*Official* England in West Indies

[Richard]

Lendl Simmons is a real batsman. Time will tell how good he is.

 

[pskov]

This is going brilliantly. Smith gone as well. Now we've got the walking wicket Ryan Hinds coming in who's looked completely out of touch all series, and they've only got 1 referral left. This might not be over yet after all.

Nah, Nash and Chanderpaul in next and if they come to the crease together they'll just shut up shot.

 

[WindieWeathers]

As I say - stop trying to work a comment up into something it isn't. That post which you're trying to interpret as excuse-making had absolutely nothing to do with England and was related to the pitches this series had been played on.

If you want to spam places to post only about what you want to hear rather than what's actually been said I suggest you go elsewhere.

I've merely quoted what YOU said, that's blatantly making excuses for England's failure's this series, if you can't handle people quoting your own words try thinking before you type, and as long as i stay true to the forum rules i'll do as i wish thanks, your not a mod so your "suggestions" will remain abundantly futile.

 

[King Pietersen]

Well they're into the real batsmen. Now's the hard part.

Hinds isn't a real batsman. Just bowl a few overs of spin at him and he'll get himself out. I bet I'll be proven wrong now though and he'll smash a spin dominated hundred to lead the Windies to victory..........................................

 

[Richard]

I've merely quoted what YOU said, that's blatantly making excuses for England's failure's this series

No, you want it to be making excuses for England's failings this series, because you clearly have some bizarre fascination with making-out people aren't giving West Indies enough credit or whatever.

In reality, that post which you want to be making excuses for England's failures was a reply to a comment about the pitches.

 

[Richard]

I reckon that's out. Not sure it'll be given though.

 

[pskov]

I reckon that's out. Not sure it'll be given though.

One of those referrals where either way the umpire gave it initially will (should) be backed up by the third umpire.

 

[WindieWeathers]

No, you want it to be making excuses for England's failings this series, because you clearly have some bizarre fascination with making-out people aren't giving West Indies enough credit or whatever.

In reality, that post was a reply to a comment about the pitches.

Yeah because talking about England failing to take out the tail end in the third test is obviously talking about "the pitches"..pull another one , no-one's begging you to embrace the windies, in my first post here i was simply talking about the return fixture, then you started going "wacko" accusing me of being some other member just because i didn't agree with you, you were WRONG then and you're wrong again i'm afraid.

 

[Uppercut]

Would have given that out tbh. Can't see it doing anything other than cannoning into leg stump.

These are the things England need to go their way to have a shot at this.

 

[Richard]

Yeah because talking about England failing to take out the tail end in the third test is obviously talking about "the pitches"..pull another one , no-one's begging you to embrace the windies, in my first post here i was simply talking about the return fixture, then you started going "wacko" accusing me of being some other member just because i didn't agree with you, you were WRONG then and you're wrong again i'm afraid.

Whether you're SW\BLE or not you're not going to last very long posting like this, and thankfully so as well.

Anyway, I'm right about what my post was saying and you're wrong. That much is pretty obvious, given that I wrote the post and you didn't. I'm not going to bother trying to make you see what my post was saying any longer, because you don't want to see it and there's no point engaging the likes of you in conversation.

 

[Prince EWS]

One of those referrals where either way the umpire gave it initially will (should) be backed up by the third umpire.

Yeah, what really annoys me though is the fact that England now lose a referral despite not actually being 'wrong' as such. The limit on referrals per innings isn't there so you can only have a certain amount of wrong decisions per innings over-turned - it's there to stop teams unnecessarily referring everything. There's no way that referral was a waste of time so I don't see why England should be punished.

I almost think it'd be better for the third umpire to actually specify when he's given the BOTD to the umpire's original call and not actually have it deduct from the unnecessary referring team when it happens. I only say "almost", though, because it'd just open the door for more human error.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah, what really annoys me though is the fact that England now lose a referral despite not actually being 'wrong' as such. The limit on referrals per innings isn't there so you can only have a certain amount of wrong decisions per innings over-turned - it's there to stop teams unnecessarily referring everything. There's no way that referral was a waste of time so I don't see why England should be punished.

I almost think it'd be better for the third umpire to actually specify when he's given the BOTD to the umpire's original call and not actually have it deduct from the unnecessary referring team when it happens. I only say "almost", though, because it'd just open the door for more human error.

Nah, that was really badly out. It was hitting leg stump for sure. It's basically saying, "if a random gust of wind had suddenly caused the ball to swing violently down the leg-side in the last 50cm of its trajectory, it might have missed. Therefore, not out." Should have been given out itfp and should have been overturned for me.

 

[Richard]

Yet another example of the failings of the referral system.

 

[Richard]

Well - is that small delay in Sarwan's dismissal going to cost anything? We wait to see.

Collingwood taking a far more difficult one there than he missed (off Sarwan) in the first-innings.

 

[King Pietersen]

Yet another example of Collingwood being able to catch at slip Sarwan gone. England have a chance! I really hope they do it, just to shut Botham up.

 

[Richard]

47 more overs to get 7 wickets, including 3 tailenders, 1 wicketkeeper-batsman and 2 injured batsmen.

Chanderpaul, injured or not, and Nash now you'd imagine the biggest obstacles.

 

[Richard]

Bloody hell, that was a hell of a delivery, not quite enough carry.

 

[Uppercut]

****s sake, giving me a football vs. cricket decision. I ALWAYS get these wrong.

 

[WindieWeathers]

Whether you're SW\BLE or not you're not going to last very long posting like this, and thankfully so as well.

Anyway, I'm right about what my post was saying and you're wrong. That much is pretty obvious, given that I wrote the post and you didn't. I'm not going to bother trying to make you see what my post was saying any longer, because you don't want to see it and there's no point engaging the likes of you in conversation.

You make suggestions that i should "go elsewhere" and accuse me of being some "banned member" (even though a mod has confirmed that i'm not) and you think i'm the "bad guy" here? , my tone wouldn't be so brash if you'd shown a little more respect in the first place, you wanna question someones future on this forum?, look in the mirror, i'm happy to have fruitful debates with those who are man enough to accept what they've said and not flip flop every two seconds thanks.

 

[King Pietersen]

England spinners actually looking dangerous together. Suppose everything happens once, just wish they'd done it in India. Chanderpaul is playing a dangerous game, been agonisingly close to being caught twice now.