**Official** West Indies in England Thread

[Swervy]

No they were not.

Chanderpauls was shown to be going over and past leg stump.

They were not able to pick up and bat in Lara's dismissal. Gayles was also very tough but shown after being slowed down and replayed 5 o 6 times that he probably hit it.

Umpires are supposed to give the benefit of the doubt to the batsman. There is NO WAY the unpires could have been 100% certain that these decisions were out. Poor umpiring.

Brian Lara has just said on the radio that he has no problem with the umpiring in this game

 

[Revelation]

right. Lara will go on radio and condemn the umpiring to get a 100% match fee or a suspension. Please note the dripping sarcasm.

 

[Swervy]

right. Lara will go on radio and condemn the umpiring to get a 100% match fee or a suspension. Please note the dripping sarcasm.

I really dont know what your problem is.....the snickometer showed that in Laras dismissal there were two noise. The umpire obviously heard two noises, and he had to make a judgement...he judged that Lara hit it.Even with the replay, there is no way you could say he didnt hit it,with the aid of the replay and the snicko,you could make a guess that it didnt touch the bat, but the umpire made the judgement, its a apart of the game, he backed his judgement and belieived Lara hit it, it wasnt a shocking decision, its was a tough call, one of those things.

For Chanderpaul, 9 times out of ten that would have been given out LBW..he was playing with fire,and he got burnt.

As for Gayle, it was out. I cant see what the problem with that one is at all, he hit it

England outplayed WI throughout and even if Lara hadnt have been given, it would have been nigh on impossible to save that game, given that the pitch was going the way it was etc.

It is pointless blaming WI's losses on umpires,because ultimatly the reason WI lost so heavily was through being completely out-classed by a much stroner England team

 

[Revelation]

i never said that WI would not have lost and it has nothing to do with that. the point is that the Umpires did not do a proper job. say waht you like the decision against Lara was at best inconclusive. The decision against Chanderpaul was horrendous at best. Chanderpaul was at least a few feel OUTSIDE his crease and given that he wasn't playing a shot (because i didn't think that he was anyway) it still wasn't a sure thing that it was going on to hit the stumps. Last time i checked, the umps didn't have Hawkeye installed in their brains. Gayle nicked it and i was never argueing that that was a poor decision.

I agree that umpires are fallible but when there are so many questionable decisions with barely half the series done on must wonder. So far WI has had one decision that went for us; the bat pad that chanderpaul gave and was turned down. Compare that to Lara twice, Sarwan and Chanderpaul again. I don't see that as evening out. In addition, England have had some very close LBWs given not out. It certainly seems as if WI are playing against 13 men, not 11.

 

[Swervy]

i never said that WI would not have lost and it has nothing to do with that. the point is that the Umpires did not do a proper job. say waht you like the decision against Lara was at best inconclusive. The decision against Chanderpaul was horrendous at best. Chanderpaul was at least a few feel OUTSIDE his crease and given that he wasn't playing a shot (because i didn't think that he was anyway) it still wasn't a sure thing that it was going on to hit the stumps. Last time i checked, the umps didn't have Hawkeye installed in their brains. Gayle nicked it and i was never argueing that that was a poor decision.

I agree that umpires are fallible but when there are so many questionable decisions with barely half the series done on must wonder. So far WI has had one decision that went for us; the bat pad that chanderpaul gave and was turned down. Compare that to Lara twice, Sarwan and Chanderpaul again. I don't see that as evening out. In addition, England have had some very close LBWs given not out. It certainly seems as if WI are playing against 13 men, not 11.

I think it is quite apt that you say the umps dont have hawk eye installed in their brains... you are right they dont and so have to make snap decisions there and then. Chanderpaul's LBW wasnt a shocker, it was a close one, that the ump gave out...it happens, and it has happened (with no more or less regularity) for over 100 years...its just we get to see all of TV's fancy gadgets that aid our viewing,and each dismissal is played over and over again,and so poor decisions are highlighted much more.Until umpires are replaced by technology completely then those decisions will continue to be made...as I say, if you are not offering a shot at a turning ball, you are playing a dicey game,it was going to happen.

As far as I can remember there have been two bad decisions in this series..Laras 'non' catch in the first test, and Chanderpauls catch that wasnt given...makes it 1-1 in my book

 

[Revelation]

sarwan was also given out in the first test when he was blatantly NOT OUT. selective memory now don't we? What about Flintoff and Trescothick in the first test?? LBW's that certainly should have been given out.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

sarwan was also given out in the first test when he was blatantly NOT OUT. selective memory now don't we? What about Flintoff and Trescothick in the first test?? LBW's that certainly should have been given out.

Sarwan was out in both innings in the 1st Test. Don't over-react.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

i never said that WI would not have lost and it has nothing to do with that. the point is that the Umpires did not do a proper job. say waht you like the decision against Lara was at best inconclusive. The decision against Chanderpaul was horrendous at best. Chanderpaul was at least a few feel OUTSIDE his crease and given that he wasn't playing a shot (because i didn't think that he was anyway) it still wasn't a sure thing that it was going on to hit the stumps. Last time i checked, the umps didn't have Hawkeye installed in their brains. Gayle nicked it and i was never argueing that that was a poor decision.

