Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

England v Sri Lanka & Pakistan

1…2829313334…52

Comments

  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 52,006
    The_President said:

    To me, it wasnt certain that the mark was or wasnt there before the ball went past, but i think it was the 'noise' on snicko that made him probably realise that it had hit something - and it could only have been the glove - to me, in the end , the right decision was made, but, as you say, i always thought to overturn the original decision you had to have concrete evidence of which this 'maybe' wasnt.

    Agreed, so if it wasn't CERTAIN whether the mark was already there. He shouldn't have given him out.

    The noise could have been pad or foot. Anyway, at least it doesn't matter & even keeps Stokes fresher for a late bowling onslaught.
  • LenGlover
    LenGlover Posts: 31,651
    If in doubt not out always used to be the cardinal rule of umpiring.

    Not seen the Stokes incident so cannot comment specifically on that.
  • The_President
    The_President Posts: 14,280
    edited July 2016
    Best beer snake ever. !
  • The_President
    The_President Posts: 14,280
    533-6 at tea Root 226 no - magnificent innings
  • The_President
    The_President Posts: 14,280
    England declare on 589-8.
    Root eventually out for 254. 3rd highest score ever at OT
  • The_President
    The_President Posts: 14,280
    lets get 2 or 3 before end of play
  • The_President
    The_President Posts: 14,280
    The_President said:

    lets get 2 or 3 before end of play

    Ended up wth 4 !
  • The_President
    The_President Posts: 14,280
    Bob Willis stating that if England had picked Rashid and lost the toss, that he would have ended up with worse figures than Yasir Shah who ended up with 1-180something.
  • The_President
    The_President Posts: 14,280
    COYW - lets roll them over quickly and get them back in again - shell shocked.
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 52,006
    I missed the Pakistan innings yesterday, but watched it this morning. I thought we bowled superbly. It's wonderful to see our bowlers intimidating the opposition.
  • Sponsored links:



  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 52,006
    Masood c Root b Anderson 39

    71-5
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 52,006
    Rain stopped play, but just starting now. Play extended to 7pm tonight.
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 52,006
    Shafiqc Hales b Broad 4

    76-6
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 52,006
    Sarfraz c Root b Stokes 26

    112-7
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 52,006
    edited July 2016
    Shah c Root b Woakes 1

    119-8 lunch taken

    Woakes was looking almost unplayable.

    Marvelous effort by England's bowlers on what is a very good batting wicket.
  • SantaClaus
    SantaClaus Posts: 7,652
    Spot the bowler that the Pakistani's rate :smiley:
  • SantaClaus
    SantaClaus Posts: 7,652
    Fair play to Ali. That was a decent over even before the wicket.
  • roseandcrown
    roseandcrown Posts: 7,587
    edited July 2016
    What is the rule/target for a follow on option?
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 52,006
    Misbah c Cook b Ali 52

    179-9
  • cfgs
    cfgs Posts: 11,476
    roseandcrown said:

    What is the rule/target for a follow on option?

    They have to get within 200 of our score, we will bat again though.
  • Sponsored links:



  • roseandcrown
    roseandcrown Posts: 7,587
    cfgs said:

    roseandcrown said:

    What is the rule/target for a follow on option?

    They have to get within 200 of our score, we will bat again though.
    Cheers
  • RedChaser
    RedChaser Posts: 19,885
    edited July 2016
    Some sweet chin music required methinks :smirk:
    Edit; Scrap that keep Moeen on :smiley:
  • Todds_right_hook
    Todds_right_hook Posts: 10,883
    Why hasn't the follow on been enforced?
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 52,006
    England bat again with a 391 lead

    Wahab c Hales B Moeen 39

    198 All Out
  • Covered End
    Covered End Posts: 52,006
    Todds_right_hook said:

    Why hasn't the follow on been enforced?

    I should imagine, to give our bowlers a rest, rather than have to bowl straight away and potentially have to bowl for 2.5 days non stop.

    It also means they have to bat last on a detorioating wicket.
  • cfgs
    cfgs Posts: 11,476
    Todds_right_hook said:

    Why hasn't the follow on been enforced?

    Doesn't seem the modern way and Cook likes to protect his bowlers.
  • cfgs
    cfgs Posts: 11,476
    Todds_right_hook said:

    Why hasn't the follow on been enforced?

    Doesn't seem the modern way and Cook likes to protect his bowlers.
  • RedChaser
    RedChaser Posts: 19,885
    cfgs said:

    Todds_right_hook said:

    Why hasn't the follow on been enforced?

    Doesn't seem the modern way and Cook likes to protect his bowlers.
    Alright, alright I heard you the first time :wink:
  • Chizz
    Chizz Posts: 28,335
    Todds_right_hook said:

    Why hasn't the follow on been enforced?

    There are still seven sessions left in the match.

    I guess the thought is (1) preventing our bowlers from having to bowl for the whole day and deep into tomorrow, (2) make sure Pakistan are batting fourth, in the worst possible conditions, with the ball turning and up-and-down bounce, (3) see if some of our out-of-form batsmen (Hales, Ballance, Vince) can resuscitate and prolong their careers by making some second-innings runs.

    If it were me, I would bat until some time after lunch tomorrow, giving our bowlers 130-140 overs, max.
  • harveys_gardener
    harveys_gardener Posts: 7,038
    edited July 2016
    WTF? Is Cook on commission for ticket sales? He should be sacked as captain for not enforcing follow-on. Doesn't he know there is a tendency in Manchester for wet stuff to drop out of the sky?

Categories

“Marketplace”