[senman]

Originally Posted by Jonas
There is absolutely no doubt that bigger nations receive more of the 50/50 decisions most of the time. While I can't "prove" how much favor India receives, the fact that BCCI is dead against using the UDRS -- even in away tours -- makes me think that way.

And I haven't said all of India's victories were because of umpiring mistakes. I mentioned Durban, Mohali and Perth test matches where India benefited hugely because of umpiring decisions. Just like all Indian supporters believe they would have won the Sydney test had there not been umpiring mistakes.

BCCI is against UDRS is a fact but what is stopping the others implementing it?

Originally Posted by Jonas
I'm very glad that UDRS is being used in the World Cup -- and we have already seen how useful Hawkeye is in making LBW decisions. But I wanted to see the UDRS being used in the important test series between SA and India. They had all the technologies available, but couldn't use it because of BCCI's objection. I hear the same thing will happen in the all important test series between England and India this summer. BCCI has once again opposed using the technology.

Bi-lateral series usage of UDRS is a decision between two countries, which should be decided by the host country, if the host country wants it they have to force the issue.

Originally Posted by Jonas
ECB and Sky Sports have always used the Hawk-eye to cover home England matches. They have always supported the usage of Hawkeye. But why would they bear the expenses in other countries? ECB is the most innovative and forward thinking cricket board in the world. They invented the 50-over game and also Twenty20 cricket. Hawkeye was also invented by an Englishman. England have always contributed to take the game forward, unlike BCCI which wants to hold it back.

So who is responsible to implement Hawk-eye in World Cup? Is the world cup managed by BCCI or ICC?

Originally Posted by Jonas
All of the players in the English team have some English background. Kevin Pietersen's mother is English, Jonathan Trott's father is English, Andrew Strauss's father is English and moved to England at 6, Matt Prior's father is English and moved to England at 10.

But most importantly ALL of these players developed their game in English county cricket. And ECB didn't import them -- it was THEIR decision that they would play for England.

Exactly whats right for you seems to be wrong in others eye, you would say that the players choose to play for England, I will say they are mercenaries switched their identity to earn extra bucks.
That doesn't mean what you think is wrong same way BCCI or other Indian players having different perspective means they are wrong.

Originally Posted by Jonas
Britain has a multicultural society with people from all kinds of backgrounds. English people are open-minded, and many of them travel to various parts of the world and marry foreigners. So, the diversity is always going to be there. That's unlike the closed-minded Indians who can't embrace foreign cultures and foreign people.

Here comes the reason why I responded to your post the way I did, get your facts right before indirectly spewing India is not multicultural, not open -minded, not diverse or doesn't embrace other cultures. This is load of BS..................................