97.2 Umar Gul to Pietersen, no run, pushed back to the bowler firmly who gets a hand on it, deflecting it onto the stumps at the non-striker’s end. Bell dives back into his crease and it looks like he’s struggling…replays suggest his bat is safely behind the line, but the bat is bobbling up. Is he safe? This is very close indeed. What a way to go! Tick, tock, tick, tock...is the bat on the ground or in the air? The Cricinfo verdict is that he's just safe and indeed he is, as the ground roar a "hurrah" and Bell sighs his relief
I hate Ramiz. He's so biased in favor of Pakistan, that he actually ends up doing psychological damage (to fans) by lamenting our lack of success with hyperbolic comments. We have already taken more than 10 wickets in this match unofficially, now give our bowlers a break. But no, he's going on and on about whey they are not taking wickets without actually providing any valuable insight. I hate Ramiz.
Chris Read came into this Test match under serious pressure, knowing that the England coach isn't a fan of his. He had to make runs to convince Duncan Fletcher that he can take Geraint Jones' place. So what did Pakistan do? They set the field back and brought on two part-time bowlers. Then, with four overs to go before the new ball, Inzamam-ul-Haq went off the field. Just when they needed direction, he left the captaincy to his deputy, Younis Khan. It was almost as if they had just given up. That was the poorest cricket I have seen from Pakistan on this trip. England took 39 runs off those 11 overs with total ease. It was like stealing runs. Their two opening batsmen bowled absolute rubbish. It wouldn't have been decent bowling at me in the back garden when I was nine.
So how come the third umpire never used the magnified view to see if Bell's bat was in the air?????
He very conviniently used the magnified view in the last game for Inzi's decision to see if the ball hit his boot and went into fielder's hand. It was not even a line decision.
I hate it when people oppose use of technology with hyperbolic arguments such as it will reduce the on field umpires to mere robots. Now imagine, if the on field umpires, were allowed to, and had, consulted the thrid umpire to find out whether the ball had actually kissed the bat on its way to the catcher. LBWs are not the only disputed decisions, we are still getting lots of disputed decisions on catches. Why not mandate it for umpires to consult the third umpire and then make the decision themselves. It will reduce a lot of controversies (the only room left will be LBWs) while still leaving the control with ON FIELD umpires. This could be a first step in the direction of using more technology, and hopefully LBWs will get some help in the later years too.
We are stuck with poor umpiring because of Rudi Kerzsten (sp?) and PCB. These two are the biggest advocates for keeping things the way they are. PCB is especially pathetic, because not only they themselves voted against the umpiring reforms, but they also lobbied and got India and Sri Lanka to vote NO. *******s.
Damn, going by Bell's record against Pakistan you would think is the next Bradman. The guy didn't even have a place in the team until Flintoff got injured!
I am sure England will declare whenever their 9th wicket falls, regardless of whether they have reached the first innings target or not (as long as their total is above 450). It has been evident that they are willing to sacrifice the 20/25 runs expected from last (or last two wickets) to gain the psychological advantage of not getting bowled out once!
Why don't we do a deal with England. Give them 500 runs and they declare and as a good measure start our innings at 10/2 because that what will happen so lets save our self some time and agony.
c’mon just one more wicket