Poor review, I thought.

Not to worry, though - Vince and Ballance in to steady the ship. Oh... erm...

yeah i thought it was a poor review as well , until the rule change comes in i always think its a bit dubious reviewing an lbw because the umpire's call gives a big margin of error

was just saying what he might have been thinking when he called for the review

Disappointing that the top 3 are gone before lunch but a good chance for Vince and Ballance to show that they deserve to play at this level

As good a time as any to find out if they are worth perseveering with

100-3 at lunch after winning the toss and choosing to bowl would have been what pakistan would have been expecting

probably put them just ahead for the session given cook and root were 2 of the wickets

The Bob Willis story 'well Charles' I love Bob might be a moody so and so but his humour is great

He's brilliant on the Verdict where he can moan to his heart's content, but I couldn't stand him on commentary. However that might have been something to do with him commentating on England's various horror shows in the 1990s.

Bob's verdict highlights are brilliant what a guy

another start from vince but doesn't make the most of it

if we were looking for someone to make aesthetically pleasing 30s and 40s we would have been as well keeping ian bell in the team

If England lose the test would probably be Vince last match unless he scores a century in the next innings.

I'm pleased that England are giving people a proper chance, but I'm dismayed by them bringing back former failures in place of others who seem more deserving. Borthwick over Ballance for me, and Ball over Finn.

I'm still not sure about Vince. I think he has promise (and he does remind me of Bell, whom they stuck with), but I'm wondering whether they should have a look at someone else this Summer now. At what point would a big score still not balance out a poor performance up to that point?

If we lose I'd be certain of it really, Oh shit big trouble now, when Cook and Root fail we do.

Ballance and Finn aren't "failures", they both have had very good times as Test cricketers, probably out-weighing the bad, both decent records.

whilst i agree to a point both had by far their best spells early in the test careers, both have had to make technical changes after developing problems and both haven't really showed the same level of performance since returning from thise technical issues

both are in the "what have you done for me lately" category imo

Finn is a diffiucult one since he looked good at SA and one test last year but clearly suffers from confidence issues and easily gets out of rhythm.
Personally think he needs to bowl loads of overs like Anderson did in county cricket before being a genius for England.
Shouldn't be forgotten Anderson was quite average after England management ruined him and hearing stories about Finn I get the idea he doesn't know how to bowl with the new action or run up and his still finding out what works best for him.

At the moment not sure I would pick Finn unless he does actually bowl 85 mph plus most of the time.

Ballance looks ok at the moment and probably deserves the entire series and possible half the India series.

Finns always had the habit of picking up wickets without even bowling well, his last test was the only one he hasn't taken a wicket, and he had a few dropped catches off him. In the end he didn't bowl well against Sri Lanka, but still averaged under 30m and was a vital part of the wins against South Africa and Oz, mainly 8 wickets at this ground.

People are critical of England's treatment of bowlers, but it seems the fans are pretty big on wanting bowlers dropped after a couple of poor performances. I mean who can forget the annual "let's drp Broad" whenever he had a poor match, generally to be followed by a great performance, then rinse-repeat.

On Ballance, the bloke can score runs at Test cricket, he was always going to be recalled at one time, would have rather he did it off better form in first-class cricket.

Enough of this rock and roll nonsense

Moeen gets a review right and stays in

Didn't realise that they could review for lbw once the umpire had told Moeen he had given him out caught

Doesn't seem right

According to the laws of cricket an appeal covers all methods of dismissal

I realise that

I just think that it cant be right if a batsman asks the umpire why he has given him out and is told that he has given him out caught ( as happened with Moeen today) that the review should continue to other modes of dismissal

I know the laws of the game state otherwise, I just think it's 'not cricket "

Although Pakistan have done well to get 10 wickets today, it took them the whole day to do it - 300 runs are on the board and could be more than enough to make it competitive here.

It's going to be an interesting match.

I'd have liked to see Pakistan bowl 90 overs in the alloted time. ie by 6 o' clock. That extra demanding effort on Pakistan would have screwed up their plans to keep our score down to around 300. Say 330 for 6 would have been a fairer reflection on theirs and our efforts.

The laws of cricket do not cover reviews.

it would be good if the umpire was asked what alternative decisions he would consider before they actually review the decision.

West Indies showing some fight (for a change)

They have a chance of saving the Test and look to have found a talented player in Roston Chase

Currently 81* to go with his fivefer in India's innings

(Another) awful umpiring decision sees Dowrich go for 74 and end a 144 partnership with Chase

Not having DRS certainly helps India this time

West Indies 19 behind with 4 wickets left and approaching the tea interval

Still have a chance of a draw with Chase 100*

bit of a gift of a wicket for anderson in the first over of the day

a poor delivery, short and wide that should have been clattered for 4 gets hit straight at gully