Cricket
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
No need to discuss the weather.
A result ground (1 draw in 7 matches), although with some big scores. NZ scored 690 batting second in the last Test played here.
I feel Pakistan will be happy with a draw and bat like it first innings.
England's tail masked their middle order problems and while 3.7 looks a decent price, I can't bring myself to back England. I have a feeling we will see a batting collapse at some point, and if we do it will probably be England. I'm not going to oppose Pakistan.
A result ground (1 draw in 7 matches), although with some big scores. NZ scored 690 batting second in the last Test played here.
I feel Pakistan will be happy with a draw and bat like it first innings.
England's tail masked their middle order problems and while 3.7 looks a decent price, I can't bring myself to back England. I have a feeling we will see a batting collapse at some point, and if we do it will probably be England. I'm not going to oppose Pakistan.
Show More
so basically DRS is proving Ump made an incorrect decision and yet it stands..BS
Both of their reviews showed a freckle out of their favour. Sorry, no more left..
close, looked out...not given...no reviews left!
Worse for pakistan Umpire can keep giving them not out and nothing Pakistan can do about it. Umpire under no pressure now. he can just say to them " review it then,...oh that's right you have already! "
Worse for pakistan Umpire can keep giving them not out and nothing Pakistan can do about it. Umpire under no pressure now. he can just say to them " review it then,...oh that's right you have already! "
Eng lay must surely be free money..just can't see any way they win from here
johnnythebull 04 Nov 15 13:07
so basically DRS is proving Ump made an incorrect decision and yet it stands..BS
no.
that's not right.
the flight of the ball is predictive and contains a margin of error.
it showed that the technology could not be used to overturn the umpire's decision with the required level of certainty.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_hypothesis_testing)
so basically DRS is proving Ump made an incorrect decision and yet it stands..BS
no.
that's not right.
the flight of the ball is predictive and contains a margin of error.
it showed that the technology could not be used to overturn the umpire's decision with the required level of certainty.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_hypothesis_testing)
Nov 4, 2015 -- 1:09PM, johnnythebull wrote:
Eng lay must surely be free money..just can't see any way they win from here
not too expensive either at this point
pak going to regret wasting these challenges at some point 2mrow, can just see it now
yeah,i know that DS but that is what is relied on
basically the 'prediction' showed the ball hitting the stumps,albeit clipping,so it should be given out
i don't know if this 'umpire's call' thang is to save them being constantly potentially 'embarrassed' or what
that's the way i see it
either trust the technology or dispense with it
the umpires are all big boys,only human
we can all make errors
shouldn't be an issue
basically the 'prediction' showed the ball hitting the stumps,albeit clipping,so it should be given out
i don't know if this 'umpire's call' thang is to save them being constantly potentially 'embarrassed' or what
that's the way i see it
either trust the technology or dispense with it
the umpires are all big boys,only human
we can all make errors
shouldn't be an issue
the use of the tech is to prevent howlers. they shouldn't be asking for marginal decisions to be reviewed.
the draw is much more likely than an England win by the way, not reflected in the relative prices.
the draw is much more likely than an England win by the way, not reflected in the relative prices.
it's got nothing to do with embarrassment.
it's got to do with the fact that DRS is based on the scientific method of falisfying a hypothesis.
when a side reviews a decision, they are NOT asking for the decision to be deferred to hawkeye, which is what so many people assume.
they are saying that they believe the umpire has made an absolute howler, and that hawkeye will provide enough evidence to conclusively prove the umpire wrong.
(they may not know this, but this is how it works)
this is what botham doesn't understand, when he asks that a side shouldn't lose a review when it's "umpire's call". They should, because they are wrong.
I've said it before: if the projected path for hawkeye showed a cone of probabilistic flights of the ball, the system would be a great deal better understood. People would then understand that in the case of umpire's call, one of the possible flights of the ball would be that it missed the stumps entirely, and therefore the umpire's decision may have been right.
it's got to do with the fact that DRS is based on the scientific method of falisfying a hypothesis.
when a side reviews a decision, they are NOT asking for the decision to be deferred to hawkeye, which is what so many people assume.
they are saying that they believe the umpire has made an absolute howler, and that hawkeye will provide enough evidence to conclusively prove the umpire wrong.
