Australia v England, 5th Test, Sydney, 2nd day January 5, 2011

Hot pink and Hot Spot

22

Not-so-hot Spot
Ian Bell's maiden Ashes hundred was a worthy reward for a series in which he has regularly looked the most fluent batsman on either side, but he did not reach the landmark without courting controversy. On 67, and facing up to Shane Watson, Bell appeared to get a thin inside-edge through to Brad Haddin. Australia were certainly convinced, and Aleem Dar's finger went up after a brief pause, but Bell demurred, and wandered down the track to chat to his partner before half-heartedly gesturing for the third-umpire review. Hot Spot, however, showed no discernible mark, and after a long delay the decision was overturned, much to Australia's chagrin. A few overs later, the Snickometer verdict came in, and sure enough, there was an edge on the ball.

Cook's reprieve
In the course of his astonishing assault on the record books, Alastair Cook did require a few moments of good luck. On 46, he was spared by a no-ball, as the spinner Michael Beer overstepped to rob himself of a maiden Test wicket, and on 99, Beer was out of luck once again, as Cook jabbed down late on a rising delivery, for Phil Hughes at short leg to scoop the ball with his fingertips. Neither he nor Brad Haddin seemed entirely convinced by the catch, but they went ahead with their appeal all the same, while Cook stood in his crease shaking his head. Sure enough, replays showed that the ball had bounced millimetres short, and off he marched to his third hundred of the series.

Bronzed Aussie hero
Steve Waugh's legend status as the SCG was sealed eight years ago when he brought up a career-extending century with a four from the last ball of the day. Today his image was set in stone behind the Members' Stand, the moment captured from the celebration of that magical Ashes hundred. "That was probably the most pleasing moment of my career," Waugh said. "There were about 30,000 people at the ground but probably 100,000 people have told me they were there." Waugh's sculpture includes his famous red handkerchief, but there was a temporary pink scarf around its neck to support Glenn McGrath's foundation.

Jane McGrath Day
The SCG was awash with pink as a tribute to Jane McGrath, the late wife of Glenn. The now annual day has a range of activities to raise money for breast cancer nurses throughout Australia. Brett Lee, who has been named in Australia's 30-man World Cup squad, looked smart in a pink jacket before play and both sides walked on to the ground over a pink carpet. The Ladies' Stand was renamed the Jane McGrath stand and the scores were posted on a pink background.

Awards season
Shane Watson was handed the McGilvray Medal as the ABC's Test Cricketer of the Year before play for his 897 runs and 19 wickets in 11 Tests in 2010. The prize was named after the late commentator Alan, who finished more than 50 years of broadcasting in 1985, and was presented by his son Ross. At the end of the day Peter Siddle was recognised as the Australian Cricket Media Association's Emerging Player of the Year.

Peter English is the Australasia editor of Cricinfo and Andrew Miller is UK editor

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Something_Witty on January 6, 2011, 1:16 GMT

    landl, two comments posted almost entirely to disagree with my comments, you're not turning into a troll are you? The reason I commented on the Bell thing and nothing else is because you usually are drawn to comment on incidents of remark. Nothing else remarkable happened that day. - An Australian side who have given up and look like they're trying to lose their test membership status giving away lots of runs is hardly remarkable.

  • on January 6, 2011, 1:00 GMT

    @Dangersteg: Fair enough, I agree. Inside edges don't really show up on the hotspot , do they? especially thin inside edges, because by the time the bat can be seen ( after emerging from the pad), the edge fades quickly. Yes, i agree that you always know if you have hit it or not. I was just mentioning the cringing of the ch9 commentators(was so irritating)

  • Dangersteg on January 5, 2011, 22:15 GMT

    Honeymonster - listening to the ABC radio commentary, the BBC commentators were furious at Bell next door. I'll say it again, you know when you hit it - even a feather touch. You can't help but know. Anyone who says differently hasn't played cricket.

    On another point, England have monstered Australia and thoroughly deserve their win. I have reluctantly enjoyed watching Tremlett and Anderson bowl this series and, of course, Cook has been outstanding.

