First Test. South Africa v England. Durban, 26-30 Dec.

[backfootpunch]

because they are hypocrites, they acted like ***** when flower was in charge will never forgive Flower or england after 2011.[/quote]
Blimey, get over it luv.[/quote]

no team should ever knock on the opposition door to change decision, the way flower use to go to umpire/team/player room was down right wrong.
their was a reason england were the most hated team in this period to 2015.
only NZ redeemed them.
WI, India, Sri lanka, Australia they all hate england and their players.[/quote]
If India played in the spirit of the game they would have withdrawn the appeal[/quote]
if england played in the spirit of the game England would have send no and said bell was rightly out.[/quote]
So you think running someone out who is walking off for the end of a session is in the spirit of the game

Think you have your wires crossed

[Arthur Crabtree]

I'll never agree with that. Bell walked off because he thought the ball would go for four. It didn't. He stupidly walked off the ground when the ball was live. I don't understand why England thought the decision should be reversed. Strauss and Flower had no reason to put pressure on the Indians to change their minds, apart from self interest and arrogance.

Other sides have engaged in sharp practice, of course they have. SA haven't been a likable side. Last summer there seemed to be a recognition that England had become unappealing to their own supporters because of how they were playing the game. I hope they haven't forgotten.

[Dr Cricket]

No need to knock in the dressing room.
If india wanted to change the decision it is their decision, England should not intervene.

[Arthur Crabtree]

You can be a ****, or you can be a mensch. The choice is there. But don't expect people not to notice.

[Arthur Crabtree]

SKY say England's session and they'll be very happy, I don't think so. After the opening 9 overs the pressure on the batsmen has fallen away.

Yes. Still getting the ball pst the bat at times though.

[backfootpunch]

I'll never agree with that. Bell walked off because he thought the ball would go for four. It didn't. He stupidly walked off the ground when the ball was live. I don't understand why England thought the decision should be reversed. Strauss and Flower had no reason to put pressure on the Indians to change their minds, apart from self interest and arrogance.

Other sides have engaged in sharp practice, of course they have. SA haven't been a likable side. Last summer there seemed to be a recognition that England had become unappealing to their own supporters because of how they were playing the game. I hope they haven't forgotten.

Yes but the reason he thought it went for four is because the fielder on the boundary gave every impression that it had gone for four and all of the Indian fielders were also walking off

[Arthur Crabtree]

where the link to the story can't find it.

I read it in the text of ball by ball on cricinfo. They said their journo was working on the story.

SA only play about five Tests a year!

[Dr Cricket]

where the link to the story can't find it.

I read it in the text of ball by ball on cricinfo. They said their journo was working on the story.

SA only play about five Tests a year!

yep which make it surprising, doesn't clash with IPL either.

[budgetmeansbudget]

I'll never agree with that. Bell walked off because he thought the ball would go for four. It didn't. He stupidly walked off the ground when the ball was live. I don't understand why England thought the decision should be reversed. Strauss and Flower had no reason to put pressure on the Indians to change their minds, apart from self interest and arrogance.

Other sides have engaged in sharp practice, of course they have. SA haven't been a likable side. Last summer there seemed to be a recognition that England had become unappealing to their own supporters because of how they were playing the game. I hope they haven't forgotten.

Can you imagine what would have happened if the scenario had been reversed and the game had been in India?!

[Arthur Crabtree]

I'll never agree with that. Bell walked off because he thought the ball would go for four. It didn't. He stupidly walked off the ground when the ball was live. I don't understand why England thought the decision should be reversed. Strauss and Flower had no reason to put pressure on the Indians to change their minds, apart from self interest and arrogance.

Other sides have engaged in sharp practice, of course they have. SA haven't been a likable side. Last summer there seemed to be a recognition that England had become unappealing to their own supporters because of how they were playing the game. I hope they haven't forgotten.

