Get on with it - use technology every time
When the subject of technology aiding umpires comes up, there tends to be three objections that arise immediately. (1) the umpires lose respect, (2) the game will become disjointed by constantly replaying decisions, and (3) that the technology isn't good enough to "prove" a decision either way. The 3rd point of course, is only an argument for delaying the bringing in of technology - not for never having it.
But yesterday's dismissal of Collingwood proved what an absurd argument the second one is. Peter Hartley had only just started to reset the stumps when the replay was shown on the big screen at the Oval and it was clear to everyone in the ground that the batsman was short of his ground. No delay whatsoever. So I hope yesterday's incident speeds up the inevitable move to technology being used on all decisions. That way we'll avoid the absurdity of journalists today acclaiming Shah's "breakthrough" international innings when he was clearly out on 40 (brilliantly though he played).
5 comments:
Shah should have been out when on 40, there's no doubt, but he got lucky and made the most of it. I don't think it's absurd that it's referred to as his breakthrough innings, the fact that he should have been out doesn't detract from the quality of his innings from then on. I'm not dismissing the value of real averages, but they in turn, should not dismiss quality batting after someone ought to have been dismissed. Many a great innings has benefitted from a drop or a poor decision.
What about the all the others who didn't get a second chance? We might as well praise Cook's superb innings! :-)
So what arer you saying Ed? that Shah's performance after the drop is irrelevant because other players were not given that opportunity?
If the drop came on zero instead of 40, would you be calling his place in the team into question? And really, how many centuries are chanceless, or flawless. I think your being a little harsh on the man.
It's not Shah specific. I just think that we're living in this surreal cricketing world where skill is impacting less and luck is impacting more. I'm not denying Shah deserved a bit of luck. But when he gets a century and the fact he was out and not given isn't even mentioned in the press (mostly), there is something wrong. I'd like to see the reports saying things like "Shah made the most of a huge slice of luck...." rather than "Oval centurion Shah finally comes of age" etc etc.
So basically what I'm saying is that I'd like the role of luck acknowledged by one and all. I get the feeling I'm not persuading any of you!
Did the press really once upon a time the press acknowledge all the key factors in an innings, including luck, and write fair and balanced reports? It would be nice, but I'm not convinced that things are worse now than before.
Not sure it's fair to say that luck has more of an impact now than it used to, and that skill has declined.
Post a Comment