England v West Indies, 1st Test, Lord's, 4th day

Broad's record, Anderson's wait

ESPNcricinfo presents the plays of the day from the fourth day at Lord's

Andrew McGlashan at Lord's

May 20, 2012

Comments: 14 | Text size: A | A

James Anderson can't believe his luck, England v West Indies, 1st Test, Lord's, 4th day, May 20, 2012
Not another: James Anderson had scant reward to show for his efforts © Getty Images
Enlarge
Related Links

Landmark of the day

This has been a good Test for Stuart Broad's statistics. After a career-best 7 for 72 in the first innings he then became the first England bowler to take 10 wickets in a Test at Lord's since Ian Botham in 1978 against New Zealand (and his first such haul) when he had Darren Sammy caught behind. He also joined the select band of players - Botham, Gubby Allen and Keith Miller - to have done the treble at Lords; a hundred, five-wickets in an innings and 10 in a match. That's all the honours boards completed.

Shy of the day

For most of this Test bowling for run outs has been the best idea when Shivnarine Chanderpaul has been batting. Often it is his partner who finds himself in trouble but Chanderpaul would have been run out for just the fourth time in Tests if Kevin Pietersen had hit with an under-arm back-handed flicked when Chanderpaul had 38. Marlon Samuels had dropped the ball towards midwicket and Pietersen was quickly onto it and perhaps did not realise how much time he had. He opted for an awkward attempt at the stumps rather than trying to find a better position to throw from.

Bouncers of the day

This is a placid Lord's pitch - the slowness is understandable after the wet start to the summer - and the England quicks have had to be selective about when to really bend their backs. Broad picked one over against Samuels - with the ball 69 overs old - to try a series of short deliveries, the first of which Samuels did not play well and took a blow on the shoulder. The next ball, another short one, was fended short of third slip but Samuels had the final say in the over when he pulled consecutive boundaries to leave Broad chuntering.

Century of the day

Tim Bresnan has done wonders in the Test side since the 2010-11 Ashes series - when he has managed to find a place in the team. It was a tight race between him, Steven Finn and Graham Onions for this Test but the 100% man (Bresnan has won all 12 of his Tests) got the nod. For much of the game he has done what Andrew Strauss needed; drying up the runs to allow others to attack. However, after tea on the fourth day he was expensive for a spell and in the process was taken for a ton for the first time in Test career. Maintaining that 100% no longer looked a foregone conclusion.

Late reward of the day

James Anderson was probably wondering what he had to do to get a wicket. The difference in tallies between him and Broad no way reflected the quality of the bowling. Anderson was superb throughout, even managing to beat Chanderpaul on one occasion, but more often than not was left with head in hands at another near miss. When Fidel Edwards fended a rising delivery over the slips it could have been the final straw, but three balls later he produced a peach to remove Denesh Ramdin to give him one in the 'w' column.

Andrew McGlashan is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo

RSS Feeds: Andrew McGlashan

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by JG2704 on (May 21, 2012, 9:54 GMT)

@mngc on (May 21 2012, 00:47 AM GMT) Probably best you study the game a bit more before making comms. The difference in marginal decs is whether the original call was out or not out. If both original calls were out then both Trott and Shiv would have gone , if both were not out both would have stayed. During the UAE tour we as a bowling side (Eng) had a few reviews which were clipping but weren't overturned in our favour and had a few (as a batting side) a few which were clipping and were reviewed but because the orig dec was out it stayed with the onfield umpire. So it works both ways and my guess is that it evens itself out.

Posted by jmcilhinney on (May 21, 2012, 8:23 GMT)

@mngc on (May 21 2012, 00:47 AM GMT), that's the sort of comment that lots of people make when they see a decision go against them. When people don't get what they want they see the system as unfair but there's nothing specifically unfair about the current system that could be fixed with a rule change that wouldn't then produce some other set of circumstances that the next person would call unfair when it went against their team. The current "umpire's call" system is a recognition that there is an inherent margin of error in ball-tracking technology. HawkEye showed that only a couple of millimetres of the ball was in line with the stumps when Trott was struck. Where the ball strikes the batsman is based on actual data, not projection, so maybe that could have a smaller margin of error applied but I doubt that even the manufacturers would want to guarantee the position within a couple of millimetres. That is not conclusive evidence so there's no overrule.

