England v Australia, 1st Investec Test, Trent Bridge, 3rd day

Bell and Broad take control as controversy erupts

The Report by David Hopps

July 12, 2013

Comments: 209 | Text size: A | A

England 215 and 326 for 6 (Bell 95*, Broad 47*) lead Australia 280 by 261 runs
Live scorecard and ball-by-ball details

Ian Bell pulls during his half-century, England v Australia, 1st Investec Test, Trent Bridge, 3rd day, July 12, 2013
Ian Bell produced one of his most important Test innings as England build a strong lead © PA Photos

England will be convinced that they finally broke Australia in a heated final session at Trent Bridge, that the 261-run lead established by the end of the third day is already enough to secure victory in the first Investec Test. Australia will suspect as much, but will cloak it in a sense of resentment that could linger all summer long.

That England achieved such luxury, after an intense battle for supremacy over more than two sessions, owed everything to the serenity of Ian Bell, whose understated innings must be ranked as one of his best, and the effrontery of Stuart Broad, on 37, who shamelessly brazened it out when he was caught at slip, cutting the debutant left-arm spinner, Ashton Agar, only for the umpire Aleem Dar to be misled by a further deflection off the gloves of wicketkeeper Brad Haddin and turn down the appeal.

Australia were desperate for a wicket: at 297 for 6, on a warm, hazy day, England led by 232, the game tilting towards them. But walking has been almost unheard of in Test matches for 40 years or more and once the initial indignation has died down, it is pointless protesting about what has generally become a convention of the game.

Broad knew to stay put for an edge as obvious as this was about as embarrassing as it can get, but that it was expected of him and he had no qualms about doing it. His only compensation was that he reddened up so much in the heat that you could not see him blush.

And so, as the match shifted towards England on a torpid, inconsistent surface, the resentment went the other way. England suffered two dubious debatable decisions by the third umpire, Marais Erasmus on the second day; Dar's blunder infuriated Australia on the third. If they ever lose the Ashes urn, the new ashes could be made up of the burnt offerings of couple of ICC umpires.

Beyond the emotions, Bell played with inconspicuous authority. The pitch was parched and so were the mouths of the spectators, but Bell exuded calm from the moment he took guard in the 15th over of the day, subtle back cuts and glides to the fore, a sensible approach on such a slow, low surface. He played with great selectivity, purred into an occasional deft drive and wavered only once, on 77, the over after the Broad brouhaha, when Haddin missed a tough, low chance off Peter Siddle. Haddin's mood, dark enough as it was, turned a shade blacker.

There were other issues for the umpires to deal with, too. Bell and Broad were warned for running down the centre of the pitch after tea and Pattinson was reminded that when it came to an appeal, once as quite enough as he hollered twice for an lbw appeal against Bell, who got a big inside edge.

England win these days by wearing down their opponents. Their run rate over their last dozen Tests is lower than any Test nation but Zimbabwe and for much of the day they were at their most painstaking as they battled to make light of a first-innings deficit of 65.

Only when Matt Prior briefly broke free against the second new ball did they begin to summon an attacking response. Shane Watson, who had been seen as a reluctant bowler in this Test because of a strain or two, delivered 15 overs of sedate medium pace for 11 runs, bringing the ball back with the risk of low bounce, always likely to take a wicket without actually advertising as much.

Michael Clarke delayed taking the second new ball for three overs but he might have delayed it longer because Prior was still new to the crease, with a single to his name from five deliveries. James Pattinson, in particular, had got the old ball to reverse markedly, England's innings was limping along at less than two runs an over and the slow, low surface was particularly treacherous to Prior who likes nothing more than to feed of off-side width and bounce.

Against the first new ball they made 176 for 5 at less than two an over; against its successor they made 160 for 1 at 3.2.

The new ball was much to Prior's tastes, never better illustrated than by his resounding pull, against Mitchell Starc. But on 31, from only 42 balls, the pitch betrayed him as he tried to pull Pattinson, the ball stuck in the surface, and he holed out to midwicket off the bottom of the bat.

The exhortation in the England dressing room, as they resumed on 80 for 2, only 15 ahead, would have been to bat all day. To make 246 for 4 was more than they dared hope. There was a remorseless mood about Alastair Cook as he registered his slowest half-century in Tests, more than four-and-a-quarter hours, pedestrian progress designed to right the wrongs of England's first innings.

Since his elevation to the England captaincy, Cook had always turned a Test fifty into a hundred. Agar, a graceful Australian debutant having the game of his life, had no respect for such statistics. Fifty was all he got. Agar outdid him with a touch of extra bounce from the rough as he tried to turn him into the leg side. Clarke's springing catch to his left was a good one; soon followed up by some stretches of his dicky back. Cook's wicket is worth 100 hours of remedial massage.

