Here you go. Every major nation represented, which arguably cost Root, Pujara and Ashwin their places, but not Stokes. Who'd he replace? If you say Azam...well, that's who Root would replace.
In conclusion the best team won ..as usual England were unprepared and also underestimated the Windies...they also selected the wrong team who batted liked novices and bowled poorly...having said all that I am pleased that Windies have found a team some conviction and look like a force in cricket again so fair play to them..a strong Windies side will be good for cricket
In conclusion the best team won ..as usual England were unprepared and also underestimated the Windies...they also selected the wrong team who batted liked novices and bowled poorly...having said all that I am pleased that Windies have found a team some conviction and look like a force in cricket again so fair play to them..a strong Windies side will be good for cricket
They are decent enough with the white ball, but I've always loved all conquering WI test teams
I'm just fed up with the continual lack of fight and guts when the chips are down. The regularity of the collapses and the inability to be able to get wickets when the ball isnt swinging gets on my tits.Plus the lack of backbone by the majority of the players , especially Ali, who is brilliant when England are 350-5, but feckin useless when we are 150-5 just gets it for me. All change for me.
How can that dismissal of Rashid stand? The catcher was standing on the mark where the boundary was. Ridiculous.
Anyone? With reference to Law 19.3.1
As reported by the BBC-
Rashid c Brathwaite b Chase 1 (Eng 234-9)
Roston Chase has seven wickets. Dearie me.
Adil Rashid looks to heave the off-spinner into the stands over deep mid-wicket but Kraigg Brathwaite is out on the boundary.
He takes the catch and is about to step over the rope but throws the ball up in time before stepping back over to complete a superb take.
Look at Law 19.3.1.
The boundary had been disturbed and was, at the time of that delivery, further back than it had been earlier. The fielder caught the ball, with both feet on the ground, one within the boundary, one beyond the original position of the boundary, but inside the disturbed boundary marker. He then threw the ball up, stepped back over the marker, stepped back and caught it again.
Before he threw the ball up, he was standing beyond the boundary (although the "right" side of the boundary marker). It's crystal clear on the images that it should be not out, six runs.
How can that dismissal of Rashid stand? The catcher was standing on the mark where the boundary was. Ridiculous.
Anyone? With reference to Law 19.3.1
As reported by the BBC-
Rashid c Brathwaite b Chase 1 (Eng 234-9)
Roston Chase has seven wickets. Dearie me.
Adil Rashid looks to heave the off-spinner into the stands over deep mid-wicket but Kraigg Brathwaite is out on the boundary.
He takes the catch and is about to step over the rope but throws the ball up in time before stepping back over to complete a superb take.
Look at Law 19.3.1.
The boundary had been disturbed and was, at the time of that delivery, further back than it had been earlier. The fielder caught the ball, with both feet on the ground, one within the boundary, one beyond the original position of the boundary, but inside the disturbed boundary marker. He then threw the ball up, stepped back over the marker, stepped back and caught it again.
Before he threw the ball up, he was standing beyond the boundary (although the "right" side of the boundary marker). It's crystal clear on the images that it should be not out, six runs.
I agree, it would have made all the difference - we would have won - we only had another 350+ to get.
How can that dismissal of Rashid stand? The catcher was standing on the mark where the boundary was. Ridiculous.
Anyone? With reference to Law 19.3.1
As reported by the BBC-
Rashid c Brathwaite b Chase 1 (Eng 234-9)
Roston Chase has seven wickets. Dearie me.
Adil Rashid looks to heave the off-spinner into the stands over deep mid-wicket but Kraigg Brathwaite is out on the boundary.
He takes the catch and is about to step over the rope but throws the ball up in time before stepping back over to complete a superb take.
Look at Law 19.3.1.
The boundary had been disturbed and was, at the time of that delivery, further back than it had been earlier. The fielder caught the ball, with both feet on the ground, one within the boundary, one beyond the original position of the boundary, but inside the disturbed boundary marker. He then threw the ball up, stepped back over the marker, stepped back and caught it again.
Before he threw the ball up, he was standing beyond the boundary (although the "right" side of the boundary marker). It's crystal clear on the images that it should be not out, six runs.
I'm not arguing with you and I really couldn't give a hoot, I'm just showing you how the experts saw it. Agnew said "Great work there..."
How can that dismissal of Rashid stand? The catcher was standing on the mark where the boundary was. Ridiculous.
Anyone? With reference to Law 19.3.1
As reported by the BBC-
Rashid c Brathwaite b Chase 1 (Eng 234-9)
Roston Chase has seven wickets. Dearie me.
Adil Rashid looks to heave the off-spinner into the stands over deep mid-wicket but Kraigg Brathwaite is out on the boundary.
He takes the catch and is about to step over the rope but throws the ball up in time before stepping back over to complete a superb take.
Look at Law 19.3.1.
