When India allowed Ian Bell to carry on batting at Trent Bridge

Posted by
< 1 minute read

Ian Bell resumes batting

Cricket action stops and starts and we didn’t feel very comfortable with someone being run-out when pretty much everyone on the field had stopped playing.

We don’t care too much about the technical rights and wrongs and everyone on the field seemed to share those feelings once they’d had a look at a replay. All the same, the Indian team still deserve a huge amount of credit for having the balls to allow Bell to return to the crease. It sounds pompous to say that they transcended sport, but they did. They were pretty confident that they were right and the Laws of Cricket were wrong in this instance.

Besides, a great innings in a great Test match didn’t warrant such a crap ending – one that no-one was that overjoyed about. Praveen Kumar thew the ball in like it was one he’d just found in a hedge and Abhinav Mukund took the bails off like he was the only one still playing because all his mates were going home for their tea. Which is pretty much what was happening.

When Bell was dismissed a second time, the Indians actually looked happy. People celebrated. It seemed more fitting. It seemed like it was actually part of a Test match.


Mike Gatting wasn't receiving the King Cricket email when he dropped that ludicrously easy chance against India in 1993.


Why risk it when it's so easy to sign up?


  1. It was hard for Mukund to see because Praveen Kumar is never too interested in fielding so he thought its his usual return from the boundary.

  2. People can argue the rights and wrongs, but the Indian team defused a situation that was going to make the whole series ugly. Very nice to see.

  3. You gotta admit, the way Praveen took his time to get up from his slide and throw the ball was a bit comical…like you say, it was more like something from a person, in street cricket, who’d been banished to the boundary because he was on bad terms with the skipper! 😀

  4. Everything you say is true but it still leaves a rather unpleasant taste behind, England basically pressurised a visiting team into giving back a legitimate wicket. I hope in their bid to be number one they aren’t developing a tendency to Australianism.

    1. Dhoni should have thrown his sweaty used box in Strauss’ face when he asked him to withdraw the appeal. Then he should have thrown him out of the dressing room without opening the door first.
      In retrospect filling the team with Saffers over the last few years is an act of genius by the ECB.
      From what I can see Dhoni is continuing the non combative tradition laid down by Ghandi during the Boer wars. They knew India would be the team to beat and packed their team full of the very people that history has shown the Indians wouldn’t fight.

    2. It made me feel physically ill to think of Strauss and Flower knocking on the door of the Indian dressing room. I’d have been inclined (as apparently the Indian team was) to withdraw the appeal after talking it over.

      But after getting a deputation of heavies asking for a favor, I’d have been a lot less inclined. I still think I’d have withdrawn the appeal… I think Dhoni realized that since it was HIM that took the throw from PK and then tossed the ball to Mukund (with the obvious implication that Mukund was to take off the bails – otherwise why throw it to the fielder next to the wicket?) he was the one who was going to ultimately have to answer for it.

  5. KC yes
    Bert yes
    Wolf drivel
    Martietman rhubarb
    Bell shamingly ungracious and unrepentant
    and shown up by Dhoni, Dravid and the Indian team.

    1. Right, so sticking to the laws and not letting someone who’s been an arse have another go just because his captain says so is rhubarb, can I have custard on that ?

Comments are closed.