[Jonas]

Originally Posted by senman
What a load of BS.

So according to you if India receives some positive decision its because it is controlling umpire or pressuring them and if it receives negative decision its because of human error.

I am with UDRS but your generalization and attempt to portray our victories in bad light reeks of famous pom-whinging

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.

DRS is being used in this world cup, what more you want? Hawk-eye ? why don't the money rich, righteous , first world country like England (ECB) bankroll the whole Hawk-eye or any other superior technology?

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.

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.

hey atleast we don't import any from other countries, tell me how many english born are playing in your team?

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.

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.