Ajmal claims special concession to 15 degree rule allowed by ICC

[smash84]

I'm not sure how many times it has to be explained: HE'S NOT ****ING THROWING.

as per the current rules. I think people are entitled to have different views about the quality or effect of the rules, as opposed to whether or not whether Ajmal operates within them.

So? Ajmal is supposed to be follwing the rules of 1871?

Why not return to underarm bowling?

 

[GIMH]

Haven't really noticed the media saying much either... maybe somewhere low visibility, but pretty much all the sports news is football right now. Apparently there's some kind of controversy going on.

Yeah, most think Parry should step aside but some think we should give the Physio a chance. If Barnes wasn't a recent memory I don't think there'd be controversy, I think everyone would want him gone.

Wait what

 

[Fusion]

Yeah, most think Parry should step aside but some think we should give the Physio a chance. If Barnes wasn't a recent memory I don't think there'd be controversy, I think everyone would want him gone.

Wait what

 

[honestbharani]

really getting sick of your trolling attitude tbh, but from memory someone (may have been you) mentioned what was written in the law, which was incorrect, and I posted the link to show. cbf looking it all up.

I am not sure if that is what the law is, all you posted was a link to a website, which may or may not have been the updated one. The point is, ICC says bowling with a bent arm is, was and always has been legal... You just cbf'd accepting facts, I guess.

 

[dhillon28]

And how haven't the England fans been gracious in defeat, or as you put it accept there beating like real men. All the regular English posters on here haven't been anything but imo and readily point to the teams inept batting performance as the reason we lost.
As far as the media, who gives a **** what they think, they don't represent me in any way shape or form, you should know this living in the UK.

you are quite right. i meant to say SOME english fans/members of the media. On the whole, I agree English fans have been good.

 

[Shri]

Lol what?

They could have won it 2-1.

Apparently.

 

[Jacknife]

Lol what?

They could have won it 2-1.

Apparently.

Could a, would a, should a, still it's not unusual for the losing teams fans to look back at stages of the game, where if things had gone a bit different or played a little better the outcome would have been different, so why make out English fans are the first to do it, in fact it happens nearly after ever series doesn't it.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Sigh, we could have won 4-0 in England if it hadn't been for this and that.

 

[honestbharani]

Could a, would a, should a, still it's not unusual for the losing teams fans to look back at stages of the game, where if things had gone a bit different or played a little better the outcome would have been different, so why make out English fans are the first to do it, in fact it happens nearly after ever series doesn't it.

not often when you have been whitewashed though. And it is one thing to say it in some kind of despair, quite another when you state it as a fact, which is what some English fans here have done.

 

[silentstriker]

India could have won 8-0 in the last eight Test matches if only one more batsman had scored more runs IMO.

Like 500 more per game. But it's possible.

 

[uvelocity]

****

 

[Xuhaib]

can't understand where this 2-1 figure comes up. Pakistan dominated the first test and dominated the 3rd 2nd innings onwards which is like 75% of the match at best they could have won the 2nd but usually when you choke I don't count that as unlucky. At very best England could have lost 2-1 but I still feel 3-0 is a just scoreline.

 

[Spark]

Don't think anyone's arguing otherwise tbf.

 

[Debris]

Regardless of whether he is straightening his arm more than 15 degrees or not, the evidence is that you would be going out and hunting for kids with bent arms if you were in charge of developing cricketers for a country. There seems to be a natural advantage there too big to ignore.

Not that I am suggesting going out and breaking kid's arms, mind you.

 

[Furball]

India could have won 8-0 in the last eight Test matches if only one more batsman had scored more runs IMO.

Like 500 more per game. But it's possible.

Stupid comment.

Look, England deservedly lost 3-0 because the Pakistani bowlers owned our batsmen throughout the series. However, in the 2nd Test, England had a 4th innings target of 145. In the 3rd Test, we bowled out Pakistan for 99 on the first day. Those are scenarios where you'd expect teams to win on the vast majority of occasions - I can't figure out how to fiddle with statsguru to get some numbers regarding how often a team successfully chases down a total of <150, but Pakistan being the first team in 105 years to win a Test after failing to make 100 in the first innings of a Test match tells you all you need to know about whether England should have won the 3rd Test.

That is a million miles away from your 'if only India's batsmen could have collectively scored 500 more runs in each test' scenario, in which you've also conveniently forgotten how hopeless India's bowling was in 7 out of the 8 Tests in question.

 

[vic_orthdox]

As a neutral, I know I wasn't the only one who thought that the Test wasn't over, especially considering the previous two tests, when you'd bowled them out for 99.

 

[Furball]

As a neutral, I know I wasn't the only one who thought that the Test wasn't over, especially considering the previous two tests, when you'd bowled them out for 99.

True, my point is that it should have been - which is borne out by history.

 

[smash84]

Ajmal haters can suck it and keep on sucking it

Pakistan v England 2011-12: The facts about Saeed Ajmal | Cricket News | Pakistan v England | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[honestbharani]

True, my point is that it should have been - which is borne out by history.

cricket is not played in history. It is played by the guys out there picked for their teams and with the ones picked for England, it was always a chance that even that total was enough..


That is why this is a stupid argument. With the team you had, even 99 was a good score and Pakistan were not out of it. So why again could it have so easily been 2-1?

 

[silentstriker]

Stupid comment.

Look, England deservedly lost 3-0 because the Pakistani bowlers owned our batsmen throughout the series. However, in the 2nd Test, England had a 4th innings target of 145. In the 3rd Test, we bowled out Pakistan for 99 on the first day. Those are scenarios where you'd expect teams to win on the vast majority of occasions - I can't figure out how to fiddle with statsguru to get some numbers regarding how often a team successfully chases down a total of <150, but Pakistan being the first team in 105 years to win a Test after failing to make 100 in the first innings of a Test match tells you all you need to know about whether England should have won the 3rd Test.

That is a million miles away from your 'if only India's batsmen could have collectively scored 500 more runs in each test' scenario, in which you've also conveniently forgotten how hopeless India's bowling was in 7 out of the 8 Tests in question.

Dont buy it. Because another team might have won says nothing about this team winning. Yes if you had another teams lineup it might have been 2-1, but you didn't so it wasn't.

Never said India going 8-0 was equally likely as 2-1 but considering the ineptitude of the batting on display, 2-1 was a very long way away.