Australia were in no mood to allow Cook's staple diet of nudges off his pads. Their tactics are clearly to stifle him by bowling length outside off stump. On another warm morning, Cook impassively watched the deliveries pass by, like a lizard on a rock, waiting for a suitable beetle to come into range.

Kevin Pietersen, on 64, was England's first batsman to perish, his careworn stand with Cook worth 110 in 49 overs, the memories of England's painstaking progress in Tests in India and New Zealand during the winter revived with every over. He fought hard to play straight, forewarned of the dangers that could befall him if he did not when he whipped Siddle through midwicket and thick-edged the ball through cover, but then he got a ball from Pattinson that said "hit me" and could not resist it.

Pattinson deserved his moment as he caused Pietersen to drag on, attempting an off-side drive. He had found the edge earlier in the over and must have been wearied by its trundling progress well short of slip on such a torpid surface. Pietersen's error illustrated that a drag-on always a possibility. Bairstow became a second victim for Agar, edging to the wicketkeeper as he pushed at one that turned. Agar looks to be Australia's best chance of producing a regular spinner since Warne, but it is a rum list.

But Australia were to suffer for their over-excitement by wasting their final review on Pattinson's lbw appeal against Bairstow. Umpire Kumar Dharmasena gave it not out, but when he awarded runs it tempted Australia into a review because they were convinced it had struck the pad, forgetting to factor in that it was passing harmlessly down the leg side.

It was an embarrassing waste of a review. But it was doubtless not quite as embarrassing as it was for Aleem Dar several hours later.

David Hopps is the UK editor of ESPNcricinfo

RSS Feeds: David Hopps

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by JG2704 on (July 14, 2013, 21:53 GMT)

@sachin_vvsfan on (July 13, 2013, 11:28 GMT) Decisions go with and against all teams. Even in this match there were controversies against Eng before the Broad incident

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 11:50 GMT)

This match looks like a match of records for Austrailia, so my prediction is that they will In this one and break the second innings chase of 284 at Trent Bridge..

Posted by electric_loco_WAP4 on (July 13, 2013, 11:41 GMT)

Get in Agar @ 3 . Sue and certain that he will smash his fav. bowling attack of Eng to a blistering 100 and get what he unfortunately missed - A ton on debut! I guess Eng have no idea how to get him out. He might as well enjoy himself with this Eng bowling and smash them out of sight! Guess 1 or 2 50s or the 100 that is due from Clarke will settle the scores . 1-0 to Aus .MoM ,Yes Ashton 'who' Agar !

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 11:35 GMT)

come on aus win in style here. a fan of aus batting fro9m india . only 300 needed

Posted by sachin_vvsfan on (July 13, 2013, 11:28 GMT)

England bundled out for 375. Now the target is 311. So how crucial was that Broads wicket. The target could have been around 280+ Interesting to see how Aussies chase now. May be promotion for Agar? If they fall just short of the chase then they would experience the same pain that we Indians felt in that infamous Sydney when Symonds alone was reprieved 3 times by umpires (1 catch 2 stumpings)

Posted by runout49 on (July 13, 2013, 11:20 GMT)

Its not a matter of should Broad have walked, its the poor standard of umpiring that is the issue. Not sure why Billy was dropped he certainly wasn't any worse than some who are officiating these days. Today is a new day and its time for Shane (I'll-bat-where-I-want-to and-bowl-when-I-feel-like-it) Watson to repay the confidence show in him by the selectors and the new coach.

Posted by smats on (July 13, 2013, 11:12 GMT)

@ last Broad has walked off... Who told Englishman are gentlemen's...

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 11:01 GMT)

My question to all those advocates of DRS is why there should be a limit for the reviews? Why not give the right to review all through and make it harder to get a result?

Posted by sachin_vvsfan on (July 13, 2013, 10:44 GMT)

Now Broad is gone (added some 28 runs extra and the extra partnership was 59 runs) . Lets see if Aussies can wrap it up. If Eng scores another 100 runs from here on then this is game over and there is no point in crying over Broads decision.

Posted by afs_talyarkhan on (July 13, 2013, 10:41 GMT)

For those old enough to remember there was a time when batsmen walked. It started to change in the seventies, with Packer, headguards, neutral umpires. The last 'walkers' I can remember are Brian Lara and Adam Gilchrist. I was fortunate to have witnessed a gentler, more chivalrous sport where the spirit of the players counted for more than the letter of the law. Once you have undermined the spirit of an arena of human activity you have killed what it made it ineffably unique - you have reduced it to just another commodified spectacle, to be packaged in whatever way its marketing requires.

