Absolutely - how many walk when they're given out if the umpire hasn't called it? Why is Broad getting so much abuse?
It's ridiculous - more so when you consider the Trott LBW and Agar's stumping that were missed in the first innings. Agar was on not many at that point so we might have won far more easily. So that's 2 decisions that went against England and Broad's which went for England. I'd say that's just about evens for me, over the course of the match.
He was right not to walk. Why would a professional sportsman give up so easily. Do you see it in any other sport ?
Broad is getting so much stick because it was such a blatant nick. The run out of Agar, harder for him to know whether he was in or not. Haddin too at the end there, I think I would know if I nicked it. I think Haddin would too but there was a doubt. Broad not so. I think I would have walked, but I'm not an elite sportsman.
I wouldn't have walked. Fair play to him," if you want me out get me out but I'm not going to help you". He could get his place with Ard Macha anytime
Basically Broad couldn't win. If he walked and we lost then England hates him ('but nobody else walks anymore' would be the cries). If he doesn't walk then England turn their noses up him ('but cricket is a gentleman's sport' would be the cries). If he had walked I think we would have lost? The run difference from when he nicked it to his final total was more than 14 I think?
Anyone that thinks Broad did the wrong thing is a ****ing idiot. Even Clarke stood up for Broad and so did several Australia pundits like McGrath. Haddin didn't walk on the final wicket and Clarke reviewed one he hit. Neither side holds that against each other at all. The Australian team won't be bitter AT ALL. If a batsman is given out caught or lbw and is out of reviews the fielding side isn't going to call him back either. You don't walk if you think you're plumb. You wait for the umpires decision. Cannot believe so many people have an opinion on something they know nothing about. Laughable really. By the way after the Trott lbw which he clearly hit and the Agar stumping which was out it was infact in the spirit of the game for Broad not to walk to even the balance of the game out. Funny how people sitting on their high horse saying Broad's a cheat probably won't know that as they weren't watching at the time
Hadden and Clarke both would have known that they had nicked it yet neither walked. They are no better than Broad. I must say that was squeaky bum time, Edgbaston 2005 all over again. They'll be gutted though while we can go into the Lords Test with some confidence.
I don't think it evens out. If Agar was given out Australia would have made a lot less. Trott might have made a hundred. I think England would have won very comfortably without those two decisions going against them.
A bunch of blokes with eyebrows on their cheeks watching two other blokes chucking a lump of rock down a country lane. That must be compelling viewing.
It's a sport numbnuts. cricket ball (made of leather) furthermost trown, 418 yards. Roadbowl (28oz) made of steel. Furthermost trown 722 Yards. By my brother as a matter of fact.
http://www.viplivesports.eu/rugby/1...ue-:-dublin-vs-meath--live-stream-online.html Screw that, get this bad boy on.
I can only think the crowd have money wagered on the outcome because to be fair, you wouldn't get out of bed to watch that mate.