(they may not know this, but this is how it works)
this is what botham doesn't understand, when he asks that a side shouldn't lose a review when it's "umpire's call". They should, because they are wrong.
I've said it before: if the projected path for hawkeye showed a cone of probabilistic flights of the ball, the system would be a great deal better understood. People would then understand that in the case of umpire's call, one of the possible flights of the ball would be that it missed the stumps entirely, and therefore the umpire's decision may have been right.
I have the draw onside but just cannot see England saving this let alone winning it. Like I have said before I don't like the term free money but if you have deep pockets it is a no brainer to lay England at 4.5.
Geoffrey about Bell...how do you miss it with four and a half inches of bat!
Geoffrey about Bell...how do you miss it with four and a half inches of bat!
stop asking botham about the review system. it's like asking a donkey their opinion on brain surgery.
he flatly contradicted himself there.
"it's about removing howlers, it wasn't a howler, so the side shouldn't lose a review."
"it's about removing howlers, it wasn't a howler, so the side shouldn't lose a review."
unfortunately DStyle, what you're seeing (on technology being used to make decisions) is a good example of nudge theory. ie the subtle and incremental shifting of the debate. now that the use of the tech is ingrained its original justification (remove howlers) is forgotten and the general consensus has shifted to a view that cricket decisions can be right/wrong. it's moronic, which of course is why Beefy is a fan. It's also why they should never have opened the door to technology in the first place. it doesn't even remove all the howlers. still, we get what we deserve; we all subscribe to sky, and they're calling the shots. I've stopped letting it bother me - the game has turned to sh1t anyway.
what they don't realise is that the moment you start giving the projected path unquestionable accuracy, is that there is no longer any point in having umpires make any decision.
and then everything gets reviewed.
and then botham complains about the game constantly being held up all the time.
and then botham calls for umpires to be given more authority in making decisions on the field.
and then everything gets reviewed.
and then botham complains about the game constantly being held up all the time.
and then botham calls for umpires to be given more authority in making decisions on the field.
If Hawkeye is showing part of the ball clipping the stumps or part of the ball hitting the batsman in line then I think that should be what stands.
Too much depends on whether the standing umpire has said out or not out. It even affects a captain's/batsman's decision to review.
Much rather defer to Hawkeye than to a standing umpire who has already lost so much authority.
Umpires do not enforce a number of regulations: over rates; substitutes; unofficial drinks breaks and other 12th man incursions.
They don't look for no balls, they refer run outs, stumpings and catches close to the ground.
To defer back to a standing umpire with the phrase 'umpires call' implies the umpire is infallible and Hawkeye not so. The truth is they both have margin for error.
If an LBW review shows the ball clipping leg stump it's given out ONLY IF the umpire has given it out. If he gave it not out, and the bowler reviewed it, the batsman stays in.
Too much depends on whether the standing umpire has said out or not out. It even affects a captain's/batsman's decision to review.
Much rather defer to Hawkeye than to a standing umpire who has already lost so much authority.
Umpires do not enforce a number of regulations: over rates; substitutes; unofficial drinks breaks and other 12th man incursions.
They don't look for no balls, they refer run outs, stumpings and catches close to the ground.
To defer back to a standing umpire with the phrase 'umpires call' implies the umpire is infallible and Hawkeye not so. The truth is they both have margin for error.
If an LBW review shows the ball clipping leg stump it's given out ONLY IF the umpire has given it out. If he gave it not out, and the bowler reviewed it, the batsman stays in.
agree..at the end of the day we have the human eye vs the computer both giving a verdict on where they predict the ball might have gone
no one can know for certain the exact path of the ball only if he had been bowled out and in as much as he had his pad in the way it's all intelligent conjecture
if we are using the computer as final arbiter we should so do or go back to how it was before 'technology'
ffs a lot of ppl are convinced the world is round when we all know it's still f*cking flat..always has been & always will be
no one can know for certain the exact path of the ball only if he had been bowled out and in as much as he had his pad in the way it's all intelligent conjecture
if we are using the computer as final arbiter we should so do or go back to how it was before 'technology'
ffs a lot of ppl are convinced the world is round when we all know it's still f*cking flat..always has been & always will be
This could look like the draw is a possibility as long as Cook, Root and Taylor are around, although I can see at least 2 of them out by lunch.
