well...he was trying to be optimistic...but...other than a couple of good tendulkar comeback innings, i didn't see too many positives out there....Slow Love™ said:
well...he was trying to be optimistic...but...other than a couple of good tendulkar comeback innings, i didn't see too many positives out there....Slow Love™ said:
The biggest cricketing fans would also be aware of former players and key incidents in history as well, especially those that "adopt" a country.aussie said:whats the point in quoting me now? and plus even if that rule has been around forever its understandable why even the biggest cricket fans wouldn't be aware of it since it hardly ever occurs.
I was watching it and I couldn't tell what exactly what happened there. Fortunately I also didn't have sound for the commentators to enlighten me.marc71178 said:Not on Youtube yet, but from what I've heard he didn't have the ball in his hand at the time.
It's hard to be sure, which is why it was given not out.viktor said:I was watching it and I couldn't tell what exactly what happened there. Fortunately I also didn't have sound for the commentators to enlighten me.
Could someone on here confirm that it was indeed the hands, without the ball, that broke the wicket?
Ofcourse. Not disputing the call.FaaipDeOiad said:It's hard to be sure, which is why it was given not out.
The turbinator's bowling ??? IMO he was fantastic!!!Anil said:well...he was trying to be optimistic...but...other than a couple of good tendulkar comeback innings, i didn't see too many positives out there....
yeah that too...Clapo said:The turbinator's bowling ??? IMO he was fantastic!!!