England in Pakistan

[Demon_fire]

Players:
Trescothick - no complaints batted well first innings captained alright.
Strauss - Was poor but knowing who he's done he'll come back stronger
Bell - Had a great game 100+ runs and was given out when he shouldn't have been off a No Ball.
Collingwood - Poor game Prior would've done better.
KP - shocking game
Flintoff - Great with the ball average with the bat
Jones- Good with the gloves and batted well
Giles - Poor game
Udal - poor game
Hoggard - Bowled better than his stats suggest.
Harmison - had a good game.

So we lost by 22 runs despite playing badly and only 5 players (Tres, Bell, Jones, Freddie and Harmison) contributing.

I'd bring in Vaughan for Collingwood and Plunkett for Udal/Giles.

Umpire decisions favoured Pakistan more often than not.

Sour grapes :P
lol wtf? tresco was plumb lbw in the first innings at 48 and he went on to score 193. and salman's run out was not out according cricket laws. apart from tresco's lbw i think all umpires had a pretty good game. and tbh even if salman butt had been given run out pak still woulda won by 3 runs :P>>>>>


well played both teams thou. as a neutral looking forward to next game.


regards

 

[barmyarmy]

and salman's run out was not out according cricket laws

You'll have to explain that one to me. I can forgive errors by the onfield umpires but not by the third umpire. It was a shocking decision.

 

[themuel1]

You'll have to explain that one to me. I can forgive errors by the onfield umpires but not by the third umpire. It was a shocking decision.

Agreed, I can't see how the third umpire could have made a mistake with this. Twas Shocking. He's got god damn replays from different angles.

 

[Sando]

Sour grapes :P
lol wtf? tresco was plumb lbw in the first innings at 48 and he went on to score 193. and salman's run out was not out according cricket laws. apart from tresco's lbw i think all umpires had a pretty good game. and tbh even if salman butt had been given run out pak still woulda won by 3 runs :P>>>>>


well played both teams thou. as a neutral looking forward to next game.


regards

Exactly right mate, what a shocker by Billy, certainly more clear cut than the run out decision. Fact was England weren't good enough to beat the seventh best team in world cricket. Simple as that.

 

[Pak_cricketer]

I'm afriad the team won't be changed a lot as everyone preformed well. Shoaib Malik did well. The only problem is Raza whenever he comes into the team he fails but he plays very nicly in domestic, for some reason. He started playing cricket when he was 14 yrs old and has been given multiple chances!

 

[barmyarmy]

Exactly right mate, what a shocker by Billy, certainly more clear cut than the run out decision. Fact was England weren't good enough to beat the seventh best team in world cricket. Simple as that.

You can't say it was more clear cut seeing as Bowden had it in realtime with no replays!

 

[Pak_cricketer]

Umpires make mistakes dude they're just like us.. Bad luck can go anyway, Pakistan have experinced that a lot and in crucial times!

 

[barmyarmy]

Umpires make mistakes dude they're just like us.. Bad luck can go anyway, Pakistan have experinced that a lot and in crucial times!

Of course umpires in the middle are allowed to make mistakes. That's part of the game.
The third umpire however has access to several TV replays and shouldn't be the only person who saw those replays that thought the batsman was in. There is no excuse for getting it wrong if you are using technology.
Hats off to Pakistan for the way they played but I hope that third umpire gets hauled up before the ICC and struck off for gross incompetence.

 

[Pak_cricketer]

Thats our Asad Rauf

How come the games are so spread out?

 

[Adarsh]

The jury is still out. The picture quality isn't the greatest.

 

[taimurasad]

You'll have to explain that one to me. I can forgive errors by the onfield umpires but not by the third umpire. It was a shocking decision.

let me explain this. Barmyarmy, never in those replays this thing was clear enough that bails were completely dislodged. However stumps were moved some good distance but it was not clear enough from those angles that whether bails were dislodged or not. If you go by common sense then its out since movement of stumps indicates that bails must have also been dislodged but rules says that it if its not clear enough for the umpire then the benefit of the doubt should go to the batsman and that?s what happened in Butt's case.
These are one of those tricky things which can have endless debate on. I think here ICC needs to take a step to make rules clearer to avoid such controversial decisions in future.

 

[ZexyZahid]

Thanks for explaining that. The bails couldn't be seen if they were completely dislodged or not, so for me the umpire made the right decision. And so far I've been hearing two pages of complaining about the pitch or the run out decision. Bowden made three wrong calls against Pakistan. That's how cricket goes.

Better talk about the upcoming match. I think Afridi and Rana should come in for Raza and Sami. About English side: maybe they could give Cook a chance. Collingwood hasn't done much magic.

 

[aussie1st]

Bowden and wrong calls, whats new :laugh
From that angle you can't give it out, but why didn't they show the reverse angle? Wouldn't that show the bails dislodged?

 

[Pak_cricketer]

Why would you take out Sami?? Just cause he was expensive?? Give him a chance he will preform..

 

[ZexyZahid]

Sami was good, but Rana is better. He is the man in form, as he shown in England. Just because they won doesn't mean you can't replace him.

Yet better Mohammad Asif took yesterday 6 wickets on the first day, including a hattrick. I think he took ten wickets in the match also against England. I wouldn't mind bringing him in.

And about the run out dismissal. Here is a nice read. Read especially the laws:

Officials Play A Blinder
http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/051115/4/ey6c.html