Posted by GRVJPR on (July 13, 2013, 10:37 GMT)

Borin test match already. No swing, no seam and ordinary batsmen (including number 11) scoring runs, Reall need ball to turn and bounce by 3rd day just as it does in India. It tests skill and character. In england I have seen even Ajit Agarkar and Anil Kumble scoring hundreds. Even bresnan and broad score a plenty. How rediculous. I am turning off my TV. Most boring commentary as well.

Posted by SamWintson92 on (July 13, 2013, 10:15 GMT)

There should be a law made that will enable the 3rd umpire to overturn the wrong decision of field umpire. There's no hide as technology shows everything. I'm supporting England but I say Broad was out caught. I'm sure cricket fans want fair cricket.

Posted by Mutukisna on (July 13, 2013, 10:13 GMT)

Following yesterday's controversy there is a school of thought that DRS reviews should be unlimited. But this will result in a lot of time wastage. We need the game to flow!

My suggestion is that each umpire is allowed one review per innings and that this could only be used if 1) one team's reviews have been exhausted and 2) if the umpire himself is unsure of the decision he is being asked to make at that juncture. After all we all want all decisions to be as accurate as possible and any proposal to minimise the error factor in the game should be welcomed and adopted.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 9:37 GMT)

Good to see Broad edging England ahead, still Aus can't complain to much as Trott was not out and his wicket is a lot more valuable than Broads. Also I'm not sure why a player should walk for a thick edge and not a thin one (no one seems that bothered when its a thin edge) as surely its morally the same. If Australia nip the rest out quickly they have a chance but if the lead passes 300 its going to be pretty hard if the ball starts spinning.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 8:39 GMT)

If DRS is to be used at all, then it should be at the behest of the umpire only - let them make the Timeout signal whenever they think they need help on critical decisions, like they do in Rugby. Then there's a conversation between umpire & 3rd umpire to establish the correct decision.

The danger is that there will be pressure on them to use it, but not to over-use it - a delicate balance there.

TV usage of the technology should only be allowed when it has been referred, we don't want any mistakes in not using it made obvious, it only serves to inflame players and supporters and TV pundits, and embarrass the umpires - let's not forget it's a very difficult job they do.

I'd also like to have the 3rd umpire have the ability to alert the on-field umpire of a blatantly incorrect unreferred OUT decision and recall the outgoing batsman before he leaves the field. The reverse (incorrect unreferred NOT OUT decision) can't really be reversed without affecting continuity of the game.

Posted by FinalSayWithJJ on (July 13, 2013, 8:37 GMT)

Aleem Dar should be dropped for the rest of the series, umpires should be selected the same way players are... His form has never been good, its just another in a long list of bad calls... Get rid of him!

Posted by thousandtalks on (July 13, 2013, 8:36 GMT)

As far as I can remember Dharmasena is the best umpire after the retirement of Mr.Tuffnel. He once again proved it in this match !

Posted by Mitty2 on (July 13, 2013, 8:12 GMT)

Oh and not to mention plays and misses and a dropped catch by Cowan!

Posted by king78787 on (July 13, 2013, 8:09 GMT)

Forget about Broad because Bell has played a blinder. He is the most underrated batsmen in cricket for definite. He has a beautiful cover drive and all the other shots as well. I personally believe he the greatest technician in the England line up and is one of the very few people in world cricket who can play a BIG innings at 5. Clarke is the only other person I can think of who has that ability.

Posted by Mitty2 on (July 13, 2013, 8:07 GMT)

Well, just watched the highlights of the last session after watching the first two sessions last night. That truly is one of the luckiest innings I've seen! Dropped catches off haddin, edges every second bowl, inside edges that just miss the stumps, LBW against Agar (he left the ball off agar and if we could review it would've been out) and of course, that hocking blunder of Dar's that he clearly edged! Hopefully this luck doesn't pervade to his bowling!!!

Posted by Fluffykins on (July 13, 2013, 7:57 GMT)

Lets stop the moralising clap trap and move on.Today is looking very exciting lets hope that we don't get anymore shockers on the decision front and we can just enjoy a thrilling days play.Btw I am England fan and did not care about either Clarke nor Petersen not walking thats for the umpire to decide.

Posted by BradmanBestEver on (July 13, 2013, 7:57 GMT)

A_Vacant_Slip - you state that: "NO Australian EVER walked"

I disagree. Remember the best keeper batsman of all time? One Adam Gilchrist. He is an Aussie and he used to walk.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 7:53 GMT)

If your team only walk when the umpire raises his finger, it will come back to haunt you in the other direction one day. Cricket was a byword for gentlemanly behavior. Not so these days regretably.