Yes but the reason he thought it went for four is because the fielder on the boundary gave every impression that it had gone for four and all of the Indian fielders were also walking off

The fielder was surprised by the players walking off when the ball was in play. But the ball was live. Bell had to complete his run, as I was screaming at him to do from few yards away. Either through doziness or arrogance, he decided not to. Either way, he was legitimately run out. An England captain could have either told him to complete his run in future, or could have made the opposition feel they had done something wrong. I credit Dhoni for smoothing over an ugly situation by taking a backward step. By being a gentleman. But not Strauss for putting him in that situation.

[Dr Cricket]

I'll never agree with that. Bell walked off because he thought the ball would go for four. It didn't. He stupidly walked off the ground when the ball was live. I don't understand why England thought the decision should be reversed. Strauss and Flower had no reason to put pressure on the Indians to change their minds, apart from self interest and arrogance.

Other sides have engaged in sharp practice, of course they have. SA haven't been a likable side. Last summer there seemed to be a recognition that England had become unappealing to their own supporters because of how they were playing the game. I hope they haven't forgotten.

Can you imagine what would have happened if the scenario had been reversed and the game had been in India?!

The issue isn't the dismissal, bell should be not out, the issue is England were begging for it which is wrong and uncalled for.
if the decision is reversed, it is England and England captain that makes the decision.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I'll never agree with that. Bell walked off because he thought the ball would go for four. It didn't. He stupidly walked off the ground when the ball was live. I don't understand why England thought the decision should be reversed. Strauss and Flower had no reason to put pressure on the Indians to change their minds, apart from self interest and arrogance.

Other sides have engaged in sharp practice, of course they have. SA haven't been a likable side. Last summer there seemed to be a recognition that England had become unappealing to their own supporters because of how they were playing the game. I hope they haven't forgotten.

Can you imagine what would have happened if the scenario had been reversed and the game had been in India?!

It would have been similarly ugly. It wasn't pleasant being in the crowd that booed the Indians back on.

[Aidan11]

We could do with a wicket.

[budgetmeansbudget]

I'll never agree with that. Bell walked off because he thought the ball would go for four. It didn't. He stupidly walked off the ground when the ball was live. I don't understand why England thought the decision should be reversed. Strauss and Flower had no reason to put pressure on the Indians to change their minds, apart from self interest and arrogance.

Other sides have engaged in sharp practice, of course they have. SA haven't been a likable side. Last summer there seemed to be a recognition that England had become unappealing to their own supporters because of how they were playing the game. I hope they haven't forgotten.

Can you imagine what would have happened if the scenario had been reversed and the game had been in India?!

The issue isn't the dismissal, bell should be not out, the issue is England were begging for it which is wrong and uncalled for.
if the decision is reversed, it is England and England captain that makes the decision.

Begging??

More likely they were concerned about the potential hostility from the crowd, not that I think it would have become as serious as it would have done had the game been in India.

Dhoni realised he was going to win a lot of sporting points by agreeing to reverse the decision, instead of incurring the wrath of all and sundry if he hadn't.

[backfootpunch]

I'll never agree with that. Bell walked off because he thought the ball would go for four. It didn't. He stupidly walked off the ground when the ball was live. I don't understand why England thought the decision should be reversed. Strauss and Flower had no reason to put pressure on the Indians to change their minds, apart from self interest and arrogance.

Other sides have engaged in sharp practice, of course they have. SA haven't been a likable side. Last summer there seemed to be a recognition that England had become unappealing to their own supporters because of how they were playing the game. I hope they haven't forgotten.

Yes but the reason he thought it went for four is because the fielder on the boundary gave every impression that it had gone for four and all of the Indian fielders were also walking off

The fielder was surprised by the players walking off when the ball was in play. But the ball was live. Bell had to complete his run, as I was screaming at him to do from few yards away. Either through doziness or arrogance, he decided not to. Either way, he was legitimately run out. An England captain could have either told him to complete his run in future, or could have made the opposition feel they had done something wrong. I credit Dhoni for smoothing over an ugly situation by taking a backward step. By being a gentleman. But not Strauss for putting him in that situation.

He wasn't surprised I just watched the incident

He lay on the floor for several seconds before casually walking over to the ball and under arming it in

Hardly the actions of someone trying to complete a run out