I agree it wasn't obvious. A cricket fan clearly needs explaining that one wicket cannot change the result of two matches.
Yeah, ultimately what matters is that England legitimately drew the series in South Africa and India legitimately won the series against Australia. Everything else is quite irrelevant.
There's always a debate to be had when another bloke has just taken four for nothing in SA, and has hundreds more wickets than the other.
Well you obviously need it explaining else you wouldn't have said it. Basically admitting what you said was wrong
Do you really think so? The West Indies team of the 80s wasn't defined by the fact that Gus Logie averaged mid-30s in Tests and FC cricket. Albeit that he was maybe the best short-leg fielder that ever drew breath.
Haha, you are one stubborn dude, aren't youWell you obviously need it explaining else you wouldn't have said it. Basically admitting what you said was wrong
I did admit I should have added 'twice' - I decided not to against better judgement. However, you have gone on and on with it for no apparent reason other than to hide the fact that you were arguing against something too trivial, too insignificant.Meh, again you are clutching at straws. You are the one that brought up umpiring decisions, not me. I only look at results as far as teams are concerned. If I wanted to be pedantic, I could have argued that Dale Steyn didn't play the whole series and even when he played he wasn't fully fit etc. All that doesn't matter though, the results do.
That is incorrect.
Perhaps over simplified but ultimately still correct.
Trouble with Logie was he (and Dujon to a lesser extent) always seemed to make runs on those relatively few occasions when the rest of 'em failed
Yeah, because stating that Australia were a (denied) wicket away from drawing the series isn't bitching about incorrect umpiring decisions.
He's got his English rose tinted glasses* on tonight, for whatever reason.
That is correct.If people didn't post rubbish, this thread would be about 2 pages long though.
No, it isn't.
No, it isn't.
How is it not? Had that LBW decision been correctly given, Australia would've won the Test match. Obviously it wasn't the only event in the whole match...
That's it. You're out of this thread.
We don't know what could've happened if Ishant had been given not out though, he could've hit a 6 off every ball following it. It could've altered the balance in an alternate universe resulting in a meteorite smashing the ground into a million pieces. We just don't know.That's it. You're out of this thread.
What is incorrect is looking at it in isolation and attributing greater importance to it than other equally relevant events.
