India tour of Australia (Nov 22, 2024 - Jan 03, 2025)

[meninblue]

"We had opportunity to win or draw we tried, but the new guys who made runs could have played longer but they are new and will learn"



Pathetic statement by Rohit. When was win an option. Living in some different world in fantasy cricket or video game cricket. Isn't he aware of the opening platform he provides that has a effect on whole innings, other senior passengers and does not he understand the form of failing seniors and quality of opponents and the target.

Shameless passengers KL, Rohit and Virat should not have been in squad. Rohit should feel lucky the seniors were playing this test. Yet he guy is blaming Yashasvi and Rishabh. You can blame Yashasvi for his 3 dropped catches, but certainly not for the 160 + runs he score in this test. Rishabh showed lack of match awareness and pathetic shot selection in both innings, but he still scored more runs than seniors. Take names of yourself, KL and Virat first before and sack them before you can point fingers at Yashasvi and Rishabh.

Even Indian commentators are same. They highlight issues with new lot and will not have any guts to take on the big brands of Rahul, Rohit and Virat. Sunny, Sanjay M , Ravi, Deep Dasgupta will not dare to speak a word about teh squad selection, neither about the contribution of the seniors. Instead they have been repeatdly finding faults in juniors while commentating. The last time Harsha Bhogle spoke about Virat he was out of commentary box for more than a year and then he also learned to keep quite and please BCCI and sponsors and the big players.

[sussexpob]

One of my Indian friends is unhappy about Deep's dismissal as well ! Sometimes the technology is a bit vague but I don't think any injustices were done today

The Deep dismissal is a good example of the limitations of Snicko, and why we should not be using it in cricket. This explanation will probably go right over everyone's head, but a simple look at the envelope of the soundwave produced shows that the sound is not natural, it is not possible for instance for a ball striking a bat to create a sound with 4-5 different attack phases leading to zero decay/release or sustain periods. This would indicate multiple events causing new sounds, not one continuous sound. No percussive strikes produce such a sound, and as they are non-linear, its not resonant frequencies either.

The envelope shown indicates strongly that Snicko uses sidechain compression, which makes perfect sense. Sidechaining is an audio mixing technique that uses some form of trigger (either timed to a beat in music, or triggered by a frequency in a sound) that momentarily adds gain reduction to a set frequency range, while boosting whatever sound is filtered into the sidechain at higher gain - the goal is to add loudness and clarity to something you want to momentarily stand out in the overall sound, at times when that sound would be masked by others. I guess the best way to explain it is whenever anyone on TV or the radio talks over a soundtrack in the background, you setup a sidechain on the microphone so when you turn it on, you trigger a reduction in sound in the soundtrack so you can hear the voice clearer.

In this case, you setup the sidechain to pick up the fundamental frequency of the edge of the bat, at which point that sound will be gain amplified and be more pronounced on your oscillator showing the edge, while at the same time placing a filter on the ambient noise to remove interference. The problem with sidechaining is, using frequency triggers are notoriously unreliable because anything can trigger them, at which point the gain boosting occurs. This "double pop" or phantom strike is a common problem in audio production - even the air displacement of a drummer pressing a kick pedal down can trigger the sidechain, giving you the end result of what sounds like him striking the drum. You look at a phantom strike soundwave, and the give away is multiple attack phases with no decay/sustain etc. You can quite literally make it sound like something has been hit when it has not... with the drum example, its sounds very clearly like the drum has been hit twice.

Taking this dismissal, the third spike on Snicko looks like a classic edge - maybe it is, but we cannot be sure. What is clear is, as the ball gets closer to Deep the oscillator is picking up more ambient noise as the ball gets closer to him. There are 3-4 quite large murmurs on snicko which do not appear as the ball is far away in flight, so this is quite conclusive proof to me that the movement or displacement of the air or something external is registering - and if the oscillator is picking up other interference, and increasing as the ball gets closer, then you cannot say with any certainty that the "edge" registered is not that ambient sound setting off the sidechain, which when it goes boom with all that gain addition, makes it look like an edge when it could just be anything.

The key is the first two sounds before that big spike - what are they? They are in no way consistent with strike contact, but are increasingly audible/higher amplitude. And the 4th attack phase after the spike for the edge? The ball hasn't hit anything, so what is producing that rise in amplitude? It cannot be anything, unless its something artificial in the setup ... its clear indication that Snicko is de facto creating these sounds.

Bottom line - Snicko needs binning. It's an unsophisticated and hugely inaccurate way to judge what its there for.

