But he reviewed it for caught behind (presumably) so he shouldn't lose it. Although why he was that dopey to think it was caught behind is beyond me.
Can they not in the rules? To be fair, if there's doubt on a bowled the batsman has very little way of knowing (although Ashwin was just dopey and didn't wait a second to ask or look at those flashing bails near his foot) and therefore they should be able to go up without losing a review.
Coz when they are squeezed in so close, there is no way you can say for sure in real time. Which is why most umpires would give it not out, even if it actually was pad first (and in this case, it was not).
Rules say you can't review bowled dismissals.
Yeah, but not all of them. He decided it was pad first. And as I've said, I don't even know if it was a mistake - I'm not even sure now which contact was first. I know you seem sure, and that's fine. I have no issue with the decision. Sometimes you strike bad luck. And umpires are damned if they do, damned if they don't sometimes when a cricket forum and its posters can't agree on the decision after 24 hours of analysis.
True and the review was basically cancelled in this case. And yes, the umpires can review any decision they want today. Even bowleds when keepers are standing so close to the stumps. Although, due to the foreshortening issue, it always seems like the keeper is closer to the stumps than they actually are, from those front on angles. I hope that does not create a controversial decision in the future, although thankfully the side on should be good enough for that most of the time.
Again, mate, I am not saying it was a shocker or a howler or whatever. I felt the best word to use was "rough" and not even "bad" coz its a decision that 99% of the time will go to the batsman and for some reason, the umpire gave it out here. I am not even criticizing him as such, coz umpires can make mistakes and this seemed a honest mistake. Like I said, it just shows bad luck follows bad form, that is all.
Kohli follows bad form?
Of course I agree that Wagner should have been selected (in fact I was perhaps the most convinced of that in this thread even before the first test)...
Yeah we can only speculate, but Jamieson having off days is exactly a reason why you’d want your third seamer with a noted ability to bowl long spells. He and Southee bowled a hell of a lot in the first test. Wagner wouldn’t have got too many wickets, but would have offered Latham control.
Agreed on everything here. It's a cliche but you also get Wagner's infectious enthusiasm and always at you spirit.
It would be insane if the list of 10-for bowlers was Laker, Kumble and the fella from Suburbs New Lynn who bowled bog average left arm seamers until he was 21.