  • landl47 on January 5, 2011, 15:44 GMT

    Two comments on the Bell decision and nothng else, Something_Witty? You're not turning into popcorn, are you? @suhailrizwy: the reason snicko isn't used is that it takes too much time. The game had moved on by the time the snicko review was shown on TV. If they can get the timeframe down to, say 30 seconds or less, it would be a useful addition to the technology.

  • shivam1987 on January 5, 2011, 14:34 GMT

    @suhailrizwy snicometer takes some time to built. time of about an over

  • Henry_Kane on January 5, 2011, 14:19 GMT

    Dar didn't get one wrong at all! He got it right. I don't understand how Dar can be to blame. It's not up to him to tell the 3rd umpire to stuff it!

  • Guernica on January 5, 2011, 12:58 GMT

    @suhailrizwy Yes, it's because the Snicko results take a few minutes to come back. Hotspot is nearly immediate which is why it's used for UDRS.

  • Fireballz on January 5, 2011, 12:14 GMT

    @suhailrizwy, Hot spot has been approved for use in the UDRS, snickometer has not. I'm not sure why, but the third umpire isn't allowed to use snicko in caught behind referrals. I have no problem with Hughes, Bell, or anyone's behaviour really. Nobody played dishonestly and everyone played within the rules. Unfortunately Australia have outplayed for the majority of this series and look like they're going to lose 3-1 :(

  • Vindaliew on January 5, 2011, 12:12 GMT

    I'm sure a certain Andrew Symonds would have walked and not reviewed it.. and definitely not made cheeky remarks about it in the after-match press conference. What goes round comes around.

  • on January 5, 2011, 12:02 GMT

    bell didnt know he hit it. why would you review it if you know youve slogged it. it would be a waste of a review. the technology is flawed, but its flawed on both sides (hussey and clarke have benefited from it this series). blame the umps, blame the weather, blame the technology, blame the selectors. blame anybody and anything but the players and the flawed system that has produced them. australia have been thumped. THUMPED. in their own back yard and yet their still whinging and whining about anything but the truth. get back to the nets!!

  • Something_Witty on January 6, 2011, 1:16 GMT

    landl, two comments posted almost entirely to disagree with my comments, you're not turning into a troll are you? The reason I commented on the Bell thing and nothing else is because you usually are drawn to comment on incidents of remark. Nothing else remarkable happened that day. - An Australian side who have given up and look like they're trying to lose their test membership status giving away lots of runs is hardly remarkable.

  • on January 6, 2011, 1:00 GMT

    @Dangersteg: Fair enough, I agree. Inside edges don't really show up on the hotspot , do they? especially thin inside edges, because by the time the bat can be seen ( after emerging from the pad), the edge fades quickly. Yes, i agree that you always know if you have hit it or not. I was just mentioning the cringing of the ch9 commentators(was so irritating)

  • Dangersteg on January 5, 2011, 22:15 GMT

    Honeymonster - listening to the ABC radio commentary, the BBC commentators were furious at Bell next door. I'll say it again, you know when you hit it - even a feather touch. You can't help but know. Anyone who says differently hasn't played cricket.

    On another point, England have monstered Australia and thoroughly deserve their win. I have reluctantly enjoyed watching Tremlett and Anderson bowl this series and, of course, Cook has been outstanding.

  • landl47 on January 5, 2011, 15:44 GMT

    Two comments on the Bell decision and nothng else, Something_Witty? You're not turning into popcorn, are you? @suhailrizwy: the reason snicko isn't used is that it takes too much time. The game had moved on by the time the snicko review was shown on TV. If they can get the timeframe down to, say 30 seconds or less, it would be a useful addition to the technology.

  • shivam1987 on January 5, 2011, 14:34 GMT

    @suhailrizwy snicometer takes some time to built. time of about an over

  • Henry_Kane on January 5, 2011, 14:19 GMT

    Dar didn't get one wrong at all! He got it right. I don't understand how Dar can be to blame. It's not up to him to tell the 3rd umpire to stuff it!

  • Guernica on January 5, 2011, 12:58 GMT

    @suhailrizwy Yes, it's because the Snicko results take a few minutes to come back. Hotspot is nearly immediate which is why it's used for UDRS.

