It is Autralia again in the 3rd ODI against Pakistan. How do you view performance of Pakistan this time?

Though Bell didn't do anything wrong. But an honest batsman would always go for the truth. For example see tendulkar in 2011's world cup match against West Indies in which he walked off the field when he was on 2 and ravi rampaul bowled him a bouncer which he nicked and walked off straight away.

He didn't wait for the umpire's call. And the umpire didn't even raise his finger before tendulkar went himself. This is a good batsman's sign.

Though I'm not saying that bell has done anything wrong. This is a fault from the third umpire.

The person who wrote the article is clearly very thick and very against Australia and England. The remark "Though, it is well known that Indian cricketers have expressed serious doubts about the UDRS, and often objected to its use in international fixtures, other countries such as Australia and England have championed its use, and have at times turned a blind eye to its ineffectiveness, and benefited from decisions." is just laughable. Every team who has played in matches where the system is used have benefited in a positive way and also had decisions go against them.

Teams use the system knowing full well that you will sometimes get a decision overturned in favour of you and sometimes get a decision overturned against you. All it is designed for is to over turn obvious poor decisions which video evidence shows is definitely out or definitely not out, it is not designed to overturn ones that may or may not have been out. In this circumstance it seems the video evidence was not good enough to prove unequivocally that Bell was out, even though he himself felt that he should have been out.

Numerous batsman and numerous bowlers from every cricket playing nation (including India) have benefited as a result of the use of UDRS technology, it is not just Australian's or English players who have as that article suggests. Perhaps the writer needs to take the blind fold off and see a bit of reality rather than look at it from an Indian supporters eyes. It is not the batsman's job to give himself out when he knicks the ball.

If he gets a knick and is given not out, he is within his rights to stay at the crease. Gilchrist is one of the only players I have ever seen play who would always walk when he knicked it no matter how minor the knick was and if the umpire had given it out.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.