Posted by BradmanBestEver on (July 13, 2013, 7:48 GMT)

Take the decision to review out of the players hands and give it to the guy who makes the decision - the umpire.

If the umpire is uncertain he goes upstairs. If he is certain he stays downstairs. Problem solved.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 7:32 GMT)

Australia wasted both of their DRS appeals on speculatory wickets, they are there to overturn the "howler" not to change a marginal LBW ecision, the review against Bairstow was clearly going down past leg stump, Haddin should have known that, the way he had to set off down legside, it was clearly going to go down. A_Vacant_Slip, Adam Gilchrist was a proud walker and an Australian - yes he may have been the only one to walk since 1980, but he was an honest walker. Very few players walk nowadays, they wait to be given out, since theoretically you're not out until the umpire raises the finger unless you retire out. That's the rule of the game and people stick to it - for better or worse.

Posted by runout49 on (July 13, 2013, 7:28 GMT)

I look forward to Broad's reaction next time a batsman doesn't walk when clearly out off his bowling. Also looking forward to the reception he'll get when he takes the field in the series in Australia at the end of the year.

Posted by oscoli67 on (July 13, 2013, 7:24 GMT)

The rules of the game haven't changed, and neither has the DRS and teams' availability of DRS referals. On exactly the same day of test 1 of the last ashes series at the Gabba, Australia were batting and Anderson bowled to Hussey who was 40 odd not out. The ball cannoned into his pads, bang in front, huge appeal. The same umpire, Aleem Dar, who I still think is one of the best, thought he had inside edged the ball and gave him not out. Replays showed he was out. England had, by then, used up both their reviews. Hussey went on to make a hundred. Did he cheat by letting the umpire make the wrong decision in good faith? Of course he didn't. These things happen. If you use up your reviews on things you'd like to be out, rather than things that look like they should be out, as Clarke did yesterday, then you face the consequences of bad decisions later in the innings. In 2 days time or less Clarke will be 1 nil down with a lesson hopefully learned.

Posted by tjsimonsen on (July 13, 2013, 7:23 GMT)

Boycott made a very good point yesterday: If a batsman is given out although he missed the ball by several inches he must go (if no reviews are available). If he stands his gound, he is showing dissent and must be punished. So why should he walk if he is given not out? In fact one could argue (my view - not expressed by Boycott) that walking is showing dissent as it is disrespecting the umpires desicion. Yes there is such fussy thing as 'the spirit of the game'. But cricket is also a fully professional game. Let's not forget that.

Finally, to those who are now arguing that all there shouldn't be any appeals for reviews and that all decisions should automatically go to the third umpire. Have you considered the full consequnces of this? It would mean that EVERY SINGLE LBW appeal that is turned down should go upstairs! How many overs do you think we would get in a day? My guess is max 60.

Posted by trafique on (July 13, 2013, 7:15 GMT)

I think Australia get benefited of 2 controversial decision on 2nd day and one mistake of umpire gone against them their frustration arise in whinging :)

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 7:00 GMT)

Oh if only England had of used up their two appeals before Bells 'LBW' against Watto came, there would have been a riot!

I feel like the game is getting away from us but just keep on fighting lads, just keep on fighting, as Bell showed the pitch is very flat if you can just play within yourself. Keep Swann out and 300 may just be gettable.

Posted by YorkshirePudding on (July 13, 2013, 6:59 GMT)

@Naveed Khan, yeah right because australians walk when they knowingly knick the ball, like Clarke did at Adelaide in 2010/11, when he pushed a ball from KP. This from the commentary on this very site.

"Clarke set off until he realised there was no decision made by the umpire, England had to review straight away and it proved the significant inside edge."

And there are many more examples of this from Australians over the years. So I don't think Clarke can complain about this a hes just as guilty, and if he had played in the spirit of the game he would have kept walking.

Posted by orangtan on (July 13, 2013, 6:51 GMT)

In all the brouhaha about Broad, we are forgetting that fieldsmen often appeal for bat-pad catches when they know there has been no contact with the bat/gloves and get away with it. Also, in the final of the Celkon cup, Angelo Mathews appealed for a run-out off a deflection except that there was clearly no deflection and he jolly well knew it. So, let's move on, and let's not rehash this event like Indian fans often rehash the events of the notorious Sydney Test of Jan 2008, Michael Clarke was there wasn't he ?.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 6:49 GMT)

Aleem dar should have taken the risk and given broad out, just because england had 2 more reviews with them and also stuart broad was the best person to review it if he had'nt nicked it.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 6:40 GMT)

Well Lady Luck really turned round for England. Not just for the shocking Broad decision but how Broad managed to stay in as long as he has. Bell played really well and must be up there for man of the match depending on what happens in the last innings. With the hot sun today, the pitch will turn more ( I know these things, I'm a groundsman!) So Swan will come into the reckoning big time, maybe some overs from Root too. BUT it's a funny old game!

