England In India - October 2011/12

Lol, No. Just want this match to play in true spirits. I mean India did very well in calling back bell, why not England return some favour by not overdoing their celebration after winning this match. Just an opinion.

I would agree with that opinion. Sportsmanship is one great thing that cricket has over games like football/soccer which I can't even watch anymore because the diving and injury feigning to get penalties annoys me so much.

Would also add that the same should go for our forum members here too :D

India got beaten down there. Deflated quickly once Bell and KP got into their stride, and apart from brief bursts, never looked threatening. It was a poor performance.

Really needed a good spinner to help control it, or even turn it. What's up with Harbhajan? Only 9 overs?

As for declarations, I see that there's potentially some rain coming in for late day 5, so if I were England I wouldn't go over the top with the lead - they should be trying to get to 2-0 here. All going well I'd declare when Prior gets 100 and England should be around 450 in front by then. If that's not enough, they don't deserve to win.
 
I still feel India are not completely out of the match yet. A good bowling performance first thing in the morning tomorrow can help India restrict England to 400-420. Then India has to negotiate the new ball. If they successfully do that (for 15-20 overs), there is plenty of runs to be had here on this wicket and we have 2 days remaining. India need to be positive and come out thinking that they can still win this. But I sadly dont see them following this mindset. They must have already started thinking about saving this test and trying to win the next two tests to win the series.
 
^^ Agree. The wicket looks too flat. Only new ball seems to be doing something. Also rain predicted for 5th day. So a draw is definitely possible. Win may be asking too much but you will never know. The top order apart from Dravid and VVS have really not fired and may look to make amends
 
^^ Agree. The wicket looks too flat. Only new ball seems to be doing something. Also rain predicted for 5th day. So a draw is definitely possible. Win may be asking too much but you will never know. The top order apart from Dravid and VVS have really not fired and may look to make amends

I have faith in Dravid, I have blind belief that Laxman will come good in the 2nd innings(:D), I dont think Mukund will fail again in the 2nd innings, on this flatter pitch, I think Raina and Yuvraj will also come into place. So I am optimistic that if India chase 420 odd on this pitch with 5 or more sessions to go, they have a chance to win (if they negotiate the new ball). Its funny that as the game progresses, we are continually revising our target of what England should set for India. This pitch has been a mystery. England should ideally want 500 (it means 126 more runs which is possible in one session seeing the way Prior and Bresnan batted last night).
 
Just watched the highlights and it really was pathetic from India that last session. Pretty much just gave up, the match was theres for the taking and Matt Prior again takes advantage like at Lords. Just on the run out, im big on spirit of cricket walking etc. personally wouldn't have minded either way on that one though. Really would have been interesting if roles were reversed. By looking back at some of these posts we are lucky over here to get the sky sports feed, I never could stand Ravi Shahstri or Harsha Bhogle anyway.

----------

Credit to Dhoni to recall though, I have always liked him and thought it was very unlike him to appeal for that wicket. The problem for India now is that a draw is almost out of the question with so much time left and even though the pitch is flat anything around 400 is going to be extremely difficult to chase.
 
fried chicken this. I wouldn't have recalled Bell. Do you really think the Brits would have done it if it was Dravid or Sachin or Laxman? Hell no. Even to Bell's own admission.

He was stupid in walking out of the pitch and the umpire gave him out. Should be the end of it.

While the Indian team is being over generous in recalling their batsman who are lawfully given out, the English had the audacity to accuse Laxman of cheating yesterday by applying vaseline on the bat and all that. What crap. Broad even said he had a feel of the bat... how can you do that.


Whatever. Makes me mad.

----------

I clearly remember Sidebottom tackling Grant Elliot or some Kiwi batsman to the ground when he was running and they run him out. They didn't recall Elliot. Spirit of the game doesn't come into the picture then. I think this is on YT somewhere.