The boundary had been disturbed and was, at the time of that delivery, further back than it had been earlier. The fielder caught the ball, with both feet on the ground, one within the boundary, one beyond the original position of the boundary, but inside the disturbed boundary marker. He then threw the ball up, stepped back over the marker, stepped back and caught it again.
Before he threw the ball up, he was standing beyond the boundary (although the "right" side of the boundary marker). It's crystal clear on the images that it should be not out, six runs.
I agree, it would have made all the difference - we would have won - we only had another 350+ to get.
I don't think anyone is suggesting "it would have made all the difference". But when the team for the next Test is being selected, it would have given a better opportunity to Adil Rashid had he been fifty not out. Especially when England fans are "fed up with the continual lack of fight and guts when the chips are down".
How can that dismissal of Rashid stand? The catcher was standing on the mark where the boundary was. Ridiculous.
Anyone? With reference to Law 19.3.1
As reported by the BBC-
Rashid c Brathwaite b Chase 1 (Eng 234-9)
Roston Chase has seven wickets. Dearie me.
Adil Rashid looks to heave the off-spinner into the stands over deep mid-wicket but Kraigg Brathwaite is out on the boundary.
He takes the catch and is about to step over the rope but throws the ball up in time before stepping back over to complete a superb take.
Look at Law 19.3.1.
The boundary had been disturbed and was, at the time of that delivery, further back than it had been earlier. The fielder caught the ball, with both feet on the ground, one within the boundary, one beyond the original position of the boundary, but inside the disturbed boundary marker. He then threw the ball up, stepped back over the marker, stepped back and caught it again.
Before he threw the ball up, he was standing beyond the boundary (although the "right" side of the boundary marker). It's crystal clear on the images that it should be not out, six runs.
I agree, it would have made all the difference - we would have won - we only had another 350+ to get.
I don't think anyone is suggesting "it would have made all the difference". But when the team for the next Test is being selected, it would have given a better opportunity to Adil Rashid had he been fifty not out. Especially when England fans are "fed up with the continual lack of fight and guts when the chips are down".
It was an absolutely terrible shot by Rashid and rightly punished
How can that dismissal of Rashid stand? The catcher was standing on the mark where the boundary was. Ridiculous.
Anyone? With reference to Law 19.3.1
As reported by the BBC-
Rashid c Brathwaite b Chase 1 (Eng 234-9)
Roston Chase has seven wickets. Dearie me.
Adil Rashid looks to heave the off-spinner into the stands over deep mid-wicket but Kraigg Brathwaite is out on the boundary.
He takes the catch and is about to step over the rope but throws the ball up in time before stepping back over to complete a superb take.
Look at Law 19.3.1.
The boundary had been disturbed and was, at the time of that delivery, further back than it had been earlier. The fielder caught the ball, with both feet on the ground, one within the boundary, one beyond the original position of the boundary, but inside the disturbed boundary marker. He then threw the ball up, stepped back over the marker, stepped back and caught it again.
Before he threw the ball up, he was standing beyond the boundary (although the "right" side of the boundary marker). It's crystal clear on the images that it should be not out, six runs.
I agree, it would have made all the difference - we would have won - we only had another 350+ to get.
I don't think anyone is suggesting "it would have made all the difference". But when the team for the next Test is being selected, it would have given a better opportunity to Adil Rashid had he been fifty not out. Especially when England fans are "fed up with the continual lack of fight and guts when the chips are down".
How can that dismissal of Rashid stand? The catcher was standing on the mark where the boundary was. Ridiculous.
Anyone? With reference to Law 19.3.1
As reported by the BBC-
Rashid c Brathwaite b Chase 1 (Eng 234-9)
Roston Chase has seven wickets. Dearie me.
Adil Rashid looks to heave the off-spinner into the stands over deep mid-wicket but Kraigg Brathwaite is out on the boundary.
He takes the catch and is about to step over the rope but throws the ball up in time before stepping back over to complete a superb take.
Look at Law 19.3.1.
The boundary had been disturbed and was, at the time of that delivery, further back than it had been earlier. The fielder caught the ball, with both feet on the ground, one within the boundary, one beyond the original position of the boundary, but inside the disturbed boundary marker. He then threw the ball up, stepped back over the marker, stepped back and caught it again.
Before he threw the ball up, he was standing beyond the boundary (although the "right" side of the boundary marker). It's crystal clear on the images that it should be not out, six runs.
I agree, it would have made all the difference - we would have won - we only had another 350+ to get.
I don't think anyone is suggesting "it would have made all the difference". But when the team for the next Test is being selected, it would have given a better opportunity to Adil Rashid had he been fifty not out. Especially when England fans are "fed up with the continual lack of fight and guts when the chips are down".
How can that dismissal of Rashid stand? The catcher was standing on the mark where the boundary was. Ridiculous.
Anyone? With reference to Law 19.3.1
As reported by the BBC-
Rashid c Brathwaite b Chase 1 (Eng 234-9)
Roston Chase has seven wickets. Dearie me.