Posted by BoonBoom on (July 13, 2013, 6:36 GMT)

This is unfair to ridicule the umpires.... Dar made genuine mistake but his umpiring has been top class in this match except that Broad's decision. Don't forget the big names of the past (before ICC elite panel was formed) who made 'deliberate' mistakes yet stayed and helped their country to win many test matches. David Constant is on top of that list!!

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 6:31 GMT)

It may be recalled that Denesh Ramdin was banned for two games during the Champions Trophy for claiming a catch when the ball had popped out. Broad should be judged on the same yardstick. It is almost impossible to believe that a batsman who nicks a ball does not know about it. Clearly, this is an example where the spirit of cricket (if there is such a thing today) has been breached and Broad should be taken to task. However, as we all know by now, having your dad as an ICC match referee is very useful. Therefore, it is unlikely that anything will be done about the issue.

Posted by hvenkat2000 on (July 13, 2013, 6:26 GMT)

As the controversy rages, this brings up ethics to the fore. The question is whether Broad consciously knew he nicked it. If he knew, then not walking akin to being unethical. If he was not sure whether he nicked it or if he was confident he didn't nick it, then he cannot be blamed for not walking. Now, how do we know if he knew it or not. We will never know until well into the future when Broad speaks to one of his grandchildren in the backyard whether he knew or not. For now, players have to commit themselves to playing ethically as well. For this, leadership is key. Perhaps in this situation, the captain should step forward & recall the batsman before the next ball is bowled when the TV replays showed the obvious. Why blame one decision maker (umpire in this case) for not having the benefit of TV replays. Captain Cook should set the tone for honesty, ethics & fair play. Should England go on to win this test match, the sheen will be lost due to this one incident.

Posted by Mitty2 on (July 13, 2013, 6:13 GMT)

@RU4REALNICK, really? "Bell you little beauty"...? You've been Bell's biggest critic and have said tht you'd prefer having three unacomplished batsmen in rather than him... And yet now you turn around like that. Regardless, it was a great innings and it contradicts all the bell stereotypes of not scoring under pressure, not being able to play with grunt (ugly), etc

On where the game stands, england should win it, however if patto lifts from his unrewarded performance (he's been criticised but it's flat and he's bowled tightly and has been unlucky) and if starc does what he never does (takes wickets under pressure) or rather if anyone performs and we get them out for 300, we'll be slight chances. I still think that we're chances because of the positives of agar and Hughes, the positives of performing admirably and not being overawed, the positives of defying the predictions/consensus could pervade to the batsmen and they could finally click. Clarke should go to 5, but still, he is key.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 6:09 GMT)

England supporters should stop mumbling on about the Agar and Trott decisions...they were the right decisions in each circumstance, no doubt about it. Broad is entitled to stand his ground, and he did, as obvious as edge was. The only thing you can learn from that incident is that Aleem Dar is indeed a bad umpire and has been for a while, and Brad Haddin should never be consulted on when to use a review, he doesn't have a great record at those ones!

Posted by Mitty2 on (July 13, 2013, 6:03 GMT)

I think the day's play highlights a precedent for the rest of the Ashes. With a flat deck with no pace, no conventional swing and no huge turn (Agar bowled very well I thought), I'd say we won the first two sessions. And with the good bowling, brilliant fields and tactics, I thought that we were a little unlucky to not have more (I though the reversed Bell decision was plumb). However, despite all the fight, despite the fact that we've got plans for every batsmen and have restricted eng's top order both times, despite winning (marginally) the first two sessions, England, with all their experience, won the crucial session and won it convincingly (helped by a terrible decision). I believe that will perpetuate in the series. We have the better captain (tactic wise), the better quicks, and some improving batsmen, but England have the experience, more talent, and are playing at home. We'll fight, but England will win the crucial sessions.

And no one walks in modern cricket. Fine with that.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 5:40 GMT)

A few things about the 'Broad Edge'.

(1) it was out and perhaps one of the worst decisions I have seen in a long time. (2) The Australians wasted at least one of their reviews prior to that and need to re think that strategy. (3) A batman not walking after a feather is the same as a batsman not walking if they middled it. (4) If Broad makes a century and one of the Australian top order get given out when they are not then that evens things out decision wise. (5) The English complaints yesterday were greeted with a chorus of 'whingeing poms', but look who's whingeing now.

