Re: England v Australia, 3rd Test, Edgbaston, Jul 30 - Aug 3

by embee Fri 31 Jul 2009, 17:04

Youre the one relying on Hawkeye to put doubt on the decision ...most others would have had doubt on seeing the ball or the replays

There are still poms on this forum whinging about Clutchen getting gunned by Rudi in Perth in Dec 06 to a very similar ball

by Shoeshine Fri 31 Jul 2009, 17:09

I saw it live. And straight away, it was out. It is your glorious media that has decided to mention dubious lbws solely, rather than give a rounded picture.

It's a whinge, and the fact you're defending it so strongly suggests you know as much.

by Shoeshine Fri 31 Jul 2009, 17:16

Bloody hell. Bell hits a straight six? Shocked

by Guest Fri 31 Jul 2009, 17:25

Shoeshine wrote:Bloody hell. Bell hits a straight six?

Not surprising, the guy is talented. Doesn't stop the fact that he'll be out for 30 odd (though the 30 runs will look marvelous).

by Shoeshine Fri 31 Jul 2009, 17:26

vilkrang wrote:
Shoeshine wrote:Bloody hell. Bell hits a straight six?
Not surprising, the guy is talented. Doesn't stop the fact that he'll be out for 30 odd (though the 30 runs will look marvelous).

Good point. Thanks for reminding me, I was getting almost excited there....

by LeFromage Fri 31 Jul 2009, 17:28

FFS.

I sat around all day yesterday waiting for some cricket, and when it finally happened, I was treated to the biggest load of dogshit bowling in the history of dogshit.

Couldn't catch today's play, and what do you know - England suddenly start bowling like Jesus.

I feel like this sport is mocking me...

by beamer Fri 31 Jul 2009, 17:34

Beer on the ball, wonder what effect that will have?

by Shoeshine Fri 31 Jul 2009, 17:35

That's hilarious.

Strauss cuts for four, bloke in the crowd goes to pick it up, knocks his beer over and soaks the ball.

All that work Australia's fielders will have put in to keep it dry.... Laughing

by Shoeshine Fri 31 Jul 2009, 17:36

Lucky boy, Bell. That was out.

by philcric Fri 31 Jul 2009, 17:37

Holy f*ck. Bell plumb, not given.

Plumbest of the plumb.

by furriner Fri 31 Jul 2009, 17:37

Just missing?

by embee Fri 31 Jul 2009, 17:37

Shoeshine wrote:I saw it live. And straight away, it was out. It is your glorious media that has decided to mention dubious lbws solely, rather than give a rounded picture.

It's a whinge, and the fact you're defending it so strongly suggests you know as much.

That only confirms you as a cyclops

by furriner Fri 31 Jul 2009, 17:37

Man that looked dead out in slo mo

by Guest Fri 31 Jul 2009, 17:37

It's not like it will make a difference, 20 runs maximum.

by beamer Fri 31 Jul 2009, 17:37

Only explanation is that he thought he hit it.

by Shoeshine Fri 31 Jul 2009, 17:38

furriner wrote:Just missing?

Definitely missing leg stump. Shame about the other two. Wink

by furriner Fri 31 Jul 2009, 17:38

Now he gets a 4.

by furriner Fri 31 Jul 2009, 17:38

Shoeshine wrote:
furriner wrote:Just missing?

Definitely missing leg stump. Shame about the other two.

Yeah, saw that again!

by philcric Fri 31 Jul 2009, 17:39

Rudi having a terrible match. Again.

by Shoeshine Fri 31 Jul 2009, 17:40

philcric wrote:Rudi having a terrible match. Again.

Well, would YOU believe Johnson's capable of bowling a straight one?

by Guest Fri 31 Jul 2009, 17:44

I cannot believe that Rudi decision in Bell's favour. jawdrop

Did he think Bell got a little nick, or what?

by Henry Fri 31 Jul 2009, 17:53

Johnson was just starting to find a bit of rhythm there before they came off for bad light.

Could than non LBW decision be the turning point in Ian Bell's career?

by furriner Fri 31 Jul 2009, 18:05

by Guest Fri 31 Jul 2009, 18:07

Indeed

.

by Henry Fri 31 Jul 2009, 18:11

Rubbish. If he gets a century here in an ashes test, when his team really needed it, with conditions suiting the bowlers, people will look back at that non lbw and wonder "what if?"

by Sponsored content