Has Woolmer conned the PCB?

[Seamer]

It seems to me that rather than talking about Woolmer,s performance as coach and Pakistan,s performance in general in the recent Australian tour, the talk is now about neutral umpires, hawkeye and a mysterious and yet-to-be-seen video tape showing a 29-5 umpiring result against Pakistan.
Has Woolmer succesfully manipulated the PCB and the public in general into deflecting criticism from his coaching performance to the umpires and if so, should all unsuccesful umpires copy his tactics in the future?

[Paoli]

I've always believed that crap decisions have been caused because of Aussie crowd controlling. Eg...Brendon Mcullum caught at slip off the pad earlier in the NZ-AUS odi series, and Styris, a bat pad LBW.

The worst decision i have seen was Adam Holioake in 1999 given out when he was trying to sweep against Warne, who bowled one that pitched outside leg and was well to high. Not to mention that Holiaoke was pretty far forward.

[Zainub]

Has Woolmer conned the PCB? No, he's just come out and stated a few facts. Infact the PCB it self have taken the matter quite seriously and so have the ICC. I think PCB would have done so even without Woolmer pointing out that the rub of the green was against us as far as umpiring decisions were concerned. Woolmer coming out and saying it perhaps only convinced them even further that they should ask for nuetral umpires. Our suggestion of nuetral umpires according to various reports is now under consdiration of the ICC and will be discussed about at a meeting soon.

I don't think Woolmer or Pakistan crickat fans or the PCB or anyone who is associated in a faithfull manner with Pakistan Cricket has forgotten to evaluate how much we have learned from the Australian tour in the wake of the umpiring debate. Inzamam for once has not made as much as issue about the umpiring at all as has everyone else, he is, and I presume the rest of the squad as well, keen to move forward and work on our weaknesses. Our upcoming tour to India is just about a fort night away, we have some work to do before then, and its going to be a tour far from being easy. We can't possibly afford keep fretting over the lack of luck in Australia, we need now to concentrate on the India tour, as well as the later future, which I do believe we are.

ps: Get well soon to Bob Woolmer! I read yesterday that he has left for SA to get his knee operated, so he too is now technically speaking unfit, though, unlike Shoaib Akhtar and a few others in our squad, his participation in the next series is under no doubt. He'll be alright soon, or at least that is what I have read. Good luck to him with his operation nevertheless, I hope it turns out well.

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi

Has Woolmer conned the PCB? No, he's just come out and stated a few facts. .

It is not fact at all. It could well be Woolmer,s fiction if you ask me. You can not judge a umpires performance over a series because of one decision( A.Gilchrist LBW). Further, i will point out that Gilchrist has never been given out LBW in 37 tests at home by neutral umpires. So how will having neutral umpires in one dayers suddenly fix this problem that exists in the mind of Woolmer and the PCB. Does Pakistan think that they are the only team that have recieved a couple of bad decisions out of the thousands of tests played in the last hundred or more years of test cricket?Is there is not even more pressure on the umpires in, for example, India where a decision a crowd does,nt like could cause a full blown riot? Remember what happened in India in the 1996 world cup?
There is no doubt in my mind that Woolmers 29-5 theory is a load of rubbish and he has not only insulted the umpiring fraternity but has also brought the game into disrepute. The ICC would be well advised to disregard Woolmers comments and write it off to a failed coach trying to make excuses for his poor performance

[Zainub]

I don't think Woolmer will lie about the 29-6 thing, having followed the VB series personally I do think we had more then "just a couple or so" of decesions going against us, having said that, I reiterate that wasn't why we lost, we lost because our top order wasn't ever up to the Aussie newball attack. That's the end of it. And BTW Woolmer neved said the 29-5 theory was about LBW calls only, he inlcuded all umpiring decisions in general in that statistic, and I don't think he's stupid enough to lie about it, cause everyone will find out if he did, had those statistics been wrong by now someone in the press would have already pointed it out. Woolmer has not as far as my opinion is concerned broght the game into disripute or anything near that, he has done what a lot explayers, comentators, and current players do all the time, i.e. point out that sometimes umpiring decesions go against you more then you would like. That is hardly an "insult" to umpires, if you read Woolmer statements, he did say "I don't think umpires are cheats".

