England's Tour of India 2012

(16-12-2012 16:08 )William H Bonney Wrote:  

(16-12-2012 06:10 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote:  Strange tactics by both sides,England making very little attempt to even try to get number 10 Ojha,putting more importance on stiffling the scoring.

I didn't think that was strange. England wanted to use as much time up as possible. The longer India were at the wicket without scoring the better for England it was. Anyway England were 161/3 at the close.

A few more men round the bat at the start of any days play does no harm.Two quick wickets & England save themselves the best part of 30 runs which at the present scoring rate equates to an hours play.That way we could be another 60 runs more & only a sesson away from relative safety,instead of 2 sessons.

England have declared their second innings on 352/4 and the match is drawn. England have therefore ended India's 8 year unbeaten home series run and their 2-1 series win is England's 4th in India and their first there since 1984-85.

Well done England bring it on Kiwis next.

Enjoy your celebrations tonight England. You all deserve it.

Great partnershio between Trott & Bell,continuing where they left off on day 4 & almost batting through two full sessions on the final day.they added 208 for the 4th wicket,Trott making 143 & Bell an unbeaten 116.

Yes ,well done England.Obviously the team selection for the 1st test(only1spinner)was designed to lull India into a false sense of security.
Big ups to Monty,Swanny and Jimmy and ALL the batsmen:You all did us proud.
Man of the Series:Alastair Cook .

The conditions in New Zealand will be much more similar to those in England so whether both Swann and Panesar are competing for one spin spot or whether England will keep picking both of them will be interesting.

(16-12-2012 08:57 )Charlemagne Wrote:  Strange decision to declare 4 runs short of the England total. It would have been better to get the batters to go for quick runs and then let England bat for a short time before lunch.

England batted well until Cooke was again incorrectly given out by the same numpty umpire who did the same in the first innings. It's about time that we refused to tour in countries who won't use the review system.

Good job they didn't have referrals back in 2005,England would not have won the Ashes .Remember Brett Lee given out (caught behind off his hand ,that wasn't in contact with his bat) 3runs from victory?
No umpires are infallible,but as long as their mistakes are honest/realistic I've no problem with them overall.

(19-12-2012 02:40 )mickster Wrote:  Good job they didn't have referrals back in 2005,England would not have won the Ashes .Remember Brett Lee given out (caught behind off his hand ,that wasn't in contact with his bat) 3runs from victory?

It was actually Michael Kasprowicz who was the last man out when England won by 2 runs at Edgbaston in 2005, not Brett Lee. You also didn't mention that Kasprowicz should very clearly have been given out lbw 2 overs earlier, so if URS was in place then England (assuming they had a referral remaining) would still have won the test match.

(19-12-2012 10:38 )cosmonaut Wrote:  

(19-12-2012 02:40 )mickster Wrote:  Good job they didn't have referrals back in 2005,England would not have won the Ashes .Remember Brett Lee given out (caught behind off his hand ,that wasn't in contact with his bat) 3runs from victory?

It was actually Michael Kasprowicz who was the last man out when England won by 2 runs at Edgbaston in 2005, not Brett Lee. You also didn't mention that Kasprowicz should very clearly have been given out lbw 2 overs earlier, so if URS was in place then England (assuming they had a referral remaining) would still have won the test match.

I do apologise .All ifs buts or maybes .Like most other sports t.v.kills the human element.Why bother having umpire or referees at all if they're liable to make mistakes?