All I am saying is that they would not have done the same if the tables were turned. But whatever, good on dhoni for doing the 'right' thing. Maybe he can go to Bell's tea party after the match. :rolleyes
 
Last edited:
Sharma looked exhausted, the Kumshot looked injured and the whole bowling attack (apart from 2 of the Kumshot's overs) looked ineffective and poor. How much of that was the attack and how much of that was pitch remains to be seen.
It's something I noticed from the last game where Sharma said he wanted to rest after the first session. These guys are probably conditioned to spinners bowling 50 overs in a day and there's probably a lot of potential for improving fitness.
 
Missed today's play as I was flying. Sounds like I missed quite a bit. Will catch extended highlights later but by the looks of the scorecard, I don't think I want to watch it.

Now I need to get up in 5 hours for Day 4.
 
He was stupid in walking out of the pitch and the umpire gave him out. Should be the end of it.

The only reason anyone has said he shouldn't have been walking off is because, to the letter of the law, the Indians decided the ball wasn't dead. This is akin to booking a footballer who picks the ball up before the ref's whistle believing he should have a free-kick.

I clearly remember Sidebottom tackling Grant Elliot or some Kiwi batsman to the ground when he was running and they run him out. They didn't recall Elliot. Spirit of the game doesn't come into the picture then. I think this is on YT somewhere.

All I am saying is that they would not have done the same if the tables were turned. But whatever, good on dhoni for doing the 'right' thing. Maybe he can go to Bell's tea party after the match. :rolleyes

The Elliott run out I believe was under Michael Yawn who was alongside Atherton in terms of schoolboy nature. Who said it wasn't against the spirit of the game, just typical on here of the schoolboy nature of the members to dig out excuses of other instances to justify their own offences........... :rolleyes - two wrongs don't make a/you right

As for your assertion that England wouldn't have done the same, well they probably wouldn't have run him out in the first place and they did recall a batsman in a Champions Trophy match as Strauss was trying to make up for the Elliott incident - or so I've heard.




This game has an unreal feel to it now, 254/3 when India broke the unwritten rules, and when the recall was FINALLY made the game has fallen apart from a fantastic position with BOTH SIDES in it. 187 ahead, seven wickets in hand and two injured batsmen was a fascinating position.

Those praising Dhoni are being "over generous", the Indians broke the wicket and even then it was clear something wasn't right. The umpires asked if the Indians wished to appeal, they had every chance then to say "no" and walk off for tea. I understand from Dravid that they discussed it in the dressing room before England (wrongly in my opinion) approached them to appeal for sense/bell to be restored, and from Bell I understand they made the decision as late as was possible before it became impossible. So the Indians had what, 25-30 minutes to right the wrong and to me that isn't worthy of high praise. Even Dravid conceded it didn't feel right.

England, well Strauss and Flower, probably deserve as much praise if not more because they have probably salvaged as much as they can for the Indians. The booing may continue, it would have been ridiculous had they not reinstated Bell. It may have got to the stage where fielders on the boundary would have not felt safe or been deemed not safe, anyone thinking what the Indians did was "right" should carry a copy of the laws with them to the stocks to be pelted with rotton fruit.

I heard something yesterday I'd not heard for a long time, some sense, and it was from Sunil Gavaskar. He said the phrase "it just isn't cricket" and said that has lost a lot of its meaning. In an age of "win at all costs" he is right, one of the few Indians it seems to understand the concept of "right". I'll cite literal law here, is assisted suicide legal or right? One to ponder....................

It's sad that these incidents happen, the Pakistan Oval incident, run outs, dissent over decisions, batsmen not walking etc. Do the laws state you have to be given out to be out or simply that an edge that is caught is out? Nasser Hussain was out twice against Sri Lanka but didn't walk, he wasn't given so he made a hundred. I'm sure plenty will say it is the umpires' fault for not giving it, the aussies hid behind that facade, but that isn't in the spirit of the game. You know you're out, walk. Credit to those batsmen who do it, shame on those who don't.

This game is now pointless in my book, it is like playing a (football) game/simulation, you save at a certain point and a few games later the PC/console crashes. If you load the saved game you go back and it doesn't feel the same. You might now go through in the cup, or lose a game you won or vice versa and if suddenly you do better than you had been it just doesn't feel right. All that because the Indians, despite being asked if they wished to appeal, took a lot longer to make the right decision than they should have.



