*Official* 3rd Test at Edgbaston

[OverratedSanity]

lolololol wasn't out. So good

 

[Son Of Coco]

The reverse Shane Watson there. Good effort Josh.

 

[wpdavid]

Way to throw away a massive advantage. From memory, there have been 3 absolute gifts, and one guy who simply isn't very good at this level. Beyond them, Cook was unlucky and two of the guys were Johnsoned this morning. Jimmy must be wondering wtf he bothered.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Thought Buttler should have reviewed as ball before didn't look like it was going over top. May as well have gambled.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Really has been a schoolboy performance from England. Any decent side should have all but the game sewn up after Australia's innings, and certainly would have done the way Australia have bowled.

A hammering has turned into a contest.

 

[Spikey]

I wonder if the 3rd ump could have asked for the previous appeal's hawkeye to be replayed and compared them, and kept Butler as out if he viewed hawkeye had it wrong

 

[Swingpanzee]

broken ****ing leg pls


that would be the only real way we might win

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah, I'm loathe to criticise HawkEye but I don't get how that was missing.

Yeah in recent months, I've been very sceptical of Hawkeye's predictive path, and specifically for bounce.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I can sense troll runs from Broad

 

[Swingpanzee]

I'm glad they checked the lbw as well. Is this a new development? I seem to remember a similar incident where they only checked for the catch but didn't check the lbw, presumably because the original review was "for the catch" or whatever that means.

yeah me too, iirc in the pak-sri lanka series there was such a decision where it was not out for caught but out by lbw and was not given

 

[Swingpanzee]

I'm glad they checked the lbw as well. Is this a new development? I seem to remember a similar incident where they only checked for the catch but didn't check the lbw, presumably because the original review was "for the catch" or whatever that means.

yeah me too, iirc in the pak-sri lanka series there was such a decision where it was not out for caught but out by lbw and was not given

 

[Son Of Coco]

**** that's a good ball. Too good.

 

[harsh.ag]

Why wasn't that reviewed by England? Who the **** are you preserving the reviews for??

Please keep Lyon on. This is too much fun

 

[wpdavid]

Does Buttler just not fancy it against these guys? I remember his walking for a really faint nick in one of the previous tests.

 

[OverratedSanity]

yeah me too, iirc in the pak-sri lanka series there was such a decision where it was not out for caught but out by lbw and was not given

It was so dumb. Like how are you supposed to specify for what you're appealing for? Why should that even be necessary? Good that it's seemingly been changed.

 

[Spikey]

I'm glad they checked the lbw as well. Is this a new development? I seem to remember a similar incident where they only checked for the catch but didn't check the lbw, presumably because the original review was "for the catch" or whatever that means.

I think this has been a thing almost since the start, but sometimes they don't check for both

 

[Swingpanzee]

ah **** these troll runs

 

[Gnske]

Why would you only have one slip to a man who has 3/3

 

[Son Of Coco]

Broad has the appearance of someone who does a quick mental check to see if he's still got all his bits after each Johnson delivery.

 

[Uppercut]

Lyon's got a Bielsa.