*Official* England in West Indies

[Richard]

It was a home series against Sri Lanka, I think it was when Edwards and Taylor made their debuts....

2003/4, was it?

Nah, was 2003 (as I look at it) or 2002/03 (as some official records do).

IE, May-June 2003.

 

[Uppercut]

It's no reason to give an obvious out n\o or vice-versa. But IMO, batsmen should get the benefit of the doubt; bowlers when bowling at tailenders should get it. Simple as. I don't watch cricket to see tailenders hanging-around or slogging runs; I watch it to watch batsmen batting. Always happy to see tailenders disposed of quickly.

I don't think umpires should give decisions based on what people want to see. Besides, what constitutes a tail-ender? Mitchell Johnson batting at nine?

 

[Richard]

That'll be the 2004 series that cricinfo mentioned. Thanks, I'd quite forgotten about that one.

England played in West Indies in 2004, but Sri Lanka didn't.

 

[Richard]

I don't think umpires should give decisions based on what people want to see.

All about cricket should be on what people want to see.

Just depends on who the people you're considering are - whether they're the rabble or the true conniousseur.

Besides, what constitutes a tail-ender? Mitchell Johnson batting at nine?

Most competent judges of cricket can tell what's a decent-ish batsman and what's a not-very-good one. And certainly what's a completely hopeless one.

 

[shivfan]

Poor extras. Stranded on 74*.

I was hoping Edward Xavier Tras was going to get a ton....

He's such a talented lower-order batsman!

 

[roseboy64]

I was hoping Edward Xavier Tras was going to get a ton....

He's such a talented lower-order batsman!

Averaging 38 for the series.

 

[Richard]

He could well get out very soon, but even if he does, Strauss already looks far better in these couple of overs than I've ever seen him look before when chasing quick runs is the aim.

And now's the time for some real cat-and-mouse stuff. If this was a series decider rather than England trying almost certainly forlornly to level it up, this'd be absolutely riveting stuff.

 

[Uppercut]

All about cricket should be on what people want to see.

Just depends on who the people you're considering are - whether they're the rabble or the true conniousseur.

Most competent judges of cricket can tell what's a decent-ish batsman and what's a not-very-good one. And certainly what's a completely hopeless one.

Haha, nah, that's ridiculous on both counts. Otherwise here we'd have had a case of, "well Chanderpaul missed it... however, the match will still be alive if he's out now. *raises finger*"

And on the other idea we could have an argument between on-field umpires on the quality of a player. Before referring it to the third umpire who uses video evidence to confirm that, yes, Daren Powell is indeed **** and therefore is out.

 

[Richard]

Haha, that must be a nick surely?

 

[Jamee999]

How the hell did the umpire give that not out?

 

[wpdavid]

So if we really do believe that England are going to try and set a target, when's the estimated time of declaration?

 

[four_or_six]

The umpire is deaf?

 

[Richard]

Haha, nah, that's ridiculous on both counts. Otherwise here we'd have had a case of, "well Chanderpaul missed it... however, the match will still be alive if he's out now. *raises finger*"

I don't think so TBH. No-one wants to see obvious wrong decisions given for a moral obligation.

And on the other idea we could have an argument between on-field umpires on the quality of a player. Before referring it to the third umpire who uses video evidence to confirm that, yes, Daren Powell is indeed **** and therefore is out.

Hmm, I think not TBH.

 

[roseboy64]

How's that not out?

 

[wpdavid]

Haha, that must be a nick surely?

Has it been referred?

 

[Jamee999]

Haha, nah, that's ridiculous on both counts. Otherwise here we'd have had a case of, "well Chanderpaul missed it... however, the match will still be alive if he's out now. *raises finger*"

And on the other idea we could have an argument between on-field umpires on the quality of a player. Before referring it to the third umpire who uses video evidence to confirm that, yes, Daren Powell is indeed **** and therefore is out.

 

[superkingdave]

Yeah, don't know how the umpire didn't give that itfp

 

[Richard]

How the hell did the umpire give that not out?

Perhaps thinking that it was certain to be referred and it was less likely to be wrong if he gave it n\o than out?

 

[Jamee999]

So if we really do believe that England are going to try and set a target, when's the estimated time of declaration?

Lunch.

 

[Richard]

Has it been referred?

Obv. No deviation though.

Bloody hell, that's given n\o. I honestly do not believe this.