Posted by Rajdeepgupta on (July 13, 2013, 5:38 GMT)

if you watch Ramdin's video, you'll notice that he didn't appeal for the catch. Umpire gave Misbah out and he joined his teammates though he could have told them he has dropped the catch. Similarly, Broad didn't walk across to Aleem Dar and told him that it was out. In both the cases, you are trying to correct an incorrect situation- isn't that what Cricket sportsmanship is about?

Posted by anupamraj114 on (July 13, 2013, 5:35 GMT)

Pieterson said yesterday "Every batsman should respect umpire's decision" Then why the hell did Andy Flower and Strauss came begging in the Indian dressing room when they knew their batsman is such a big fool that he didn't realize that the ball has not yet been called dead. It was mistake of Bell and Indians were being taught the lesson of so called spirit of cricket and that too by england which was involved in the most shameful incident against NZ when Elliot collided with Sidebottom and Collingwood didn't withdrew the appeal. This sums up Dhoni comments "Spirit of Cricket comes in mind only when you are at the receiving end." Cricinfo please publish..

Posted by grahaam on (July 13, 2013, 5:27 GMT)

Having played and watched cricket for many years, one of the best moments is always seeing a batsman walk, it make you proud to be involved in such a display of simple honesty, Broads example will ricochet through cricket to all levels and basically teach children to be dis-honest. Thats the bottom line.....

Posted by thebrotherswaugh on (July 13, 2013, 5:21 GMT)

Spare a thought for Aleem Dar - the hardest job in cricket is that of the umpires, and I bet their remuneration wouldn't be 25% of the average OZ or ENG cricketer. They have to deal with constant scrutiny and unbelievable pressure, they can get 9/10 calls right, but the minute they get one wrong, they cop it. The hardest officiating job in world sport, bar none. Five days of relentless, non-stop pressure. They also have to deal with te 'gamesmanship' of the players - look how often teams appeal when the majority of appealers know the decision should be not out, but the idea is to build pressure and uncertainty in the batsman's mind. Aleem Dar is one of the finest umpires in the game at the moment, so give him a break and get over it. The better team generally wins over the course of a 5-day match, regardless of a few poor decisions here and there.

Posted by calcu on (July 13, 2013, 5:06 GMT)

Broad needs to learn sportsmanship. Aleem dar needs to learn World class umpiring.

Posted by shawnboomboomdeodat on (July 13, 2013, 5:04 GMT)

I'm glad to see England batting coming together a bit. If England wins the match i can see people saying its a team effort but if they lost the critics will say all those batsman needs to convert the start they got into big scores.Big ones like those which one them the ashes in Austrilia the last time. Hope Bell turn out to be the hero get the big one.Engand bowlers can defend 300 comfortably on this pitch, unless Clark can make a double like he started the year, but i dont see a good backup for clark. Has Agar done his job?? He broke world record yes but he was picked to bowl, & that will keep him in the team. But great job young man. You are the true hero in this test match, you have outscored your captain, watson and outclassed Hughes with the bat. Wow what a debute..

Posted by din7 on (July 13, 2013, 5:02 GMT)

To start with that was the biggest howler i ever saw in cricket and may be the biggest i w'll ever see in cricket..an umpire giving not out to a batsmen when he has edge to slips...to slips ...to slips hahahah evrytime i see that and think abt it i burst in laughter...Aleem Dar...oh mate ur a legend! Isnt broad's fault he didnt walked even sachin never walks....Comin back to test i thought it would be close but no more they already have 260 and could get around 50 more and that will be it! they were 154(lead) for 6 and shld have been allout for maximun 80 more, around 230 or 240 but this is way too poor from aus, aussies losin this is just a formality now, even if they get them for 280....they have lost such a great chance of victory...so aus are goin nowhere just goin down and down and 1st time i disaapointed with clarke's aptaincy..very poor from clarke...what the bowlers doin...no bouncers nothin...not even tryin to get broad out..just bowlin that line length...AUS are over!

Posted by geminianrahul on (July 13, 2013, 5:01 GMT)

If I were the umpire I would have given more 50 - 50 decisions against the side that has reviews left which is more logical and a win win situation for all. What at the worst would happen. Decision being over turned if the umpire is wrong. But the point is technology would be used and the correct decision would previal which is good for the game. I am afraid Aleem Dar completely got this wrong and his thinking of giving that not out dint make any sense atleast in my book. I hope both the on field umpires give more decisions against Eng on day 4 as they are sitting pretty with 2 DRS reviews in their kitty. Let them review and get it right if the umpires make a real blunder.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 4:49 GMT)

Broad's refusal to walk is exactly what Australia deserved after Agar was surely out on 6 and given not out, from around 125 for 9 then the score went to 280...Australia benefiting by 155 runs, via a wrong decision.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 4:43 GMT)

Fantastic day of test cricket. Good to see England on top. As far as Broad walking as he had clearly nicked it, Aussies have no rights to fume about it. We all know how good they are at walking, seen it in the past. Feels so good when Aussies are at the receiving end for a change.