Posted by Munkeymomo on (May 21, 2012, 8:16 GMT)

@dwhitworth: true, but many more people have five-fers there than 10-fers.

Posted by Chris_P on (May 21, 2012, 4:36 GMT)

Well done to the Windies for their effort to date. As Meety pointed out, their willingness to tough it out was the significance difference between this side and past Windies outfits. Many Aussies spoke up about their commitment during their series against us and a few who posted arguing the Aussies were still weak & were getting matched by an average team. I don't see those posters giving credit here. England, with their strong batting line-up, are still firm favourites as long as the pitch holds up. A solid series of matches is a much better way to prepare for the Saffers than cruising to victories. All in all, I enjoy test match cricket so much.

Posted by   on (May 21, 2012, 2:33 GMT)

I was one of those England fans that did not think the West Indies had any chance this series. For me, the batting line up simply appeared too weak to contend with the best bowling line up in the world. However, in their second innings they showed everybody that they could compete and have already amassed a total higher than in any Indian innings last summer. With the strength and depth of England's batting alongside the relatively flat wicket i still believe they will win, but this victory is going to be be harder fought than the majority of us ever imagined.

Posted by mngc on (May 21, 2012, 1:47 GMT)

Time to do away with "on field decision" and interpret the projection from DRS in a uniform and fair way. Trott not out vs Chanderpaul out gave England an advantage of 113 runs (the amount they added further) which could determine which way this match ends. Either both should be not out or both out - not one out and the other not out,

Posted by Meety on (May 21, 2012, 0:06 GMT)

Well to England fans, this is the fighting spirit that the WIndies posess. England SHOULD win from here, but there must be a few batsmen that are thankful for the Stumps call on Day 4. As an Ozzy I was most impressed by the way they never gave up against us, & am even more impressed that on little time they have acclimatised relatively well to force the Poms into a 5th day. The great thing is, they have given themselves, statistically speaking, a strong chance of a win, despite being well behind throughout the match. Restricting England's lead to 155 (when England past the WIndies with 8 wickets spare), to setting some sort of 4th innings total for England to chase, is a spine that has been absent for most of the last 10 yrs in their cricket. Different conditions, but I wonder if the collapse against Pakistan (smaller 4th innings chase), will be thought about by England. If the pitch breaks up a bit, this match could go to the wire.Good work out for England before the Safricans arrive!

Posted by RohanMarkJay on (May 20, 2012, 22:32 GMT)

C'mon West Indies. Its really good to see them play well for a change. I really like the West Indies team players and their supporters.

Posted by dwhitworth on (May 20, 2012, 21:22 GMT)

"the treble at Lords; a hundred, five-wickets in an innings and 10 in a match" - That's a bit redundant, you can't take ten wickets in a match without taking five in an innings.

Posted by   on (May 20, 2012, 20:25 GMT)

@Adrian, just misprint. Won all 11 of his Tests.

Comments have now been closed for this article

TopTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
Andrew McGlashanClose
Andrew McGlashan Assistant Editor Andrew arrived at ESPNcricinfo via Manchester and Cape Town, after finding the assistant editor at a weak moment as he watched England's batting collapse in the Newlands Test. Andrew began his cricket writing as a freelance covering Lancashire during 2004 when they were relegated in the County Championship. In fact, they were top of the table when he began reporting on them but things went dramatically downhill. He likes to let people know that he is a supporter of county cricket, a fact his colleagues will testify to and bemoan in equal quantities.
Tour Results
England v West Indies at Nottingham - Jun 24, 2012
England won by 7 wickets (with 2 balls remaining)
England v West Indies at Leeds - Jun 22, 2012
Match abandoned without a ball bowled
England v West Indies at The Oval - Jun 19, 2012
England won by 8 wickets (with 30 balls remaining)
England v West Indies at Southampton - Jun 16, 2012
England won by 114 runs (D/L method)
Middlesex v West Indians at Lord's - Jun 13, 2012
West Indians won by 228 runs
More results »
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days