Cover Points : tv

The end is nigh; and other such speculations

dcsiva — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:48:00 GMT

What a difference a week makes. In the first Test, Australia looked in charge most of the time, in the second they look like they've lost their way and more. Of the Indian batsmen, only Dravid and Laxman have yet to cash in against a distinctly poor bowling line-up. (Troy Cooley must be working over-time behind the scenes.) Amongst the Indian bowlers, only Zaheer hasn't bowled to his abilities. Aside from Hussey, it looks like none of the Aussie batsmen have looked at ease.

duckingbeamers says he may come to regret these words on Aussie confidence:

But, as I said in the lower post, this Australia is not the one it used to be. Sheer confidence might just not be enough any more. To sweep Harbhajan after facing only 2 balls? For Katich to stand back and swipe, with just 10 minutes to go to tea? And what on earth was Hussey thinking, pulling on a pitch like this?
The most salient moment for me, though, came when Sharma bowled Ponting. It wasn’t the delivery itself — though that was something special — but it was the look of recognition on Ponting’s face. He just stood there, raised his bat in humble defeat, and then looked back to see the off-stump lying flat on the ground. I can’t tell you how good this feels: it’s like a new order arranging itself in the cricket world; a power that realizes that it may just have met its match. Ponting watched the ball all the way through; unlike the others, he was as careful as careful is — and yet, he was tumbled over.

Miss Fields is certainly in a bit of a worry:

Matthew Hayden, time to go.

Ricky Ponting... you're next.

I don't like having to bestow this cruelty upon my boys but we need to think of the bigger picture here.

1. Australia + cricket ≠ losing.
2. The Ashes.

Amit Mishra has yet to strike hard in the second innings, but Soulberry has a mature and measured take on the inevitable selection discussion for the next test:

And why carry Kumble? Or why push him into retirement on the basis of one performance? Why not have a valid system in place which is slightly more objective and consistent than the subjective? Either you have found a perfect replacement or you haven't yet. If you have there should be no questions about it...no accomodation. If you haven't, then there it is needless to stoke contriversy by calling for accomodation! Amit Mishra was hired as a replacement and must accept it that his time may come when the occupant retires. Or, one should have a protocol where there is a clean retirement plan for our stalwarts which is objective and well understood and is not manipulated at whim.

Finally, there's no one at the Mohali ground itself. Here's IS Bindra's story about TV and ratings:

However, he insisted that it did not mean people were no longer interested in Tests. “The IPL has generated more interest among the people towards the game. Even the TRP ratings for the current Test match are high which shows more people are watching the game on TV. People were shifting their priority towards F1 and other sports, but IPL has stopped that,” he said.

Review, referral, reappeal

dcsiva — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:17:00 GMT

The first ever reviews (read "legalised challenges") of umpiring decisions in Test cricket has taken place. And Sri Lanka have piled up over 400 runs with 3 century scorers. Jagadish has a few suggestions, including a novel way of handling Jacques Kallis, and argues that there'd be less player dissent:

The one good thing that may come out of the referral system is that meaningless appeals could come down. e.g. if a batsman is struck on the pads and it looks fairly adjacent, previously there'd have been very vociferous appealing hoping that the umpire would ignore the obvious inside edge off the bat. Now, since the batsman can question the decision, such appeals would be reduced. You could also see less instances of player dissent.

Straight Point argues that the result of less pressure on the umpires will be even less reviews:

it will slowly but surely eliminate theatrical appeals used to pressurize umps...knowing at back of your mind that even if you get the decision in your favor, it will definitely be reviewed...

needless to say that this will definitely ease pressure on umpires and in turn we will see more good decisions from them...

hence resulting in less referrals...?

But, as Ottayan asks in the comments, what of the pressure that appeals put on the batsmen themselves? Kartikeya argues that the very first use of the new law by Kumble was absurd. How could the players have a better view of an LBW decision that the bowling umpire? After all, the players can't wait for a TV replay before asking for review. Also, on no-balls and improving the system:

Then there is the issue of the no-ball being checked by the third umpire when the review is made. Dismissals which occur off deliveries which are ruled as no-balls are not checked! If the third umpire were allowed to review decisions without prompting from either the batsman or the fielding captain, he would have identified that Mark Benson ruling a no-ball on a delivery where Zaheer Khan had Warnapura caught and bowled was wrong.

...

Cricket cannot afford to have players and umpires as adversaries. The referral system directly undermines the Umpires, and does so in the worst possible way. It ought to be scrapped immediately and if it is to be replaced at all, it should be replaced with a simple system where the third umpire is instructed to be in constant communication with the on-field umpires whenever an appeal is made by the fielding side and a decision is made by the on-field umpires.

And Samir Chopra comments on the Dilshan review. Do batsmen tend to misjudge snicks when their bat simultaneously makes contact with the ground?
Finally, Patrick Kidd has some comments on the now well-established review system in tennis, thanks to Hawk-Eye.

Ratings and big money

dcsiva — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:01:00 GMT

The Economic Times reports that the IPL is doing very well in television ratings, perhaps because it's really a reality show?

Equating IPL to a ‘reality show’, Vodafone marketing head Harit Nagpal said: “We invested in IPL anticipating such ratings. The format is such that it combines the largest reality show in this country backed by Bollywood entertainment.” Commenting on the sustainability of the event, Mr Nagpal said: “I’m sure people who have stakes in the game will do everything possible to make it work.”

D.S. Henry has his usual thoughtful daily round-up of people to watch out for. Srikanth writes about the lack of big pay-offs for all that money that was thrown around on individual players:

In general, the big money winners have not recorded anything out of the ordinary yet barring possibly McCullum and Ishant Sharma. On the contrary, some of the icons have been more of an embarrassment to their respective teams. Captains of Royal Challengers and Deccan Chargers come to mind.

And Samir Chopra suggests that it's too late in the day for him to generate an interest in watching Twenty20 cricket:

I wouldn't begrudge the new generation of cricket fans the opportunity to develop an entirely new set of dreams, fantasies and hopes, all centered around a different version of the game. All I can do is hope that test cricket will not be completely annihlated by this form.