Posted by thebrotherswaugh on (July 13, 2013, 4:42 GMT)

@RednWhiteArmy - it cracks me up the amount of people who obsess over the speed gun - which is notoriously unreliable. None of these bowlers are anywhere near the pace of Ahktar and Lee - but who cares. Anderson is world-class in any era, and Siddle is heading in that direction as well. With the plethora of protective equipment, pace without consistent sideways movement is just an invitation to help the ball on its way to an easy boundary. Give me a bowler in the mould of McGrath any day. @Fluffykins - that's what happens when they're wrapped in cotton wool & over indulged - he tends to have the odd on-field 'dummy spit', but it is early day's yet and I expect him to improve throughout the series. I also thought Finn bowled very poorly on Day 2 when he kept bowling short rubbish at Agar fairly early in his innings and let him get set - a result of immaturity also.

Posted by Sheela on (July 13, 2013, 4:38 GMT)

For genuine cricket lovers, it is heartening to see huge crowds for Test matches both in England and Australia. Wish the same is the trend in the sub continent. Unfortunately this is not so. One can only hope people show equal interst in Test matches also.

Posted by nickleipeng on (July 13, 2013, 4:26 GMT)

The way technology is being used in cricket is deeply flawed. The poor decisions involving Trott & Broad simply should not happen. I believe that the system for using technology should be changed as follows.

1 Players should only have the ability to appeal for a wicket once, after which time the umpires should be wholly responsible for making the final decision. Players should not have the ability to challenge decisions - introducing the ability for players to challenge umpires decisions (which is often used as a tactic) & the need to ration challenges is a very unfortunate addition to the game.

2 EVERY appeal should be reviewed by the video umpire to verify the on-field umpire's decision, which may or may not have been made through consultation with the video umpire. The video umpire can verify or overturn the decision with a red or green light, with a yellow light shown to indicate that an appeal is being reviewed. The lights represent the final decision.

Posted by disco_bob on (July 13, 2013, 4:24 GMT)

I should add what makes it all the more unpalatable is that by that stage with 4 wickets remaining England were already in a winning position.

Posted by disco_bob on (July 13, 2013, 4:23 GMT)

It's not the fact of Broad's not walking that is the issue, I think it's OK for batters to stand their ground when they know they have faintly nicked it. In this case it was a massive thick edge and he instantly knew that not only had Dar made an egregious error but more importantly he cynically knew he was going to get away with it because there were no more reviews for Australia. His decision to do this when the entire ground and indeed the entire cricketing world is going to instantly be aware that he is cynically exploiting a sad state of affairs, does nothing but bring the game into disrepute and he merits the same punishment as a fielder who deliberately and knowingly claims a false catch.

Sure he got away with it but as someone once said, (maybe Dostoyevsky) the punishment IS the crime.

Posted by rajpan on (July 13, 2013, 4:19 GMT)

Australians furious because Broad didn't walk? LOL. They set the standards for this. Until then it was supposed to be gentlemen's game. Just because they were playing well they thought they could set different standards - even though wrong. Now that it is hurting them they are indignant!!

Posted by Insult_2_Injury on (July 13, 2013, 4:12 GMT)

Leave Broad out of the equation, he's a professional cricketer who has to accept poor decisions against him, so has every right to expect the impartial judge has to confirm every appeal. His decision to stand was vindicated and is now the template for the future. The problem - now as it was from inception - is the player review. Reviews should purely be in the hands of umpires. The whole reason for them was to eradicate 'howlers' having an influence on the result. That hasn't transpired and won't while players have a quota. Reviews in current format show everyone thinks they're right and are frequently wrong, but with no review left there is no recourse to address the obvious howler. The other ludicrous point was the 'unavailability' of side on hot spot to Trotts review, purely because TV had shown a replay of the previous ball. What? How can officials allow a players innings to be determined by 'sometimes' technology. Get the review out of the players hands and into the umpires.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 4:03 GMT)

As usual english supporters justifying their teams bad sportnmenship... For everyone else watching, Stuart broad was out, he knew and should have left the pitch. As to the poor umpiring , who knows? Dont forget Trott gate from the day berfore - outrage all across england because of poor umpiring... But yes Australians should not say a word, after all the english always know better.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 3:45 GMT)

first test is open but England is in dominating . if few more runs added on board. it will difficult to chase .

