If we manage to win this I hope Root laughs all the way through the press conference while looking at Smith.
I think Root has quite a bit more class than Smith, who is just a jumped up, spoilt, squashed-tomato face.
Not a fan then.
As a batsman obviously yes, (but how i'm not quite sure) - but as their skipper, i cant stand his constant harrassing and bullying of Umpires and his full-time abusive sledging makes me cringe at times. A nasty piece of work. I hope he 'gets it' the next time they are over here.
The odds are tighter than that. Betfair have England at 3/1 Convicts 1/3 and 140/1 the draw. I see England falling about 70 runs short so I'm tempted to try and buy some money.
The odds are tighter than that. Betfair have England at 3/1 Convicts 1/3 and 140/1 the draw. I see England falling about 70 runs short so I'm tempted to try and buy some money.
I believe that it was a couple of the Aussie players were saying at Headingly in 1981 and look what happened there!
Wouldn't go near Australia at 1/4 for this match, not because they won't win but I don't think it represents value. Plus 1/4 heavy money at 3.30am isn't so healthy for the heart - lots of love, someone who has pumped heavy money onto bets (in Australia) at 3.30am as a profession.
If England see out the first 30-40 minutes or so collecting the odd run, may be able to get 1/2-4/7+ and then we'd be talking.. in comes the new ball and in comes the real pressure.
Be a great watch (but I'll be staring at my eye-lids and checking the scorecard in the morning when it's probably nearly all over at 7am)
The odds are tighter than that. Betfair have England at 3/1 Convicts 1/3 and 140/1 the draw. I see England falling about 70 runs short so I'm tempted to try and buy some money.
I think that 3/1 is exactly the same as 25% and 1/3 is 75%.
The odds are tighter than that. Betfair have England at 3/1 Convicts 1/3 and 140/1 the draw. I see England falling about 70 runs short so I'm tempted to try and buy some money.
I think that 3/1 is exactly the same as 25% and 1/3 is 75%.
Yeah 3/1 is 4.0 in decimal odds. 1/3 is 1.33333333... etc
He's pretending that he's doing some work for the benefit of his bosses. He has asked me to pass on one bit of data and that is that everything I say on here is 100% accurate - well rounded up to the nearest four decimal points anyway.
He's pretending that he's doing some work for the benefit of his bosses. He has asked me to pass on one bit of data and that is that everything I say on here is 100% accurate - well rounded up to the nearest four decimal points anyway.
He's pretending that he's doing some work for the benefit of his bosses. He has asked me to pass on one bit of data and that is that everything I say on here is 100% accurate - well rounded up to the nearest four decimal points anyway.
73% of statistics are inaccurate.
As a result of that statement the revised figure is now 72%
Where's our resident CL Data Analyst/Predictor at this time of need ?!
Sorry. Had work to do!
Riv Mate. The ball tracking is accurate to the nth degree. It takes in tens of thousands of parameters for every millisecond the ball is in the air. It can't be wrong by more than a millimetre or 2, which is why they have umpires call for the close ones. So it sticks with the decision of your favoured human eye. It only corrects the decisions that are definitely wrong. It's how it should be and it works well.
There has been some funny bounce in this pitch. We've seen that in normal balls and in the ball tracking calls. That's nothing to do with the technology but everything to do with the pitch. Don't let it confuse your 2 tin cans and a piece of string brain!
Am i (and maybe Canters), one of the few that thinks that DRS is brilliant? - it adds another angle to a cricket match - and , in this match, has resolveded so many incorrect 'eyeball' decisions. It has added to the spectacle and made cricket better for it. Actually, that would be a good company for you to work for, Canters, Hawkeye, they are based in Hampshire somewhere. Be interesting what people think - i promise not to slag you off like Riv - but he does get on my tits at times !.
Am i (and maybe Canters), one of the few that thinks that DRS is brilliant? - it adds another angle to a cricket match - and , in this match, has resolveded so many incorrect 'eyeball' decisions. It has added to the spectacle and made cricket better for it. Actually, that would be a good company for you to work for, Canters, Hawkeye, they are based in Hampshire somewhere. Be interesting what people think - i promise not to slag you off like Riv - but he does get on my tits at times !.