  • Fireballz on January 5, 2011, 12:14 GMT

    @suhailrizwy, Hot spot has been approved for use in the UDRS, snickometer has not. I'm not sure why, but the third umpire isn't allowed to use snicko in caught behind referrals. I have no problem with Hughes, Bell, or anyone's behaviour really. Nobody played dishonestly and everyone played within the rules. Unfortunately Australia have outplayed for the majority of this series and look like they're going to lose 3-1 :(

  • Vindaliew on January 5, 2011, 12:12 GMT

    I'm sure a certain Andrew Symonds would have walked and not reviewed it.. and definitely not made cheeky remarks about it in the after-match press conference. What goes round comes around.

  • on January 5, 2011, 12:02 GMT

    bell didnt know he hit it. why would you review it if you know youve slogged it. it would be a waste of a review. the technology is flawed, but its flawed on both sides (hussey and clarke have benefited from it this series). blame the umps, blame the weather, blame the technology, blame the selectors. blame anybody and anything but the players and the flawed system that has produced them. australia have been thumped. THUMPED. in their own back yard and yet their still whinging and whining about anything but the truth. get back to the nets!!

  • Dangersteg on January 5, 2011, 11:48 GMT

    OK Paramjit - you know you've hit it (after playing the game for near 20 years I always knew). You don't walk - OK. I prefer to see some honesty but it seems majority rules now - no walking. Categorically different is actually suggesting that the umpire has got it wrong when you know he was correct. Enjoy your century celebrations Belly! I have been impressed by the machinations of this English team. They don't need to do this. It is cheap and I would be impressed to hear that there has been a disciplinary response by the management. In fact, it would only increase my respect for a touring party that has won lots of friends in Australia.

  • rgk1974 on January 5, 2011, 11:29 GMT

    Typical whinging Aussies. You can't accept being beaten by a much better team. Bell wasn't sure if he hit it or not, so went for a review. Is that worse than claiming a catch that clearly hit the ground? Hmmm I don't think so. The Aussies pioneered the art of bad sportsmanship (not walking, sledging, claiming grounded catches, stumpings without the ball etc) and now have the cheek to get all high and mighty about Ian Bell. Amazing! I notice that the same thing happening to Clarke earlier in the series isn't mentioned - I wonder why that is?

  • SDHM on January 5, 2011, 11:19 GMT

    @ suhailrizwy - Snicko takes too long to load apparently, I think I read somewhere else on here. The snicko for Bell's dismissal wasn't put together until a few overs later, so it's not feasible to use it to help with UDRS. I've only just seen the incident now, and without snicko it seemed a hard choice to make. On the English commentary though, Michael Atherton made the point that there surely wasn't enough evidence that it had been the wrong decision to overturn it in the first place, which I agree with.

  • on January 5, 2011, 10:59 GMT

    @suhailrizwy. Snicko isn't part of the formal UDRS, because it takes quite a long time to provide the results. It's just something used by the tv.

  • Biggus on January 5, 2011, 10:48 GMT

    @suhailrizwy-'Snicko' is not part of UDRS. My issue is with Bell. He knew he'd hit it, and I think it was extremely poor form to go for the challenge. That's not what it's for.

  • D.V.C. on January 5, 2011, 10:22 GMT

    Thing is, you could see something on hotspot. I picked it up before Slater did on commentary. Still, nobody is perfect, I don't blame the umpires. I'm a little annoyed at Bell though, I don't think he used the review system in the spirit in which it was intended. It's one thing to stand and let the umpire decide, it's another to say you think he's wrong. That's schoolyard stuff.

  • Chris_Howard on January 5, 2011, 8:12 GMT

    We should complain coz technology got one wrong. It has helped get heaps more right. The review system increases the correctness rate from mid-80%s with umpires only, to high 90%s. You can't complain about that.

  • Hoggy_1989 on January 5, 2011, 8:00 GMT

    Steve Waugh's comments remind me of the Tied Test in 1961, where Richie claims he's met 200,000 people who say they were at the ground that day (even though it could probably only hold 1/10th of that.)

