learned to play the piano accordion as a boy, he would have spared his country, which he aspired to lead into independence, its current, and continuing, embarrassment and expense, as he would have had something else to do with his hands. Alex Salmond inquiry: MSPs seek ‘suppressed’ documents Papers prove conspiracy, former first minister claims Kieran Andrews, Scottish Political Editor Saturday February 27 2021, 12.01am, The Times https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/alex-salmond-inquiry-msps-seek-suppressed-documents-vg6mn0qrq Alex Salmond’s lawyers will be asked to provide “suppressed” evidence to a Holyrood inquiry after the former first minister said it would prove leading figures in the Scottish government were behind a “malicious” attempt to destroy him. MSPs will use parliament’s powers to request key documents including text messages between SNP officials, statements by police officers and court records obtained during Salmond’s successful judicial review that have not yet been publicly disclosed. Parliamentary officials will be told on Monday to request the documents from Levy & McRae, Salmond’s lawyers, under section 23 of the Scotland Act, which had not been used by Holy-rood before this inquiry launched but has now been used twice to demand documents from the Crown Office. It will then be a race against time for Salmond’s legal team to produce the material before Nicola Sturgeon, the first minister, appears before the committee on Wednesday. In other developments on a dramatic day in Holyrood: ● Salmond blamed a collective failure of leadership in the civil service, the prosecuting authority and the Scottish government which was undermining his goal of an independent Scotland. ● He declined an invitation to directly apologise for his past behaviour, instead pointing to being cleared at the criminal trial and his victory in a civil case. ● Salmond claimed that the committee has been “systematically deprived of the evidence it has legitimately sought” in its inquiry amid a “deliberate suppression of information inconvenient to the government”. ● MSPs were told that the name of a woman who had made complaints about him had been shared at a meeting with one of his aides. During a six-hour evidence session at the inquiry into the government’s botched handling of complaints against him Salmond claimed that he was shown a memory stick with evidence of interventions by senior SNP officials, including Peter Murrell, the party’s chief executive and Sturgeon’s husband, suggesting pressure was brought on the police to extend their inquiries into him. He described it as “one of the most extraordinary days of my life,” and said that it revealed behaviour he would not have expected from people he had known for 30 years. He said: “In my opinion, there has been behaviour which is about not just pressurising the police but pressurising witnesses, collusion with witnesses, we are talking about the construction of evidence because the police were somehow felt inadequate in finding it themselves.” Salmond said that he had no evidence of Sturgeon being involved in any attempt to malign him but he repeated his assertion that senior figures in the SNP and the Scottish government were involved in an attempt to destroy his reputation to the point of having him imprisoned. Questioned by Linda Fabiani, the committee convener, Salmond said that any moves against him began after the police began investigating his behaviour. This contradicts narratives by some of his supporters that suggest he was the victim of a plot to stop his political comeback and that the Scottish government’s new harassment complaints system was designed as part of that to snare him. A spokesman for Nicola Sturgeon said: “Today was Alex Salmond’s chance to provide proof of the conspiracy which has been alleged — and he did not do so. Instead, under oath, he explicitly conceded there was no such evidence against the first minister.” Salmond said that a message from a complainer, which was read out during his criminal trial, showed her refusing to go to a meeting with a senior government official “because she was beginning to feel pressurised rather than supported”. “Sky television have seen an account of a text message of the importance of getting another complainant ‘back in the game’,” he added. “I’ve seen reported and in the public domain a text message which says that if the police can’t find the evidence . . . tell them what they need and I’ll get it for them. And of course again at the trial a text message was read out saying, ‘I have a plan by which we can remain anonymous’.” He urged the committee to order his lawyers to produce evidence for them. He said: “Can I suggest that you use your powers under the Scotland Act . . . to serve that order on my solicitors, who are extremely willing to give you information? If you do so then I am sure you will get full co-operation under the law from my solicitors.” The Scottish government said it had a “duty to investigate the serious and specific complaints against Alex Salmond and was right to do so”. A spokesman for the Crown Office said: “Scotland’s prosecutors have acted independently and in the public interest at all times when considering matters related to this case.”
    1 point
  8. Stevie G gave him a right good slap on the back of his head when going up tunnel.
    1 point
  9. cricket is heavily psychological. It is easy when you can't lose and very difficult when the pressure is on.
    1 point
  10. I’m on record as saying I would have sacked the lot of them , but also that I was glad it wasn’t up to me, but what a way for Patterson to apologise to the manager, club & fans than with a 16 second goal in a finely balanced European tie at Ibrox. That is a decent start to repaying the faith SG has shown in him, but clearly there is a long way to go until that debt is paid off in full.
    1 point
  11. I may be old school, but I would give them fuck all.
    1 point
  12. Everyone considered him the Coward of Ross County.....
    1 point
  13. I'd love to but there's this pandemic lockdown thing going on at the moment. In all seriousness, I have already purchased orange smoke bombs and red, white and blue balloons and the yahoos across the street will know all about it when it's official.
    1 point
  14. As far as I know, neither Old Firm team has ever given the other "a guard of honour" for a league title. We need 7 points and are away to Livi, at home to St Mirren and away to the Scum before the split. They play Aberdeen at home, Dundee United at Tannadice and the us. If both teams win their games ahead of the Old Firm game, a draw at the Scumhut would hand us the title. That said, Livi will be difficult, and the Arabs may want to take something from the Scum too. Perhaps McCrorie and Kamberi want a bit of Scum flesh too? Anyway, it would be cool if the title race was over before the split, as that might hand us some respite for any - hopefully - upcoming EL games, which suddenly become "far more interesting". As well as the chance to play a few of the fringe folk ... even though I would assume that SG will want a high standard and defeat-less season now.
    1 point
  15. oh i think a guard of honor would guarantee that.
    1 point


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.