From here England could well win the game, will be a hollow victory now when it shouldn't have been. 254/4 at tea, resuming at 254/3 England whacked nearly 200 runs for 2/3 further wickets with Bell only adding 22 runs to his out/not out score at tea. Some commentators detected a demoralised India, I'm not surprised and I suspect England were fired up by the whole thing. 374 runs in front already, England may edge a way past 400 and India will probably have to bat 4.5-5 sessions. England made one bad error in my book, sending Trott out when they did. Two overs before the new ball I would have not sent him out, he lasted two balls of the new ball, he looked dejected when given out and I don't blame him. Prior and Bresnan have taken the weary Indian attack apart.

If the cricinfo wagon wheel is to be believed, and showing third man as left and right hand, 101 runs have gone down there. Ian Bell alone scoring 54 runs down there, sounds about right from what Yawn had said (over 1/3 when he had not long passed 100) All the Indian quicker bowlers have had 27-31 runs scored off them down to third man.

I'd say it is going to be an interesting finale, I think the interest has been purely academic since tea.

----------

As for declarations, I see that there's potentially some rain coming in for late day 5, so if I were England I wouldn't go over the top with the lead - they should be trying to get to 2-0 here. All going well I'd declare when Prior gets 100 and England should be around 450 in front by then. If that's not enough, they don't deserve to win.

I think England may be bowled out this morning with a relative whimper. They might add a few, but 187 runs in the final session may be the peak of their innings. I may be wrong, the game has been a bit funny with regards turning on its head, just when you think it is going one way it swings the opposite way.
 
two wrongs don't make a/you right
No, but when so many like to relate what happens in a match to the vices and virtues of an entire nation, the line between simple barracking and nationalist propaganda is blurred. As a result, it's easy to understand why pointing at a team's past indiscretions becomes a desirable defence. At least there's something to be learned from considering and comparing past events. Pontification, on the other hand, just seems to drive away all but the faithful.
 
How bell and england Made a Fool Of Dhoni -Vaughan

How bell and england Made a Fool Of Dhoni -Vaughan
Former England captain Michael Vaughan believes Ian Bell knew he had "messed up" but gave the impression of not really knowing what all the fuss was about.


The incident happened on the third day of the on-going second Test when centurion Bell, after completing the third run off a shot by Eoin Morgan on the final ball before the tea break walked off the crease, assuming that the ball had crossed the boundary.

But Praveen Kumar made a diving effort at boundary and threw the ball at Abhinav Mukund who clipped the bails at the striker's end.

The Indians appealed and the batsman was given out after replays showed that the ball had not crossed the boundary.

But, in a magnanimous gesture, India skipper Mahendra Singh Dhoni withdrew his appeal against Bell at the tea break, allowing him to bat again.

Vaughan said Bell was well aware of his folly but pretended that he didn't know what had happened.

"Bell was dozy and he knew it. He saw Praveen Kumar's reaction on the boundary and thought it had gone for four. He even appeared to give the indication that it had gone for four to Eoin Morgan.

"But crucially the umpire had said nothing. He did not call four and he did not call tea. When the bails were taken off and Bell turned round to see what was happening he knew he had made a mistake," Vaughan wrote in the 'Daily Telegraph'.

"It was then that he actually played the situation very well. He knew he had messed up but outwardly gave a very cool impression of not really knowing what all the fuss was about," Vaughan said.

"The England players were telling him to come off the field quickly and he did his best to get back to the pavilion.

When he was given out Bell would have been blaming everyone but himself," he claimed.

Vaughan said the lifeline to Bell showed that the crowd's booing had unnerved the Indian camp.

"Everyone was a bit scrambled after tea. The day will always be remembered for the run out of Bell and it certainly ended up affecting India more than England. You could tell the booing by the crowd rattled them," he said.

"During a Test in India in 2002 I was given out handled the ball. I was equally dozy. But in those situations you put on an act. You try to cause a storm to divert attention.

"I went back into the dressing room in Bangalore and argued with everyone and said India were out of order appealing for that," he added.