And also, Woolmer is not a failed coach, he took SA to being the 2nd best side in the world, and won titles with Worcs as well, so far we haven't achieved anything with him, but that hardly makes him a "failed" coach, he is in fact, one of the most highly rated and regarded (not to mention one of the most highly paid) cricket coaches in the world. Perhaps Seemer you are ought to give him more credit, and some amount of respect as well.

ps: Moments after I finished typing this post I came across something that should leave Australian supporters who claim their players don't influence umpires totally dumfounded. The following appeared in Feb 11, 2005 edition of Cricinfo's weekly Friday column The Number's Game (link here) where S Rajesh takes a look at "statistics from the present and the past, busting myths and revealing hidden truths"

Originally Posted by S Rajesh, assistant editor of Cricinfo

Aussies' appealing appeals
Australia are undoubtedly the leaders of the pack in terms of cricketing skills, but if Bob Woolmer and Mark Richardson are to be believed, they have added a cutting edge to their appealing technique as well – both claimed that the Australians influence the umpires to give more decisions their way than in favour of opposing teams. Well, those might only be the comments of sour losers, but the stats seem to back their case as well.

In the recently concluded VB Series, Australia had 47% of their lbw appeals upheld, while for Pakistan and West Indies, the other two teams in the competition, that figure was less than 14%. Of course, ask John Buchanan about it and he'll probably say that the Australians were choosy about their appeals, while Pakistan and West Indies went up for everything.

LBW appeals during VB Series:

PHP Code:

Country Total appeals Given %given 
   Australia 21 10 47.6 
   West Indies 15 2 13.3 
   Pakistan 20 2 10 


In fact, in all ODIs in Australia since April 2002 – when one third-country umpire was made compulsory for one-dayers – only 6.7% [ ] of Australian dismissals have been lbws (15 out of 222), while the percentage goes up to 9.3 for overseas players (28 out of 300) []. Simply a statistical quirk, or the result of scientific appealing? []

[Seamer]

As Darren Lehman and M.Hayden can attest, you are only as good as your last series so in that respect Woolmer is a failed coach.
Woolmers comments of the 29-5 decisions have been neither proved or disproved so we can only agree or disagree with him.
By even saying this, he is in effect saying that the umpires have made 34 incorrect decisions in his opinion, and has thus questioned the umpires ability and brought the game into disrepute. If a player said the same thing, he would be either fined or suspended by the ICC.
Perhaps coaches should be brought under the same regulations as players as far as the players code of conduct is concerned? If Woolmer was, he would be fined or suspended for sure.
One of the oldest addages in cricket is " accept the umpires decision" Woolmer lived by that as a player and should do so as a coach

[Zainub]

I think you're right about the fact that had he been a player he would have been fined. I don't think coaches come under the ICC's code of conduct. Perhaps he did after all cricise the umpires, but if he's not bound by rules, as I presume he is, then he might as well make them public.

By the way Seamer if you get a chance do read this week's The Number's Game at cricinfo, please.

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi

ps: Moments after I finished typing this post I came across something that should leave Australian supporters who claim their players don't influence umpires totally dumfounded. The following appeared in Feb 11, 2005 edition of Cricinfo's weekly Friday column The Number's Game (link here) where S Rajesh takes a look at "statistics from the present and the past, busting myths and revealing hidden truths"

Firstly, Australia appeal more because they have the best bowlers to trap the opposition in front.
Secondly, They only appeal when it is clearly out and are not as frivolous in appealing as other countries, thus gaining more credibility with umpires and a higher percentage of decisions
Thirdly, The Aussie bats have better techniques so they don,t get trapped in front as often
That should explain those particular statistics

[Zainub]

I'm not buying the theory that Aus only appeal when they really think it is close, I've seen them go up in unity at balls which are no way near being out. (In this VB series too Aus made more appeals then anyone else)

In the VB Series WI and Pak had plenty of good shouts (that were clearly out) given not out, I'm not saying anything about how they would have affected the results, Australia might well have still won, because on paper they were the best side of the 3, and deserved to win, but in comparision of the 3 teams, a lot of appeals that were out in Aus's case were given not out, but was the opoosite in Pak and WI's case.

I hate doing all this because I hate whinning. I don't want ot give the impression that I'm blaming anyone for the results, but I just think it is surprising that Aus get so many Lbws and not get out LBW enough themselves. As good as Aus's bowlers and batters are, these statistics still are surprisng, if nothing, at least they prove that the 29-5 theory by Woolmer was right.

Time for ICC to look at this, and give it a serious thought.

[Seamer]

Zainub, i had to try to justify those stats somehow did,nt i?