[backfootpunch]

"We had opportunity to win or draw we tried, but the new guys who made runs could have played longer but they are new and will learn"



Pathetic statement by Rohit. When was win an option. Living in some different world in fantasy cricket or video game cricket. Isn't he aware of the opening platform he provides that has a effect on whole innings, other senior passengers and does not he understand the form of failing seniors and quality of opponents and the target.

Shameless passengers KL, Rohit and Virat should not have been in squad. Rohit should feel lucky the seniors were playing this test. Yet he guy is blaming Yashasvi and Rishabh. You can blame Yashasvi for his 3 dropped catches, but certainly not for the 160 + runs he score in this test. Rishabh showed lack of match awareness and pathetic shot selection in both innings, but he still scored more runs than seniors. Take names of yourself, KL and Virat first before and sack them before you can point fingers at Yashasvi and Rishabh.

Even Indian commentators are same. They highlight issues with new lot and will not have any guts to take on the big brands of Rahul, Rohit and Virat. Sunny, Sanjay M , Ravi, Deep Dasgupta will not dare to speak a word about teh squad selection, neither about the contribution of the seniors. Instead they have been repeatdly finding faults in juniors while commentating. The last time Harsha Bhogle spoke about Virat he was out of commentary box for more than a year and then he also learned to keep quite and please BCCI and sponsors and the big players.

Looks like rohit is shot mentally

That interview statement and his reactions when jaiswal dropped labuschagne and Cummins were not what a captain should be doing/saying

The pressure of being Indian captain and knowing he's not worth his place in the side seems to have gotten to him.

Will Sydney be his final test? Anything other than an india win and he surely won't be travelling to England.

Perhaps same for Kohli too?

[backfootpunch]

There is zero controversy about jaiswal being given out. He absolutely smashed it and his reaction was absolutely bizarre.

There was an enormous deflection.

Akash deep was out as well.

Indias constant arguing with the Umpires after being given out needs to be addressed and quickly. Bumrah apart they are a very unlikable group of players.

[sussexpob]

The umpire watched the replay and decided he'd hit it. Snicko then said he didn't. He did not tell the umpire that snicko had said not out, which he is required to do in the protocol explicitly..The final decision is still the umpires, so I imagine if he'd said snicko says no but I think he's hit it, the umpire might deem that inconclusive....the protocol also says the umpire must use his own recollection of events in this situation.

You could say that the right decision was made, but would we say it's uncontroversial if a third umpire doesn't tell the onfield umpire it's hitting on umpires call? It's the exact same thing....it's a wicket only if you ignore the protocol, but the decision is right

[backfootpunch]

Right decision was made that's all that matters.

Can't have protocol preventing an obvious dismissal.

[GarlicJam]

The umpire watched the replay and decided he'd hit it. Snicko then said he didn't. He did not tell the umpire that snicko had said not out, which he is required to do in the protocol explicitly..The final decision is still the umpires, so I imagine if he'd said snicko says no but I think he's hit it, the umpire might deem that inconclusive....the protocol also says the umpire must use his own recollection of events in this situation.

You could say that the right decision was made, but would we say it's uncontroversial if a third umpire doesn't tell the onfield umpire it's hitting on umpires call? It's the exact same thing....it's a wicket only if you ignore the protocol, but the decision is right

Snicko did not say Jaiswal didn't hit it. Snicko said nothing - provided no evidence either way. Or, at the most, Snicko said "I see no evidence that he hit it".

Snicko is not the sole arbitrator though. All other forms of evidence are to be used if needed.

It's funny, I heard the soft thump of the glove, watching it live - but Snicko didn't. My ears work like that too sometimes...
It was very obvious that he did hit it though, and that is why Thirdie gave it out.

[GarlicJam]

Can't have protocol preventing an obvious dismissal.

A few words on the protocol from Simon Taufel:

"In my view the decision was out. The third umpire did make the correct decision in the end," Former ICC Elite Panel umpire Simon Taufel told Channel 7.

Taufel asserted that when there is a clear deflection off the bat then there is no need to check it from other technology to prove it right.

"With the technology protocols, we do have a hierarchy of redundancy and when the umpire sees a clear deflection off the bat there is no need to go any further and use any other form of technology to prove the case. The clear deflection is conclusive evidence. In this particular case what we have seen from the third umpire, is they've used a secondary form of technology, which for whatever reason hasn't shown the same conclusive evidence of audio to back up the clear deflection," he added.

and : Taufel was clear in his mind that the third-umpire made the right decision.

"In the end the third umpire did the right thing and went back to the clear deflection and overturned the umpire field. So, in my view correct decision made," he added.

[bigfluffylemon]

Have they given up on hotspot?