He continued: "After an hour of stewing I knew I had been completely dumb and dozy. But I think Bell acted quite well. If there had been a thousand people in the ground and this a less important game he would have been given out and not reinstated. But because of this series the Indians realised it would have been a mistake not to reinstate him."

Vaughan said though Dhoni's decision was in the spirit of the game, but had he been in the Indian's place, it would have been a firm no to the rival camp.

"Andrew Strauss and Andy Flower must have gone to Dhoni and asked if he was willing to overturn the decision. I would have said 'no, he is out'. But once you gauge the reaction of the crowd and everything starts to sink in, things change," he said.

"Dhoni would not have wanted to be tarnished as being the kind of captain who does not play cricket in the spirit of the game. That is the one thing no player wants on his record. It was the right decision but Bell was in the wrong," he added.

Vaughan joked that the reprieve for Bell was another indication of England's dominance in the four-match series which the hosts lead 1-0.

"The way they bullied India was reminiscent of the great Australian team of the past. They bossed them on the field and even managed to convince India that Ian Bell should be given another chance, a brilliant performance in every respect," he said.

Vaughan said while England seem to be on a high, India look a jaded unit.

"They are a team with only two or three guys in form. In England, I see a team with eight or nine playing well. India look tired of playing cricket and England full of zest," he said.
 
fried chicken this. I wouldn't have recalled Bell. Do you really think the Brits would have done it if it was Dravid or Sachin or Laxman? Hell no. Even to Bell's own admission.

He was stupid in walking out of the pitch and the umpire gave him out. Should be the end of it.

While the Indian team is being over generous in recalling their batsman who are lawfully given out, the English had the audacity to accuse Laxman of cheating yesterday by applying vaseline on the bat and all that. What crap. Broad even said he had a feel of the bat... how can you do that.


Whatever. Makes me mad.

----------

I clearly remember Sidebottom tackling Grant Elliot or some Kiwi batsman to the ground when he was running and they run him out. They didn't recall Elliot. Spirit of the game doesn't come into the picture then. I think this is on YT somewhere.

All I am saying is that they would not have done the same if the tables were turned. But whatever, good on dhoni for doing the 'right' thing. Maybe he can go to Bell's tea party after the match. :rolleyes

Ahh okay, but you don't remember when Strauss recalled Angelo Matthews in the Champions Trophy? that's convenient.
 
Those praising Dhoni are being "over generous", the Indians broke the wicket and even then it was clear something wasn't right. The umpires asked if the Indians wished to appeal, they had every chance then to say "no" and walk off for tea. I understand from Dravid that they discussed it in the dressing room before England (wrongly in my opinion) approached them to appeal for sense/bell to be restored, and from Bell I understand they made the decision as late as was possible before it became impossible. So the Indians had what, 25-30 minutes to right the wrong and to me that isn't worthy of high praise. Even Dravid conceded it didn't feel right.

Its like you totally read my mind on this one. Exactly what I pointed out to my family, only to end up as the 'bad guy'.
 
The Elliott run out I believe was under Michael Yawn who was alongside Atherton in terms of schoolboy nature. Who said it wasn't against the spirit of the game, just typical on here of the schoolboy nature of the members to dig out excuses of other instances to justify their own offences........... - two wrongs don't make a/you right

It was under Collingwood and ironically it was Bell who threw the ball to, I think KP to take the bails off.


Someone made a good point on Sky, Mankrekar said Englan knew that Harbhajan had knicked it but still upheld the appeal and that wasnt in the sporty of the game. At which point, I think Gower said that well if we start using sporty of cricket for everything then we done need umpires, and the players can make decisions between themselves and so on.

Dhoni (and the team) made a great decision and upheld the spirit of cricket but even Dravid said that one of the reasons they changed their mind was because they were on the receiving end of something similar in the West Indies (?). So they knew how it felt.

I firmly believe that had it not been the end of a session and Bell had done it at the end of an over, Dhoni and the team would not have changed their mind. Credit where credit is due and don't lark on about it constantly but in Collingwood's position they would have done the same. In this instance they had the tea break to mull it over.
 
If the Indians had bowled better you wouldn't have had to cheat now, would you? :)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top