*Official* Fourth Test at the MCG

[NUFAN]

Fairly sure Watson would have reviewed it.

It was pretty stupid of Broad to not review it.

 

[GIMH]

It was pretty stupid of Broad to not review it.

With the umpires having the power to call for no ball checks, reviewing that would be like reviewing a clean bowled

 

[Riggins]

not the test.

 

[Jono]

Anyone still of the opinion Johnson isn't the single biggest difference between the teams is kidding themselves

3 and a half Tests in and he's got 28 wickets for stuff all runs.

He's the biggest difference. But don't sell the rest of the team short. Australia are just far better.

 

[NUFAN]

With the umpires having the power to call for no ball checks, reviewing that would be like reviewing a clean bowled

Yes and I would review a clean bowled in that situation too just on the off chance that the umpire did miss the no-ball. There was nothing to lose at all with 2 remaining and now only 1 wicket in hand.

 

[GIMH]

He's the biggest difference. But don't sell the rest of the team short. Australia are just far better.

Pfft if they are far better why is it 3-3?

 

[Hooksey]

He's the biggest difference. But don't sell the rest of the team short. Australia are just far better.

Not selling a single player in the team short. But Johnson has destroyed England.

 

[GIMH]

Yes and I would review a clean bowled in that situation too just on the off chance that the umpire did miss the no-ball. There was nothing to lose at all with 2 remaining and now only 1 wicket in hand.

I think Swann or Anderson actually did that in a Test in South Africa when DRS was very new. Might not have been a bowled, possibly an outfield catch, something unquestionable anyway.

 

[grecian]

Umm, Monty and Jimmeh breathe an huge sigh of relief.

 

[GIMH]

****ing shot Jimmy!!

 

[NUFAN]

Yes and I would review a clean bowled in that situation too just on the off chance that the umpire did miss the no-ball. There was nothing to lose at all with 2 remaining and now only 1 wicket in hand.

Okay on second thought, I probably wouldn't if I were bowled, but for an LBW you just never know. Yes it was out, but why not use it.

 

[grecian]

Okay on second thought, I probably wouldn't if I were bowled, but for an LBW you just never know. Yes it was out, but why not use it.

because it was out, clearly and every time you reviewed afterwards it would look frivolous and the third ump would see it that way.

 

[GIMH]

I think Swann or Anderson actually did that in a Test in South Africa when DRS was very new. Might not have been a bowled, possibly an outfield catch, something unquestionable anyway.

1st Test: South Africa v England at Centurion, Dec 16-20, 2009 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Anderson wicket 1st innings

 

[BeeGee]

He's the biggest difference. But don't sell the rest of the team short. Australia are just far better.

So what happened between the England series and this series? Australia weren't far better then.

 

[GIMH]

Glad Andrew Strauss is saying what I am thinking

 

[Jono]

Pfft if they are far better why is it 3-3?

Cos it rained in Manchester.

 

[Jono]

So what happened between the England series and this series? Australia weren't far better then.

Well Australia clearly prepared plans and strategies in England and did okay but were outclassed come the big moments, but have improved come Australia. All England players also simultaneously became soft.

Conditions different as well.

 

[Johnners]

lol Monty

 

[grecian]

Hah-ha Monty.

 

[GIMH]

And there's his answer

Not even in the three worst bowleds of the innings sadly