Adil Rashid looks to heave the off-spinner into the stands over deep mid-wicket but Kraigg Brathwaite is out on the boundary.
He takes the catch and is about to step over the rope but throws the ball up in time before stepping back over to complete a superb take.
Look at Law 19.3.1.
The boundary had been disturbed and was, at the time of that delivery, further back than it had been earlier. The fielder caught the ball, with both feet on the ground, one within the boundary, one beyond the original position of the boundary, but inside the disturbed boundary marker. He then threw the ball up, stepped back over the marker, stepped back and caught it again.
Before he threw the ball up, he was standing beyond the boundary (although the "right" side of the boundary marker). It's crystal clear on the images that it should be not out, six runs.
I agree, it would have made all the difference - we would have won - we only had another 350+ to get.
I don't think anyone is suggesting "it would have made all the difference". But when the team for the next Test is being selected, it would have given a better opportunity to Adil Rashid had he been fifty not out. Especially when England fans are "fed up with the continual lack of fight and guts when the chips are down".
It was an absolutely terrible shot by Rashid and rightly punished
Hitting the ball for six is rightly punished by being given out, incorrectly. That makes even less sense than your world XI selection.
How can that dismissal of Rashid stand? The catcher was standing on the mark where the boundary was. Ridiculous.
Anyone? With reference to Law 19.3.1
As reported by the BBC-
Rashid c Brathwaite b Chase 1 (Eng 234-9)
Roston Chase has seven wickets. Dearie me.
Adil Rashid looks to heave the off-spinner into the stands over deep mid-wicket but Kraigg Brathwaite is out on the boundary.
He takes the catch and is about to step over the rope but throws the ball up in time before stepping back over to complete a superb take.
Look at Law 19.3.1.
The boundary had been disturbed and was, at the time of that delivery, further back than it had been earlier. The fielder caught the ball, with both feet on the ground, one within the boundary, one beyond the original position of the boundary, but inside the disturbed boundary marker. He then threw the ball up, stepped back over the marker, stepped back and caught it again.
Before he threw the ball up, he was standing beyond the boundary (although the "right" side of the boundary marker). It's crystal clear on the images that it should be not out, six runs.
I agree, it would have made all the difference - we would have won - we only had another 350+ to get.
I don't think anyone is suggesting "it would have made all the difference". But when the team for the next Test is being selected, it would have given a better opportunity to Adil Rashid had he been fifty not out. Especially when England fans are "fed up with the continual lack of fight and guts when the chips are down".
How can that dismissal of Rashid stand? The catcher was standing on the mark where the boundary was. Ridiculous.
Anyone? With reference to Law 19.3.1
As reported by the BBC-
Rashid c Brathwaite b Chase 1 (Eng 234-9)
Roston Chase has seven wickets. Dearie me.
Adil Rashid looks to heave the off-spinner into the stands over deep mid-wicket but Kraigg Brathwaite is out on the boundary.
He takes the catch and is about to step over the rope but throws the ball up in time before stepping back over to complete a superb take.
Look at Law 19.3.1.
The boundary had been disturbed and was, at the time of that delivery, further back than it had been earlier. The fielder caught the ball, with both feet on the ground, one within the boundary, one beyond the original position of the boundary, but inside the disturbed boundary marker. He then threw the ball up, stepped back over the marker, stepped back and caught it again.
Before he threw the ball up, he was standing beyond the boundary (although the "right" side of the boundary marker). It's crystal clear on the images that it should be not out, six runs.
I agree, it would have made all the difference - we would have won - we only had another 350+ to get.
I don't think anyone is suggesting "it would have made all the difference". But when the team for the next Test is being selected, it would have given a better opportunity to Adil Rashid had he been fifty not out. Especially when England fans are "fed up with the continual lack of fight and guts when the chips are down".
Comments
And we'd play with nine men !
Rashid c Brathwaite b Chase 1 (Eng 234-9)
Roston Chase has seven wickets. Dearie me.
Adil Rashid looks to heave the off-spinner into the stands over deep mid-wicket but Kraigg Brathwaite is out on the boundary.
He takes the catch and is about to step over the rope but throws the ball up in time before stepping back over to complete a superb take.
All change for me.
The boundary had been disturbed and was, at the time of that delivery, further back than it had been earlier. The fielder caught the ball, with both feet on the ground, one within the boundary, one beyond the original position of the boundary, but inside the disturbed boundary marker. He then threw the ball up, stepped back over the marker, stepped back and caught it again.
Before he threw the ball up, he was standing beyond the boundary (although the "right" side of the boundary marker). It's crystal clear on the images that it should be not out, six runs.
I don't see that side being any worse than this time.
Denly
Bairstow
Root
Buttler
Stokes
Foakes
Woakes
Broad
Leach
Anderson
Denly, Woakes, Leach, Broad in.
Jennings, Ali, Rashid, Curran out.