I heard a noise too live, and on the replay it's plainly obvious he hit it, as GJ says. You can see the contact and the deflection. Absolutely the right call.

[GarlicJam]

Have they given up on hotspot?

Both parties need to agree to use it. I have the idea that one nation's cricket board said no.

Apparently there is also a high cost factor - I read someone saying that FOX Sport needs to provide this technology to all other broadcasters and they didn't wish to. Though, I have been confused by this.

[alfie]

I do have some (limited) sympathy with the view Sussex has expressed above - that snicko (actually "ultra edge" is in use) is less than perfect. In fact I see the chap who actually founded the firm which operates it says that it won't always pick up anything on "glance type shots". But does this mean we toss the whole thing out ? Surely better to use it , in conjunction with any other technology available (hot spot if in use , replays slow and full speed) and make a decision based on all available evidence.

Which is what the TV umpire did. It was pretty obvious Jaiswal hit the ball and he was perfectly entitled under the rules to decide that yes , the on-field decision was wrong. He would also have been within his rights to say no , I am not quite sure - using the non evidence on ultra edge as a reason - and decline to change the call. But then he would have been wrong - in my opinion as well as that of just about every other observer without an axe to grind. Even Rohit agreed with the actual decision !

As for Deep it was also fairly clear he touched the ball. Quite apart from the spike on ultra edge there is a clear red mark on his bat just after the ball passes which wasn't there before so I have no doubt that on this occasion the sound technology worked.

You either use all this technology or you don't. But as we all know nothing man made is perfect we also have a trained human charged with looking at all of it and making a considered decision ... which itself is not guaranteed to be 100% correct every time ; but is probably more likely to get things right than the old way of relying on the real time eyes and ears of an umpire standing 20 odd yards away.

I understand Indian fans wishing their fellows might have escaped on a legal technicality...but that wouldn't have been "right". And was not required under the laws either.

Sometimes people apparently think hawk eye is wrong too , when its verdict doesn't accord with their own opinion based on TV viewing. Think I will prefer to leave it to the appointed experts on the spot...

[GarlicJam]

now things are getting a little silly, with the vice-president of the BCCI telling us that Jaiswal clearly was not out, and Rohit is telling us tat India seem to always be on the wrong side of these decisions.

Irresponsible (and a little delusional) of the pair of them, imo, with the positions they hold and the influence they have.

[alfie]

Anyway leaving aside nit-picking over decisions , this was a really good cricket match . One for those who don't want to see Tests reduced to four days too. Ebbed and flowed throughout , finished in the last session after appearing all but certain to produce a stalemate just an hour or two earlier. What more could one ask ?

Australia will be rightly delighted. On top for most of this match - and unfortunate to have been weather deprived of a good chance to win in Brisbane - they deserve to be 2-1 up going into Sydney.

However I reckon they also got a bit lucky on this fifth day. Firstly I thought they were a little timid in seeking to extend their lead even into this last day , at the cost of reducing the overs they had to bowl India out . Obviously they were still haunted by what happened in Brisbane on the previous Indian tour ; but really it was pretty clear late on day four that the pitch conditions made a pursuit of 300 or more in a day highly unlikely. Then after their excellent bowling had reduced India to 3 down in the morning , the long Jaiswal/Pant stand seemed to almost cause them to resign themselves to a no result as they came out after tea. Opening up with Head in company with Lyon owed much - as Cummins himself admitted - to attempting to claw back the slow over rate and avoid penalties. And yes , hoping it might tempt an error (much as the Marnus nonsense over before the break) ; but "hoping" was about where it ended. If Pant hadn't briefly forgotten what he'd been trying to achieve for the previous couple of hours I reckon a few more overs of patting innocuous slow bowling back would have had them just about switching off...and the match would probably have meandered to a fairly tame finish.

Which would have been a pity so we should probably all thank Pant for momentarily losing his marbles Though I could understand why Indian fans don't. From their viewpoint , a lot of hard work had gone into saving an apparently hopeless (at end of day two) cause ; and to lose the last seven wickets in just 21 overs must have been heart breaking. Certainly Bumrah didn't deserve to be on the losing side this week.

Can they rouse themselves to come back in Sydney and retain their trophy with a tied series ? Never say never after the previous tour ; but it seems to me that this time around they are leaving too much to too few - unlike last time where every injury loss just seemed to produce a new man to step up and perform above expectations. Is there quite the same spirit in this team ? Guess we will see in a few days...

