Re: India v SA, 1st Test, Nagpur, Feb 6-10

by Zat on Mon 08 Feb 2010, 21:19

71.6
Harris to Saha, no run, 84.8 kph, shout for a catch at silly point It turned in from outside leg again and bounced off the body and did it hit the bat before it popped up on the off side .. Ab dived to his left to "catch" it... Will confirm post replays, I thought there was an edge. And replays show there was. The ball bounded off the pad and hit the toe end of the bat before it fell on the off side where Ab took a wonderful catch diving one-handed to his left .. It was difficult for the umpire to give as it was the toe end of the outstretched bat

But there are no referrals in this series. The ICC should have said 'have the replays or the matches won't count as official'.

by Merlin on Mon 08 Feb 2010, 21:21

Red wrote:
Zat wrote:
Red wrote:The SA bowlers must be suffering from fatigue by now after being out there for so long. Could it be a 2001 like recovery?

What???

130 overs isn't that long.

Nice tits Red.

Sub-continental conditions can be oppressive. They've been out there since day two.

No they haven't - they're all covered up FFS.

Anyway, moving on - took a measely 2/1 at Corals on the innings victory (tight b**tards) ... just goes to show how much faith they have in Banindian batsmen these days.

All over by tea.

by embee on Mon 08 Feb 2010, 21:24

What's the excuse for no referrals?

by Zat on Mon 08 Feb 2010, 21:24

BCCOARIAB.

by tac on Mon 08 Feb 2010, 21:25

They got burned by it in Sri Lanka . . .

by Merlin on Mon 08 Feb 2010, 21:26

embee wrote:What's the excuse for no referrals?

I asked that question yesterday - the vague answer was that it appears the BCCI gave referrals the "thumbs down" - but no "reason" was provided.
Does there have to be a reason where the BCCI are concerned?

by embee on Mon 08 Feb 2010, 21:26

How can you get "burned" by referals ?

Unless you get "Harpered"...

by tac on Mon 08 Feb 2010, 21:27

They had a lot reversed in SLs favour is what I meant . . .the BanIndians didn't lke it . . .

by Zat on Mon 08 Feb 2010, 21:28

Wot Merls sed.

by The One on Mon 08 Feb 2010, 21:29

collapso time. 209/6

freakish dismissal for tendlya

by embee on Mon 08 Feb 2010, 21:30

tac wrote:They had a lot reversed in SLs favour is what I meant . . .the BanIndians didn't lke it . . .

Did they charter a plane?

by tac on Mon 08 Feb 2010, 21:31

embee wrote:
tac wrote:They had a lot reversed in SLs favour is what I meant . . .the BanIndians didn't lke it . . .

Did they charter a plane?

Something like that . . .

by Zat on Mon 08 Feb 2010, 21:48

They should have demanded that all television sets in Sri lanka be sacked.

by Zat on Mon 08 Feb 2010, 21:51

Could India impose some symmetry on this match and make 233 in each innings? Skully's probably getting excited by the prospect.

by Guest on Mon 08 Feb 2010, 22:02

I believe Shark has been winding it up to 90 mph.

Must be a big bucket of KFC in the stands behind the batsmen.....