Would you have upheld the appeal?

[centurymaker]

I don't think Jono said that at all.. I guess the intent is that while India did not lose it because of recalling Bell, it was still a pretty big call to make at that time as it could have meant the game would have resumed on a different context altogether... England were not exactly in a winning position when Bell was given out, and I think that is the point.[/QUOTE]

This.

 

[Furball]

I don't think Jono said that at all.. I guess the intent is that while India did not lose it because of recalling Bell, it was still a pretty big call to make at that time as it could have meant the game would have resumed on a different context altogether... England were not exactly in a winning position when Bell was given out, and I think that is the point.

True, but we weren't exactly in a winning position when Bell eventually got out and Morgan and Trott quickly followed him either.

 

[GIMH]

I think at the time it had the potential for more impact than it wound up having.

Obviously you can cite the butterfly effect, but it's hard to see that the wicket standing would have galvanised the India 'bowlers' into having us completely collapse.

 

[fredfertang]

On reflection I wish India hadn't withdrawn the appeal - the resultant needle between the two teams would have guaranteed an infinitely better 3rd and 4th Test than I suspect we'll actually get

 

[GIMH]

I'd have been banned by now as well, which would ultimately be better for the British economy

 

[fredfertang]

I'd have been banned by now as well, which would ultimately be better for the British economy

I doubt you'd be banned just for accusing Dhoni of being Precam

 

[Howe_zat]

It wasn't even as though India didn't have a chance after the tea break. Praveen got through with the new ball and England were pretty insecure when Trott got out. It's just that Morgan got a fifty odd before the new ball when India were barely paying attention.

If Bell had stayed out at tea, it just would've meant Prior would've been there for that period as well as facing the new ball. From the form he's in, I'd bet on him scoring more during that 45 minutes or so than Bell did.

 

[GIMH]

I have solid evidence tbf

 

[Cevno]

On reflection I wish India hadn't withdrawn the appeal - the resultant needle between the two teams would have guaranteed an infinitely better 3rd and 4th Test than I suspect we'll actually get

Indian team always come out on the better end after a controversy.

 

[EnglishCricket]

On reflection I wish India hadn't withdrawn the appeal - the resultant needle between the two teams would have guaranteed an infinitely better 3rd and 4th Test than I suspect we'll actually get

Bit of needle and particularly fight from the Indians would have been nice and spicy.

 

[Jono]

When Bell was given "out" at Tea England had a lead of 186 for the loss of 4 wickets. Given that Trott was either not going to bat or a walking wicket, that can be seen as 5 down with a lead of 186. You are crazy if you think Dhoni's decision to call Bell back didn't have an effect on the match, and that England would have definitely won either way.

The fact that Bell was on 100+ and not 15 makes Dhoni's decision to withdraw the appeal even bigger in the context of the match.

It was game on at Tea with Bell "out". I can't see how anyone could think otherwise.

It was game on, but India didn't lose it by reprieving Bell, they lost it because their bowlers decided to feed Morgan a diet of pies after tea. You also managed to get rid of Bell 2 overs before the new ball and got rid of Morgan with the 2nd ball of the new ball; after 3 overs England had a lead of just 270 with Prior and the bowlers left.

Yes, Bell being out at tea would have been interesting but India had plenty of opportunities to win the game even with Dhoni's generosity.

Precisely.

Although for it to have made any difference, India would have had to run through England's lower order before the new ball, which seems highly unlikely given who was bowling.

I never said otherwise. The post I was referring to said England were already cruising to a win, which was false and I just pointed that out.

 

[GIMH]

Jono, post as many facebook statuses as you want saying you're in Scotland, we all know you started the riots. ****

 

[fredfertang]

Just read an interesting story, well I thought it was anyway, about an incident in the first Test ever played in India back in 1933/34

In the Indian second innings Lala Amarnath scored India's first ever test century and got to 100 in the course of a century partnership with his skipper, CK Nayudu.

When Amarnath got to three figures Nayudu, not unnaturally, ran to congratulate him and in doing so left his ground while the ball was undoubtedly still in play - the ball came back to England keeper Harry Elliott who was about to whip off the bails when he was told by his captain in no uncertain terms not to do so

The ever vigilant and scrupulously fair and sporting England captain? Yes you guessed it the, and this provides more evidence for it if such were needed, unfairly traduced Douglas Jardine

 

[smash84]

Just read an interesting story, well I thought it was anyway, about an incident in the first Test ever played in India back in 1933/34

In the Indian second innings Lala Amarnath scored India's first ever test century and got to 100 in the course of a century partnership with his skipper, CK Nayudu.

When Amarnath got to three figures Nayudu, not unnaturally, ran to congratulate him and in doing so left his ground while the ball was undoubtedly still in play - the ball came back to England keeper Harry Elliott who was about to whip off the bails when he was told by his captain in no uncertain terms not to do so

The ever vigilant and scrupulously fair and sporting England captain? Yes you guessed it the, and this provides more evidence for it if such were needed, unfairly traduced Douglas Jardine

Awesome anecdote fred. Douglas Jardine

 

[honestbharani]

Jardine was born in India..