BTW, there is no such thing as 'proof' in science. You can only say that some statement has some probability of being correct based on a particular set of data.
In the case of DRS, it shows the likeliest path of the ball based on the dataset it was calibrated with. It would nice to see the 95% or 99% probability cones, but statistics confuses most people. DRS doesn't take directly into account how wet the ball is, how shiny one side is, how good the bowler is at swinging the ball, etc. And you might be surprised at how large those probability cones are, if you could see them.
All in all, I think the current practice of most of the ball needs to be hitting the stumps to overturn an umps not out is a good solution to the inherent uncertainty of DRS. Although, all of the ball missing is a less good solution to overturning an out call.
BTW, there is no such thing as 'proof' in science. You can only say that some statement has some probability of being correct based on a particular set of data.
In the case of DRS, it shows the likeliest path of the ball based on the dataset it was calibrated with. It would nice to see the 95% or 99% probability cones, but statistics confuses most people. DRS doesn't take directly into account how wet the ball is, how shiny one side is, how good the bowler is at swinging the ball, etc. And you might be surprised at how large those probability cones are, if you could see them.
All in all, I think the current practice of most of the ball needs to be hitting the stumps to overturn an umps not out is a good solution to the inherent uncertainty of DRS. Although, all of the ball missing is a less good solution to overturning an out call.
i thought the whole of the ball had to be hitting to overturn an ump's not out
don't really follow your last sentence..pxb
surely all of the ball missing is pretty incontrovertible?
no system is perfect so i guess we'll all have to live with its anomalies
i don't know if any concrete studies have been done vis-a-vis how 'correct' umpires decisions were prior to the implementation of technology vs since
don't really follow your last sentence..pxb
surely all of the ball missing is pretty incontrovertible?
no system is perfect so i guess we'll all have to live with its anomalies
i don't know if any concrete studies have been done vis-a-vis how 'correct' umpires decisions were prior to the implementation of technology vs since
The way Cook & Root struggled leads me to only one conclusion, Pak win.
Injera,
I believe the rule is more than half the ball must be inside an imaginary line drawn down the centre of the outer stumps to overturn an LBW not out.
Although, all of the ball missing is a less good solution to overturning an out call.. Because there is some uncertainty with ball tracker, a ball that is predicted to just miss the stumps may in fact have gone on to hit the stumps. Therefore, you can not say the umpire was clearly wrong in giving it out. He may in fact have been right. The criteria should be the ball is missing by some margin, say half the width of the ball to make it consistent with overturning a not out decision. (Without getting into probabilities)
I believe the rule is more than half the ball must be inside an imaginary line drawn down the centre of the outer stumps to overturn an LBW not out.
Although, all of the ball missing is a less good solution to overturning an out call.. Because there is some uncertainty with ball tracker, a ball that is predicted to just miss the stumps may in fact have gone on to hit the stumps. Therefore, you can not say the umpire was clearly wrong in giving it out. He may in fact have been right. The criteria should be the ball is missing by some margin, say half the width of the ball to make it consistent with overturning a not out decision. (Without getting into probabilities)
Although then you'd not be overturning a lot of outs. The problem with what I think of as hard employment of tracking tech (as in if ball clipping bail or stump, out) is that batsmen would then be out a lot more and the balance between bat and ball might be adversely affected. On some of the more turgid surfaces in tests that might not be too harmful but imagine how few runs the teams would have scored in the Ashes.
On his game, find it very hard to see a draw. The only path is really for Cook to stay in all day but enough wickets to fall steadily at the other end that England can't afford to take risks going for the runs but obviously not enough wickets to be all out. I suppose if England end up 9 down, Stokes won't be scoring any but then he doesn't look like he'll be able to stay in either, based on first innings.
On his game, find it very hard to see a draw. The only path is really for Cook to stay in all day but enough wickets to fall steadily at the other end that England can't afford to take risks going for the runs but obviously not enough wickets to be all out. I suppose if England end up 9 down, Stokes won't be scoring any but then he doesn't look like he'll be able to stay in either, based on first innings.