I would love to work on something as interesting as cricket. There are a few analyst roles out there but they are pretty niche and I'm not really qualified/experienced. Maybe one day.
Am i (and maybe Canters), one of the few that thinks that DRS is brilliant? - it adds another angle to a cricket match - and , in this match, has resolveded so many incorrect 'eyeball' decisions. It has added to the spectacle and made cricket better for it. Actually, that would be a good company for you to work for, Canters, Hawkeye, they are based in Hampshire somewhere. Be interesting what people think - i promise not to slag you off like Riv - but he does get on my tits at times !.
Riv just has strong opinions and when you've known him as long as I have you know that it's just his subtle and tongue in cheek way of demonstrating his love for all that he encounters in life.
I've said it before that Smith looks like someone has ironed Gordon Ramsay's face to wear as a mask go as Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes to a fancy dress party, and I'll say it again.
As for DRS as I have already indicated, if we think as some of us do that it is 100% accurate, I would like us to do away with "Umpires call".
Umpires are as good and as "thick skinned" as they have ever been in the history of the game and in restricting teams to two per innings we should only get reviews of blatant bad decisions e.g. when a batsman knows that he has edged a given LBW or a short leg knows that the bat has got an inside edge on a catch that hasn't been given. And that is what DRS was originally designed for.
Am i (and maybe Canters), one of the few that thinks that DRS is brilliant? - it adds another angle to a cricket match - and , in this match, has resolveded so many incorrect 'eyeball' decisions. It has added to the spectacle and made cricket better for it. Actually, that would be a good company for you to work for, Canters, Hawkeye, they are based in Hampshire somewhere. Be interesting what people think - i promise not to slag you off like Riv - but he does get on my tits at times !.
I would love to work on something as interesting as cricket. There are a few analyst roles out there but they are pretty niche and I'm not really qualified/experienced. Maybe one day.
Southeastern trains need an enthusiastic analyst. No experience needed
Am i (and maybe Canters), one of the few that thinks that DRS is brilliant? - it adds another angle to a cricket match - and , in this match, has resolveded so many incorrect 'eyeball' decisions. It has added to the spectacle and made cricket better for it. Actually, that would be a good company for you to work for, Canters, Hawkeye, they are based in Hampshire somewhere. Be interesting what people think - i promise not to slag you off like Riv - but he does get on my tits at times !.
I would love to work on something as interesting as cricket. There are a few analyst roles out there but they are pretty niche and I'm not really qualified/experienced. Maybe one day.
Southeastern trains need an enthusiastic analyst. No experience needed
He wants to count runs and wickets - not delayed and cancelled trains!
Comments
Australia 75%
England 25%
If England see out the first 30-40 minutes or so collecting the odd run, may be able to get 1/2-4/7+ and then we'd be talking.. in comes the new ball and in comes the real pressure.
Be a great watch (but I'll be staring at my eye-lids and checking the scorecard in the morning when it's probably nearly all over at 7am)
It's a shame we're likely to be 2-0 down before we realise Australia aren't actually that much better than us (in my opinion)
100% over 4.0 = 25%
100% over 1.33.... = 75%
Riv Mate. The ball tracking is accurate to the nth degree. It takes in tens of thousands of parameters for every millisecond the ball is in the air. It can't be wrong by more than a millimetre or 2, which is why they have umpires call for the close ones. So it sticks with the decision of your favoured human eye. It only corrects the decisions that are definitely wrong. It's how it should be and it works well.
There has been some funny bounce in this pitch. We've seen that in normal balls and in the ball tracking calls. That's nothing to do with the technology but everything to do with the pitch. Don't let it confuse your 2 tin cans and a piece of string brain!
Be interesting what people think - i promise not to slag you off like Riv - but he does get on my tits at times !.
Umpires are as good and as "thick skinned" as they have ever been in the history of the game and in restricting teams to two per innings we should only get reviews of blatant bad decisions e.g. when a batsman knows that he has edged a given LBW or a short leg knows that the bat has got an inside edge on a catch that hasn't been given. And that is what DRS was originally designed for.
No experience needed