Yes, he was unlucky - I must confess though that I was screaming 'OUT', so spectacular a ball it was. Only when they played the slomo did I realise that it just did so much. Shades of Wasim Akram in his pomp. Mind you, the next ball deserved 2 wickets.vic_orthdox said:Still Gillespie was unlucky. And keep in mind that Australia have been doing it for the last 10 years - Duncan Fletcher talked in the ODIs how it was a psychological win for England when someone (can't remember who) refused to give strike to a tail-ender towards the end of an innings, because Australia never does it.
he'll no now that McGrath wont be playing at old trafford it makes no sense in picking Macgill now.....Shane Warne said:Macgill and Warne for the next test.
Should have been in this one as I first said after Lords, but better late than never.
If those are the strengths, then yes, play to them.Shane Warne said:Macgill and Warne for the next test.
Should have been in this one as I first said after Lords, but better late than never.
Nope. The ball hit him on the full, in line with leg stump, and according to the rules, should be given out.vic_orthdox said:Still Gillespie was unlucky.
Found it, They put on 99 in 18.1 overs - Harmison has scored 3 off 33 balls. That to me was the sort of partnership you'd expect if someone hangs around with a guy like Gilchrist.Scaly piscine said:I'll have to have a dig around for that game where Flintoff put on 100 or just short of it with Harmison.
I'd say more like an idiot, can't even cover his stumps. I notice when England got a wicket before lunch they went for lunch, Australia get a wicket the same amount of time before the end of play and they stay on. Is it some rule or is it just more blatant pro Aussie bias... ?PY said:That's turned a mile............
Strauss made to look like a fool.
Yeah, old lardarse could have had a field day in three days time, but he won't be, so there's no need to even think about itShane Warne said:if that was day 3 Imagine Warne on days 4 & 5.
You and SW should get on MSN together.I'd say more like an idiot, can't even cover his stumps. I notice when England got a wicket before lunch they went for lunch, Australia get a wicket the same amount of time before the end of play and they stay on. Is it some rule or is it just more blatant pro Aussie bias... ?
He'll have to do it on his own, because frankly on current form he's the only Australian bowler on show who would get into the England side.aussie said:Shane Warne is the one who can bring Australia back into this match, he has a pitch now that is giving him superb assistance. Come on WARNIE.....
There weren't that many and that over was the last, there's no difference except for one being lunch and one being the end of play.Beleg said:In this case 7 minutes were left. The over before lunch was the last. No pro-Aussie bias here.