Sorry, but Ian Bell should not have been reinstated. His choice to **** around and not concentrate was his own stupidity. I can't believe the crowd reaction!! Bell was out, end of. As for all this "spirit of the game" nonsense. when last has Strauss and his mob actually played as gentlemen? I recall the NZ incident in a one-dayer when Collingwood ignored the advice of the umpire and upheld the run out which was grossly unsportsmanlike. Then there was the Strauss bad form when he refused SA's Smith a runner. Spirit of the game? Don't make me laugh. This England cricket team do nothing more than give our country a bad name with this pathetic pursuit of being number one in a ranking system that actually means NOTHING. This "Steve Waugh" behaviour that we always found so deplorable is suddenly okay....well, no its not. As for Bell's whining on the way off the field for tea....grow up you useless twat. Making runs against poor attacks is one thing, but you have never been a world class batsman, and never will be.
Nah it was a bit silly but understandable given the circumstances. No big deal and common sense prevailed. And is that the same Strauss who recalled Angelo Matthews, learning from the Collingwood situation a year earlier. As for Bell, he certainly is a world class batsman. After yesterday he has now scored a century against all 8 test playing nations. The teams he previously had not performed as well against, India and Austrailia, he has now began to correct with recent innings. Bacially he is getting better with age and experience as you'd expect. He also averages around 47, excellent, and not only that plays with beautiful elegance to the delight of English fans. In summary, I think everything you've said is a complete load of twaddle.
When Ian Bell was initially given out, there cannot be any disputing that the decision was correct. The replay showed that the ball had not gone for four, he was out of his ground and the bails were removed. In that respect, Bell could not have any complaint. Oblivious of the goings on during the tea interval, the crowd booed the umpires as they returned to the field and booed the Indian players as they returned. When Bell came down the steps having been reinstated, the crowd cheered. As the original run out appeal was considered not within the spirit of the game, I would say that the crowd reaction was not very sporting either. At the end of the day’s play, the crowd did make amends by cheering the Indians from the field. As has already been stated, the contention that Ian Bell is not a World class batsman does not appear to be supported by the statistical evidence. His 159 was the first time that he had scored a century batting at number three for England but his performances of late have been excellent and as a batsman he can only score runs against the bowlers that he is facing. Had the Indians not refused to allow leg before wicket decisions to be referable, Stuart Broad’s hat-trick would not have happened because Harbhajan Singh got an inside edge on the ball that saw him dismissed first ball; however, it was not unsporting of England to appeal as they and (obviously) the umpire did not know that. Whether these two decisions ultimately change the outcome of the game is yet to be seen. Bell added an extra twenty-two runs and there is no way of knowing what extra runs India might have picked up in their first innings. India already need a Trent Bridge Test record score to win the game and they have not finished England’s second innings yet.
I think Broad's hattrick ball is irrelevant in terms of fair play. If India refuse to use the review system for LBW, right or wrong then they've made their bed and have to lie in it. In all honesty though it evens out over a series as Cook also wasn't out LBW. I think with the Bell situation, there were a few things going on. Bell and Morgan shouldn't have wandered out of their crease, but to be fair to them, rather than saying India were unsporting, I think it was the umpires that were at fault with their lack of clarity. When it comes down to it India did make the right decision and they should rightly be appluaded for that. The umpires probably have to just take that booing on the chin for making a big hash of it. It's also right to point out that England might not have behaved the same if they'd been in India's position. And until the next situation comes along for England to correct their past mistakes, that accusation is legitmate to put to them. India on the other hand, because of their behaviour yesterday have shown they aren't just a top side technically, but are a side to be respected as well.
