Dhoni migrated to Cricket for more money but he is frustated after seeing David Beckham is getting more pounds than him that is why dhoni is concentrating on football not cricket? Trent Bridge has a history of hosting football matches. Notts County Football Club played their important games at the ground from the 1860s, and moved there permanently in 1883 when Nottingham Forest left. Unfortunately for the football team, games early and late in the season had to be played elsewhere due to the cricket and Notts County finally left in 1910, moving to Meadow Lane.
Trent Bridge even hosted an international match, England beating Ireland 6–0 on 20 February 1897.
Indians have done the right thing in recalling Ian Bell back; there are no two opinions on this matter.
Forget what Ravi Shastri and Sourav Ganguli may say in this matter that had it been they, they would not have called Ian Bell back.
What happened to VVS in WI is really a shame. To me it appeared that the whole method of getting VVS out in that manner was preplanned and did not happen naturally. The wicket keeper had waited deliberately for VVS after having gone inside the crease, choosing to come out assuming the ball was dead. The wicket keeper in consonance with Chanderpaul who incidentally was the Captain removed the bails and got VVS out. Chanderpaul should be ashamed. Or the entire WI team had noticed VVSs penchant to pull out of the crease after assuming the ball deaad more sooner than others and planned his dismissal that way.
Now dont compare Bajjis dismissal with Ian Bells and draw parallels; it is not comparable.
What Indians did was the right thing and I believe almost all nations would have done the same thing too. May be even WI too would have done the same, or atleast reviewed their decision had India protested. But it was not the end of the session but during a session.
YOu cant play the game in that way, surely!
Now, the Vaughans insensibility of suggesting Vaseline on VVSs bat.
History of Vaseline in cricket is the sole prerogative of England with John Lever.
It can equally be said that Vaseline was not on bat but on the Ball!
Re: VASELINE WAS ON THE BALL NOT ON THE BAT!
by SX on Aug 01, 2011 02:01 PM
The batsman was technically out there irrespective of the spirit of the game or any other bull shit!!
Re: Re: VASELINE WAS ON THE BALL NOT ON THE BAT!
by Kabeer on Aug 01, 2011 02:08 PM
No one including the batsman himself was disputing that he is out!
All that everybody is asking whether that is the way we should play the game or not?
Regarding Bajjis dismissal except the batsman no one knows whether there was an inside edge or not. All fielders and the bowler including the bastman at the other end can only see what the umpire could see. It is only the batsman who faced the ball knew that there was an inside edge. But sadly, Indians chose to keep LBW decisions out of the purview. Though technically, this is not the LBW decision for appeal there was no provision to leave it for DRS