I agree that umpires are fallible but when there are so many questionable decisions with barely half the series done on must wonder. So far WI has had one decision that went for us; the bat pad that chanderpaul gave and was turned down. Compare that to Lara twice, Sarwan and Chanderpaul again. I don't see that as evening out. In addition, England have had some very close LBWs given not out. It certainly seems as if WI are playing against 13 men, not 11.

Chanderpaul has a bat and he should use it. It's always a risk to pad away a spinner when the ball isn't pitching outside legstump. He has no one to blame but himself.

When did Sarwan get a life? As far as I'm concerned, the only one who has a gripe with the umpire is Lara.

 

[Swervy]

sarwan was also given out in the first test when he was blatantly NOT OUT. selective memory now don't we? What about Flintoff and Trescothick in the first test?? LBW's that certainly should have been given out.

well those two I said are the two 'howlers' that maybe without replay could still be seen to be wrong.

Well from what I can remember,Sarwan in the first innings of the first test was pretty plumb, as was the second...i didnt even know that there an issue with those two decisions

It must be said I didnt see a lot of Flintoffs innings in the first test, so I cant comment...and I cant really remember Trescothicks, i saw his first innings in the first test, and certainly cant remember anything from that...i did miss a lot of his second innings so again I cant comment on that.

can anyone shed any light on thses 'given not out ' decisions????

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

England outplayed WI throughout and even if Lara hadnt have been given, it would have been nigh on impossible to save that game, given that the pitch was going the way it was etc.

Now that's where your comment goes wrong. With Lara at the crease, anything is possible.

 

[Swervy]

i will say that Lara has been unlucky in this test...but i wouldnt have a go at the ump over that one....the one in the first test was a shocker though

 

[Swervy]

Now that's where your comment goes wrong. With Lara at the crease, anything is possible.

ok...yeah you are right....thats why i said 'nigh on impossible'

It would have been an absolute monumental effort to have saved that on that pitch, I dont care if you are Lara or Bradman, it would have been very very tough going

 

[Revelation]

my apologies. It wasn't Sarwan, it was Gayle.

 

[Swervy]

my apologies. It wasn't Sarwan, it was Gayle.

ok...it was a tough decision, but as i say, these things happen, I really dont think bias or anything comes into it.

You have to remember that England have bowled much much better and so are bound to get more LBW appeals etc....If an umpire gives a wrong desicion once in ten 'decent appeals' and there are 20 decent LBW appeals becuase of good bowling, then he may make two wrong decisions in that innings...

then when in the next innings, the bowlers are bowling nothing which is threatening the stumps, there may be 5 decent appeals, he wont make a wrong decision...doesnt mean he is favouring that team or anything.(I hope I have explained that ok )

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Or is it because Lara went chasing after the ball when he didn't have to play at it?

Believe it or not, batsmen do decide what shots to play at the ball, he obviously decided to play a shot at it.

Lara's shot was one of indecision, caused by the fact that he was almost yorked the ball before and that he knows, with his technique, he could get yorked with any given ball.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Gotta feel for Tino. Back injuries like that could turn into career threatening injuries if he isnt carefull.

It's not a fracture though, so it's not quite as serious as it could be.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

It's not a fracture though, so it's not quite as serious as it could be.

yeah its the same thing Simon Jones had with his foot earlier this year. A stress point that could turn into a fracture if not given rest. So im glad that the WI have done the same thing as the ECB did and give the bowler the rest he needs rather than risking it and playing them on.

 

[Timewell]

On this debate, you must also remember that England are the team on top...we've played 9 Tests this year and won 8 of them. Confidence and morale is high and therefore, we're going to be more...well...confident! It's a well known fact that the luck goes with the winning sides, or the winning sides go with the luck. West Indies have had the luck in the past, and now, rightly so, it is England's turn. But remember, luck is only temporary...it will come and go.

 

[Revelation]

it hink England's victories have had a little more than luck to them. They've always had someone who would pick up if things got tough. They are looking quite good and i might even venture to say that they could give the aussies a run for their money if they play at home.

 

[Swervy]

it hink England's victories have had a little more than luck to them. They've always had someone who would pick up if things got tough. They are looking quite good and i might even venture to say that they could give the aussies a run for their money if they play at home.

As an Australian, I would say this is the first time for 15 years where it feels England are genuinely closing the gap on Australia....and i do think they deserve their current ranking of number two in the world.

I think in order for England to really challenge Australia there are just a couple of things that need sorting:
1. Giles is bowling really well at the moment,,but a second option spinner is essential, but looking around county cricket this is a big ask
2.Just a bit more depth in the pace department...I think Harmison (who is looking a bit tired at the moment, understandably),Hoggard and Flintoff are the backbone of what I would consider a very very good pace bowling attack.Anderson and Jones arent quite the finished articles yet (was quite impressed with Anderson this test,and I do think Jones has a lot of potential to be a very good test bowler)...but very quickly (bare(bear??? ) in mind the Ashes isnt too far away.There are some potential good bowlers around, but they wont be ready to take on Australia...it would be good for England to have one more fast bowler in reserve...an injury to Harmison for example would leave England quite weak again.
3.That number 3 position...I am not 100% certain that Butcher or Key are the men to do the job vs Australia...Butcher is very solid but I dont know whether he is a top class number 3...and Key may get exposed by some decent bowling. Anyone else around will not be very experienced,not ideal vs Australia.

in all though, if Australia were to play England right now, I think it would be a damned good game of test cricket