  • Something_Witty on January 5, 2011, 7:47 GMT

    That Bell incident really was a terrible decision. Dar is a great umpire, but he really got that one wrong. The third ump also got it wrong, but ultimately, there was a loud noise, Bell knew he had nicked it and looked like he knew it. Dar should have stood by his original decision.

  • suhailrizwy on January 5, 2011, 7:32 GMT

    I saw the incident about Ian Bell's dismissal followed by the reversal of the decision by Aleem Dar. What I could not understand was,why the snickometer replay clearly showing the inside edge on TV was NOT shown when reviewing the decision several times to Umpire Tony Hill.That would have meant that the original decision by umpire Aleem Dar would have been upheld and Bell would be out! Clearly, the technology was only selectively used with Hot Spot and not Snickometer.Can anyone explain why this was so?

  • on January 5, 2011, 7:26 GMT

    Also, I assume all the ch9 commentators all walked when they edged the ball or appealed when they knew the batsman was out or , in case of healy, did not attempt to run out the batsman without the ball and claim a run out? Get over it , guys. You are gonna lose 3-1

  • on January 5, 2011, 7:25 GMT

    Probably England can hand over a loan of 50 runs to India and I do not feel that any of the Barmy Army supporters would mind that either.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • on January 5, 2011, 7:25 GMT

    Probably England can hand over a loan of 50 runs to India and I do not feel that any of the Barmy Army supporters would mind that either.

  • on January 5, 2011, 7:26 GMT

    Also, I assume all the ch9 commentators all walked when they edged the ball or appealed when they knew the batsman was out or , in case of healy, did not attempt to run out the batsman without the ball and claim a run out? Get over it , guys. You are gonna lose 3-1

  • suhailrizwy on January 5, 2011, 7:32 GMT

    I saw the incident about Ian Bell's dismissal followed by the reversal of the decision by Aleem Dar. What I could not understand was,why the snickometer replay clearly showing the inside edge on TV was NOT shown when reviewing the decision several times to Umpire Tony Hill.That would have meant that the original decision by umpire Aleem Dar would have been upheld and Bell would be out! Clearly, the technology was only selectively used with Hot Spot and not Snickometer.Can anyone explain why this was so?

  • Something_Witty on January 5, 2011, 7:47 GMT

    That Bell incident really was a terrible decision. Dar is a great umpire, but he really got that one wrong. The third ump also got it wrong, but ultimately, there was a loud noise, Bell knew he had nicked it and looked like he knew it. Dar should have stood by his original decision.

  • Hoggy_1989 on January 5, 2011, 8:00 GMT

    Steve Waugh's comments remind me of the Tied Test in 1961, where Richie claims he's met 200,000 people who say they were at the ground that day (even though it could probably only hold 1/10th of that.)

  • Chris_Howard on January 5, 2011, 8:12 GMT

    We should complain coz technology got one wrong. It has helped get heaps more right. The review system increases the correctness rate from mid-80%s with umpires only, to high 90%s. You can't complain about that.

  • D.V.C. on January 5, 2011, 10:22 GMT

    Thing is, you could see something on hotspot. I picked it up before Slater did on commentary. Still, nobody is perfect, I don't blame the umpires. I'm a little annoyed at Bell though, I don't think he used the review system in the spirit in which it was intended. It's one thing to stand and let the umpire decide, it's another to say you think he's wrong. That's schoolyard stuff.

  • Biggus on January 5, 2011, 10:48 GMT

    @suhailrizwy-'Snicko' is not part of UDRS. My issue is with Bell. He knew he'd hit it, and I think it was extremely poor form to go for the challenge. That's not what it's for.

  • on January 5, 2011, 10:59 GMT

    @suhailrizwy. Snicko isn't part of the formal UDRS, because it takes quite a long time to provide the results. It's just something used by the tv.

  • SDHM on January 5, 2011, 11:19 GMT

    @ suhailrizwy - Snicko takes too long to load apparently, I think I read somewhere else on here. The snicko for Bell's dismissal wasn't put together until a few overs later, so it's not feasible to use it to help with UDRS. I've only just seen the incident now, and without snicko it seemed a hard choice to make. On the English commentary though, Michael Atherton made the point that there surely wasn't enough evidence that it had been the wrong decision to overturn it in the first place, which I agree with.