Started the thread because I saw an in form Kevin Pieterson knocking 6s all over the place, then everything I wrote would not post, dont know why.
The Dolphins v Lions thread that is. England could use KP right now.
People again backing england down to 4.1. Must be bonkers
Pak 1.25 is a cracking bet. Only 6 wickets left in 89 overs
X still well low at 14.5..i suppose optimism is healthy
'when you're down & troubled & you need a helping hand...'
Nov 5, 2015 -- 6:21AM, johnnythebull wrote:
to think Eng were 1.51
and even worse 2s last night. The ball did plenty in Pak's 2nd innings, it just the fact we bowled loads of full tosses/long hops. It was pretty obvious really
Last time England were here they were out for 70 odd on a flat track, so it is to be expected once it turns and keeps low
i got up to lay Eng thought i'd wait a bit didn't bother
good bowling but pretty pathetic in all honesty
talk the talk but can't walk the walk
talk the talk but can't walk the walk
It's doing plenty to be fair but expecting us to get 284 was a stretch of anybody's imagination
4 for 13 in half an hour..capitulation doesn't even come into it
easy sitting here tho,boundary every fckn ball sitting here on my big fat a***
if these spinners were bowling at their own batsmen i guarantee they wouldn't have lost 4 in 30 mins
which is the more value bet..Eng at 65 or the X at 55?
c'mon Adil..another 4 hour tenure at the crease..brah
is it April 1st out there?
some joker's obviously told England they've got a 3rd inns!
some joker's obviously told England they've got a 3rd inns!
think back 45 minutes and think,i knewwwwwww i fckn knewwwwwwwwwww
its gotta be an out b4 lunch job,feet up,read the times,phone mater
the enforcer to come in..he & Cook both get tons..job's a goodun
nice litle callopso,lunch,beer by the pool,you know it makes sense
Broadie getting a bit p*ssed off with Rashid
if this continues won't have time to get his century
if this continues won't have time to get his century
and England, brilliant stuff. Had a fun bet on both as a long suffering Englishman!
Overall England have played well, but it has been a few individuals rather than as a team. There is a lot of dead wood in the side. Hasn't helped losing 3 tosses
they didn't apply themselves enough in the 1st half hour irrespective of how testing the bowling was
Surely they play a few shots now, pointless trying to poke about
Bell,Root,Taylor,Bairstow,Patel..combined total..8 match winning runs
Nov 5, 2015 -- 8:01AM, johnnythebull wrote:
Bell,Root,Taylor,Bairstow,Patel..combined total..8 match winning runs
dogshit
pak touched 6.6,Eng 1.51,X 2.16..plenty of volatility
absorbing match save for limp 4th inns by Eng
absorbing match save for limp 4th inns by Eng
First test I've really done any trading on, rather than just having bets that looked like good ones at the time in terms of my (almost certainly flawed) perception of value. Think I had 19 matched bets and was pretty happy with most of them, although the various draw lays and high exposure had me just a little nervous at one point or another. I managed to get one trading draw back in at 3.5 when the draw had drifted despite wickets not falling in Pak second innings (think when they were 4 down) thinking I'd be able to lay it back when things crashed and then a wicket fell but have to recognise that as an occupational hazard and I still won pretty big on the Pak win. Thanks to everyone who answered my naive trading questions, especially pxb and BJT. Much appreciated.
Fatslogger, It's nice to have someone serious about learning how to trade Tests.
Given that I've been a cricket tragic and indeed cricket message board tragic for many years and have been gambling with Betfair for the last two it's a bit odd that I've not found you all before. It's not as if I've not been betting on cricket in that time either, although I've been concentrating on some football minor markets that have some profitability. Anyway, will be keeping a closer eye on the test match markets from now on. Clearly there are some principles that are fairly obvious if you know cricket and some that are far less so.
A thing to bear in mind Fatslogger is that although the market can appear to stagnate at times, a position which is looking favourable can sometimes turn against you at remarkable speed. You have to be alert for such tipping points as momentum can build very quickly especially when there is weather about.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539