Quantcast
England vs India - Page 12 - GF - General Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Broad scored 64 runs off of 66 balls in the first innings (with his side 124/8 when he arrived at the crease), 6-46 with the ball (including 5 for 0 in 16 balls) and then 44 runs off of 32 balls in the second innings.

 

So who's going to bet man of the match?

 

If England win the test as they shoud Broad will get MOM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So no need to be a smart arse then.

 

 

Well I'm glad that Dhoni agreed with me and not you.

 

We are both aware of the circumstances. I know I am, I'm guesing you watched it too as you re commentating on it.

 

It isn't about being a smart arse.

 

Bell was out, end of. Over the last couple of years Bell has made me make a complete review of what I thought of him. He is a class batsman.

 

Yesterday was fucking daft and only his fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the spirit of the game means you take it on the chin when you get a raw deal. Bell should have been out.

 

I wonder how many neanderthals are upset this morning because they can no longer express their righteous indignation about the behaviour of the filthy Indian cheats?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The first point is absolute bollocks, seeing as half the Indian team didn't realise what was going on that was some 'con'.

 

I am fully aware of the circumstances mate.

 

I am also aware that Bell ran himself out and should have been given out.

 

Half the Indian team were walking off!

 

As I said, that was how it could have been interpreted, the fielder did look as though the ball had gone for four with his actions, that is the reason why I think he was given a reprieve, had there been some impetus to get the ball back as quickly as possible then I don't think Bell would have had any option, although you could argue that Bell wouldn't have assumed the ball was out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I remember correctly, didn't Strauss call back Angelo Matthews in an ODI after a collision in the middle meant he was run out?

 

If the roles were reversed with the Bell decision then I'd like to think that Strauss, who seems a level headed captain, would have done the same thing and I'd have no qualms with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Half the Indian team were walking off!

 

As I said, that was how it could have been interpreted, the fielder did look as though the ball had gone for four with his actions, that is the reason why I think he was given a reprieve, had there been some impetus to get the ball back as quickly as possible then I don't think Bell would have had any option, although you could argue that Bell wouldn't have assumed the ball was out.

 

Yes you could argue that.

 

If you follow the laws of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I remember correctly, didn't Strauss call back Angelo Matthews in an ODI after a collision in the middle meant he was run out?

 

If the roles were reversed with the Bell decision then I'd like to think that Strauss, who seems a level headed captain, would have done the same thing and I'd have no qualms with it.

 

That is a good point, the role of captain and his influence is far more important in cricket, which is why the Aussies have always been cunts because essentially Taylor abd Border apart, they appointed cunts for captains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Half the Indian team were walking off!

 

As I said, that was how it could have been interpreted, the fielder did look as though the ball had gone for four with his actions, that is the reason why I think he was given a reprieve, had there been some impetus to get the ball back as quickly as possible then I don't think Bell would have had any option, although you could argue that Bell wouldn't have assumed the ball was out.

 

Are you seriously trying to claim this was a team pland and they wanted to 'con' Bell'?

 

If so I won't waste my time responding to the rest of your post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you seriously trying to claim this was a team pland and they wanted to 'con' Bell'?

 

If so I won't waste my time responding to the rest of your post.

 

No, not what I said at all!

 

They clearly didn't, but that is how it would/could have been interpeted, have a look at this picture! The Bowler isn't even looking at the stumps.

 

Latest news, comment and reviews from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk

 

As I said (I did say this!), had the fielder looked desperate to ge the ball back as quickly as possible then there is no argument but he acted as though it had gone for four.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the spirit of the game means you take it on the chin when you get a raw deal. Bell should have been out.

 

No, from Jardine to Collingwood people have been castigated for being within the rules but not the spirit of the game. Without fairplay cricket loses some of its appeal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, not what I said at all!

 

They clearly didn't, but that is how it would/could have been interpeted, have a look at this picture! The Bowler isn't even looking at the stumps.

 

Latest news, comment and reviews from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk

 

As I said (I did say this! , had the fielder looked desperate to ge the ball back as quickly as possible then there is no argument but he acted as though it had gone for four.

 

I know you said it, it doesn't stop it being wrong.

 

It is the responsibility of the batsman to ensure he is 'in' until the umpire tells him he can leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For crying out loud, why is everyone and his dog still banging on about Ian Bell's dismissal/reprieve. India are going to be all out for 120, so the 20 odd extra runs Bell made are going to be academic in the scheme of things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know you said it, it doesn't stop it being wrong.

It is the responsibility of the batsman to ensure he is 'in' until the umpire tells him he can leave.

 

It is ultimatley you are right. But I think the best solution would have been for India to have offered the appeal and England to have said no, or Bell to have offered up his wicket. Although if Dustin Johnson was into cricket I bet he would have very little sympthy!

 

I think it was the right decision given the circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

India the best team in the world? Don't make me laugh. Sure, they've got some of the all time greats playing for them but they are so far behind England as a team it's unbelievable.

 

The bowling attack is laughable, their fielding is even worse and the batting, bar Dravid, has been pretty pathetic.

 

This match will be over by the end of today, India 31/3 now.

 

If we don't win this series 4 nil then I'm Kapil Dev.

 

Not even going into the Bell run out (it's been done to death) but I hope it doesn't overshadow a fantastic batting performance from England in their 2nd innings. It probably will though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on another note, why did nt bell decline the chance to bat on! If he recognised his initial fault then politely saying, 'thanks for the repreive but I am, by the letter of the law, out' would have been the ultimate display of sportmanship

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that I`d have applauded. If a deal was made to withdraw his appeal, he should have retired out himself and everybody would come out looking like a hero.

 

Back to cricket, hopefully if we have Sehwag and Gambhir open and have Dravid and VVS at 3 and 6 respectively some normalcy will resume in the 3rd test. Right now, we are showing no fight at all. I shudder to think what will happen when Sachin, Dravid and VVS call it a day. Nobody seems capable of stepping up at all. Very, very worrying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
on another note, why did nt bell decline the chance to bat on! If he recognised his initial fault then politely saying, 'thanks for the repreive but I am, by the letter of the law, out' would have been the ultimate display of sportmanship

 

Because he's 'English' and therefore a dirty cheat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×