I notice they've now ditched snicko and are using Hawkeye's ultraedge instead.
That's out in any game no idea how a 3rd umpire can say not out
Evidently not seeing as all 3 umpires looking at the same TV footage decided otherwise.
Anyone that has played cricket over a decent period of time knows that that catch was one of those that rolls up your fingers. Of course Stokes wasn't certain because he knows that it was touch and go as to if he got his fingers under it properly. However the head on camera shows it roll up his fingers. His fingers are bunched together so how can the ball have touched the ground? Just my opinion. If woakes is given out to a ball just tickling leg stump then for me that's a legitimate catch.
I'm sure Woodworm Have released a 2016 range so don't think they've given up.Wasn't Finn with New Balance though? Lad seems to change his sponsor on a regular basis
Think Woakes is considered our next closest type of bowler to Anderson whilst Footitt and Finn would be too similar to each other.
Well I've played for nearly 20 years, and I've seen 'catches' like that at an international level almost always turned down. If a player isn't even sure then it's a bit hard pressed for the umpires, after watching countless reviews where the moment of time you actually want to see is between camera frames. End of the day benefit of the doubt went to the batsmen, as it should have.Anyway, I doubt we're going to change each others opinion.