As for Australia : they also have problems , masked for now by the scoreline. Opening pairing hardly secure ; "allrounder" neither functioning as such , nor indeed functioning at all except as a fine fielder ; and most importantly overloaded bowlers who must be feeling the pinch (though the same goes for India of course). They could make team changes : but will they want to disturb a winning team ? WAFO , eh ?

On to Sydney and hope the weather doesn't let us all down !

[meninblue]

Batting Average

Harshit - 2.33 (Specialist bowler)
Jasprit - 5 (Specialist bowler)
Siraj - 5.33 (Specialist bowler)
Dhruv Jurel - 6 (Wk + Batsman) Played 1 test
Rohit - 6.20 (Specialist batsman)

Akashdeep - 12.66 (Specialist bowler)
Devdutt Padikkal - 12.50 (Specialist batsman)

Shubman Gill - 20 (Specialist batsman)
Rishabh - 22 (Wk + Batsman)
Virat - 27.83 (Specialist batsman)
Washington Sundar - 29.22 (All-rounder)

Jaddu - 32 (All-rounder)
KL Rahul - 39.57 (Specialist batsman)

Nitish - 49 (All-rounder)
Yashasvi - 51.28 (Specialist Batsman)

Not only Indian bowlers and all-rounders have scored more than Rohit, Australia's specialist bowlers like Pat, Nathan Lyon, Starc have scored more than him.

5 Indian players ( 3 all-rounders and 2 specialist batsmen) have better batting average then Virat in this series.

Jasprit has taken only 1 wicket less (30 wickets) than number of runs scored by Rohit (31 runs) .

Shubman hasn't grabbed his opportunities as well as he was expected to, but he has time on his side and better to keep hope in him than the non-performing trio. Yet, they are dropping Shubman Gill to accommodate big names. Sarfaraz who scored 150 in the NZ series is also not getting chance ahead of these 3.

Every test match Rohit, Virat and KL have been playing in recent times they are delaying the transition and wasting priceless time of next-in-line youngsters to develop at international level. Indirectly these players are harming the Indian test cricket. They should have retired before NZ test series debacle (they didn't) which was worst home test series loss. But they are very likely to be in multi-year contracts with big brands and retiring will be foolish for these brands. Also, once they are out of format their marketing value drops and they wont fetch as much in being brand ambassadors. But what are the selectors doing? At least they can do their jobs or are BCCI waiting for new poster boys to emerge before asking selectors to go ahead and sack them. Yet they neither bothered to retire, nor were sacked. Even now they are carrying on playing and will go to England for 5 test series mid 2025.

KL has done usual thing, when near to getting dropped he has looked better only because of other non-performing batsmen in team. His PR and backers will ensure he get another series of chances. Same wash, rinse, dry repeat. Rohit and Virat will do better on slightly slow paced Sydney and their PR will showcase they are back in form and deserve more years.

I am not saying Shubman and Sarfaraz are guaranteed big scorers and deserve to, but they are younger and surely are outscoring the trio of KL, Rohit and Virat as seen on recent form. Lets even forget the age, considering performance they deserve a run ahead of these failing batsmen. If after so much has happened (performance of seniors over time in some cases for 4 years, NZ loss, Australia series performance), Shubman and Sarfaraz are getting dropped then what is the hope for those scoring runs in Ranji trophy 2024. Will not they see this pathetic mis-management and decide why not modify their game to the IPL as standing in proper FC queue is also pointless.

[sussexpob]

Taufel asserted that when there is a clear deflection off the bat then there is no need to check it from other technology to prove it right

Taufel is wrong.

Appendix D, rule 3.3.6 makes reference to the decision being based on "available technology" . Rule 3.3.7 goes on to say that the third umpire must inform the onfield umpire if any element of the technology available has failed or is unavailable and cannot be used, and that he must "still provide any relevant factual information that may be ascertained from the available television replays and other technology". This quite clearly communicates a need to check all available technology to base the decision on, and where this is not done, the third umpire MUST tell the third umpire. There is absolutely nothing in the rules that states the third umpire can make a decision based on one type of available evidence, and as shown above, two rules that say clearly the opposite.

Either way, this is totally irrelevant in this case - the third umpire DID check the available technology, and DID have a clear duty once he did this to report any factual information available from those replays. It is a FACT that Snicko concluded their was no edge, and as per rule 3.3.6 he had a DUTY to report this to the umpire without qualifying it with his opinion or any uncertainty.

We have to remember that the third umpire's role in this is to provide the on-field umpire with the information to decide the matter of fact - much like a judge guides a jury in a court case but material fact is decided by the jury - and then the onfield umpire decides what is relevant and what is conclusive. The withholding of information in this regards certainly made one decision possible, and that was against the rules.