FootballNews

it was an incredibly tight decision, it wasnt 100% beyond douby tbh so shouldnt have been given imo. Unless the 3rd umpire had access to video footage we didnt see at home?

The split screen they showed was very clear. Out!
Having said that, it was pure luck and not Wade's skill.

Dimitrios Ioannides wrote:The split screen they showed was very clear. Out!
Having said that, it was pure luck and not Wade's skill.

Exactly, I didnt think so at first but replays were clear, OUT!

Not sure what these commentators hawkesy's on about were smoking at the time. Maybe they're out of form too and need to to rest up at home.

Based on 2013 one day stats for England
Most runs
Bell
Root
Trott
Cook
Morgan

Most wickets
Tredwell
Anderson
Finn
Brennan
Broad

gee the Poms are bad sports......

on our National day, being the perfect hosts, we try and make them feel at home by offering them a slow and low pitch and what happens???

its takes great skill to do what they did....

bloodypassit wrote:Based on 2013 one day stats for England
Most runs
Bell
Root
Trott
Cook
Morgan

Most wickets
Tredwell
Anderson
Finn
Brennan
Broad

That stat shows one major thing, Swann must have been rested a lot if trewell played and KP as well seeing as he's not in top 5.

So of the top 5 bowlers, of the maximum 25. How many did they managed. Anderson 0, Broad 4, Finn 0. Did Bres and tredwell play them all?

Batsmen, Cook and Morgan played them all, Trott 0, Root missed a few, what about Bell?

Yes only the aussies are allowed to claim it's a weakened side.

I don't pay attention to any comments regarding claims of a "weakened side". At the end of the day, whether it's Australia, England or any other nation you can only play the side that's put in front of you.

Did channel 9 show Faulkner walking into spider cam?. I was pissing myself laughing

Bomber wrote:

Dimitrios Ioannides wrote:The split screen they showed was very clear. Out!
Having said that, it was pure luck and not Wade's skill.

Exactly, I didnt think so at first but replays were clear, OUT!

Not sure what these commentators hawkesy's on about were smoking at the time. Maybe they're out of form too and need to to rest up at home.

Well I have watched it again, no way in this world is out. Seems a lot of people don't fully understand the laws of cricket. Even Clarke has said he's not sure if he was out.

Normal service resumed England losing.

God is an Englishman wrote: Well I have watched it again, no way in this world is out.

God is an Englishman wrote:Seems a lot of people don't fully understand the laws of cricket.

Enlighten us

predator wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote: Well I have watched it again, no way in this world is out.

God is an Englishman wrote:Seems a lot of people don't fully understand the laws of cricket.

Enlighten us

You claim to be English don't you? Sorry, I'm only here to educate the convicts.

God is an Englishman wrote:

predator wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote: Well I have watched it again, no way in this world is out.

God is an Englishman wrote:Seems a lot of people don't fully understand the laws of cricket.

Enlighten us

You claim to be English don't you? Sorry, I'm only here to educate the convicts.

So you have nothing to back up your statement, at the end of the day England once again were pathetic in the field, even i could have got a run in that shambles of a team yesterday

predator wrote:So you have nothing to back up your statement, at the end of the day England once again were pathetic in the field, even i could have got a run in that shambles of a team yesterday

I have the laws of the game to back me up. Stop pretending to be English and I will educate you.

God is an Englishman wrote:I have the laws of the game to back me up.

God is an Englishman wrote:

predator wrote:So you have nothing to back up your statement, at the end of the day England once again were pathetic in the field, even i could have got a run in that shambles of a team yesterday

I have the laws of the game to back me up.

Obviously you have the wrong ones then, here you go have another look
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.l ... cricket%2F

There's a great article on ESPN Cric info if you need some reading material.

Bail dislodged, foot in air...........pretty simple.................OUT! Even looked in the paper today and he was definitely out stumped. Thanks

Why would I listen to a biased aussie when I have my own eyes to tell me the truth. If it was as clear cut as you say then it wouldn't have taken the 3rd umpire over 3 minutes to make his decision.

God is an Englishman wrote:There's a great article on ESPN Cric info if you need some reading material.

Probably get more info from the daily mail

predator wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:There's a great article on ESPN Cric info if you need some reading material.

Probably get more info from the daily mail

Yes, best stick with the completely balanced channel 9 who apparently couldn't even get the law right.

God is an Englishman wrote:

predator wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:There's a great article on ESPN Cric info if you need some reading material.

Probably get more info from the daily mail

Yes, best stick with the completely balanced channel 9 who apparently couldn't even get the law right.

Scorecard shows they did

No, scorecard shows the end result not the correct law.

Not sure if swann was rested from one dayers last year
Averaged over 50 with the ball

Bomber wrote:Bail dislodged, foot in air...........pretty simple.................OUT! Even looked in the paper today and he was definitely out stumped. Thanks

When I first saw it I thought the bail lifted up out of the groove , landed back on top of the stump and then fell to the ground...not sure if that makes any difference to the ruling ?

bloodypassit wrote:Not sure if swann was rested from one dayers last year
Averaged over 50 with the ball

I average 55....without the ball

ozzie owl wrote:Normal service resumed England losing.

Who were you supporting?

God is an Englishman wrote:Why would I listen to a biased aussie when I have my own eyes to tell me the truth. If it was as clear cut as you say then it wouldn't have taken the 3rd umpire over 3 minutes to make his decision.

The front on view was what nailed it. OUT!

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bacon888 wrote:Why does test player matter? These are ODI's.

It's a simple question really. :?

Cook has scored 2825 runs in ODI.

Watson is a current Test Player. He's scored over 6000 ODI runs.

Bacon888 wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bacon888 wrote:Why does test player matter? These are ODI's.

It's a simple question really. :?

Cook has scored 2825 runs in ODI.

Watson is a current Test Player. He's scored over 6000 ODI runs.

and in test matches?

I thought this was a one dayer's thread.