• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

***Official*** Australia in England (The Ashes)

Nuffy

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Perhaps you can explain to me how Flintoff was out LBW for 102 when the ball wasn't straightening anywhere near as much as it did when he was on 8. The LBW shout when he was on 8 was more deserving than the one that we eventually got.

The difference is enormous in the advantage that has been given to Eng, thats the good luck that seems to be following Eng at the moment.

Its certainly turned the match distinctly in Eng's favour, thats what I mean about luck favouring Eng consistently this series, he could and should have been given out on 8 and its a massive advantage to Aust, hes not, and Eng reap massive rewards, then hes given out in a less worthy decision but the damage has already been done.
 
Last edited:

Nuffy

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Well you explain why he was out LBW for 102 but not out when he was 8. The first decision was appalling, the second was worse, but your not blowing up because the bloke managed to get another 94 runs.

If by some chance Australia managed to square the series with a victory in the last test on the back of some shitty decisions, you blokes will howl the joint down.
 

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
To be fair to Nuffy, he does have a point of sorts.

Flintoff's ultimate dismissal was no more out than the earlier appeal. If you gave the second out, then the first was just as adjacent.

However, that being said, it wasnt given out, so get over it.

BTW, Giles is ably assisting Aus' desire to slow the game down.
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
social said:
To be fair to Nuffy, he does have a point of sorts.

Flintoff's ultimate dismissal was no more out than the earlier appeal. If you gave the second out, then the first was just as adjacent.

However, that being said, it wasnt given out, so get over it.

BTW, Giles is ably assisting Aus' desire to slow the game down.
The two lbw shouts aren't similar enough to compare really. I still can't believe Australia only have 1 slip to Giles for Tait.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Scaly piscine said:
The two lbw shouts aren't similar enough to compare really. I still can't believe Australia only have 1 slip to Giles for Tait.
well tait is looking to bowl full & straight looking for reverse swing (not much is going though :dry: ) so 1 slip would do....
 

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Scaly piscine said:
The two lbw shouts aren't similar enough to compare really. I still can't believe Australia only have 1 slip to Giles for Tait.
Only commenting on the element of doubt not type of delivery.

I think what's frustrating many Aus is that Warne generally takes a lot of wickets via lbw.

For some reason, umpires' philosophy seems to have changed during this series in this regard.

Oh well, as I type this, Warne gets one.

Who'd be a critic? :D
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Pratyush said:
This is such a crucial phase of the series with every thing evenly poised.

Had Gilchrist taken that catch, it would have swung Australia's way. If Freddie and Jones carry on in what is possibly one of the most vital partnerships in years for the poms and has a lot of stake for them.
True that
 

Top