Posted by Unifex on (July 13, 2013, 3:42 GMT)

I'm an Aussie, and I say Broad was within his rights not to walk. Gilly was a legend for walking, but it's not mandatory. Just don't whinge if an Aussie does it and makes runs.

Posted by Sinhaya on (July 13, 2013, 3:36 GMT)

Full credit to England for superb batting in testing conditions. Brilliant batting by Broad and Bell. Broad has the tendency to bat well when England are in trouble which is exactly what a number 8 must do as he proved in 2010 by posting the world record 8th wicket stand with Trott. Broad was instrumental in drawing the Auckland test this year by blocking balls non stop. Hope Broad can go for another test ton today. I wont be surprised if the game is all over today.

Posted by sfarazi on (July 13, 2013, 3:03 GMT)

This is so interesting seeing Aussies (I am one myself) questioning Broad's character for not walking when an Aussie batsmen besides Gilchrist would have stayed knowing that he was out. Broad scored 15 runs after that decision so it's not like he was the one battering Australia so if Australia lose this test then it will be because Bell absolutely killed it out there. People should just forget and move on because you can't do anything about that decision anymore.

Posted by elle119 on (July 13, 2013, 3:00 GMT)

How's this for a change to the current rules of the DRS? ONE review for each team. This would have the effect of preventing teams from challenging 50-50 decisions and somewhat exploiting the current limitations of hotspot in the hopes of overturning an lbw decision since that's the only one they will get. Umpires however, now have the ability to check on decisions which they are not 100% sure of. e.g. Dar could have referred the decision upstairs to check for an edge today. Since umpires would have full control over what is referred and what is not, through judicious use (and standards which they have to maintain), the game would not be "slowed" down significantly. Umpires who refer excessively would have their performance reviewed and when an umpire DOESN'T refer and then team is SURE of an error, THAT's the time to use a referral. It doesn't take that much time to check for an edge. Some bowlers take longer sauntering back to their marks for the next ball...

Posted by Crimsonbat on (July 13, 2013, 2:58 GMT)

Ramadin Fined. Broad exonerated. Enough said.

Posted by joking44 on (July 13, 2013, 2:53 GMT)

Just ask yourself, would Bill Lawry, Ian Chappel or Steve Waugh have walked?

Posted by heathrf1974 on (July 13, 2013, 2:40 GMT)

Australia need to move on and focus on the game. They can't change the past. There was a call against Trott and England have been able to focus. Clarke should have handled it better as well. A team's demeanor is controlled by the captain. Pattinson should also grow up. He is having a poor game and should look at a 19 year old Agar as see how he has responded with disappointment.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 2:23 GMT)

Cricket stopped being a gentleman's game years ago...

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 2:19 GMT)

I've never known any Aussie to walk in a test match. The last time I saw it in international cricket was Gilchrist in an ODI but even then Ponting razzed him for it when he walked off. Point is would Siddle have done the same thing as Broad in the same circumstances? Absolutely. Let's move on, Bell is the reason why England are in this position, let us give him the appropriate praise for probably his finest knock to date.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 2:17 GMT)

Two nations with sportive spirit are playing GREAT gentlemen s game

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 2:15 GMT)

It's umpire who gives out or not out nowdays, if it was aussie player I don't think sharne warne would have given such comment about the best umpire of the world in last two years, but we know aussies very well, they don't like to go out even Umpire give them out, Broad did well what he felt was right for the team.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 2:14 GMT)

How many times the australian teams were found wanting for sportsmanship...the number of howlers from umpires and unsportsmanlike behaviour from Michael Clarke, claiming the catch of Saurav Ganguly in slips during the Sydney test match in 2007-08 India-Australia series Down under is still lingering in the minds of cricket lovers... ...controversy over one decision not going your way is totally unwarranted...

Posted by SFBarnes-924-Test-Wickets on (July 13, 2013, 2:11 GMT)

The highest 4th innings Ashes run chase at TB is 189..........the highest ever is 284.

Another stinking hot day...........England could post a target of 300+.

Posted by tests_the_best on (July 13, 2013, 2:11 GMT)

On second thoughts, about the Broad non-dismissal, there's not even the lack of DRS to bemoan. Wouldn't it make more sense to allow 3-4 reviews per side? As it is, reviewing a decision doesn't take so much time that it would considerably stretch the time required for the day's allotted overs. Might be worth thinking about for the ICC.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 2:08 GMT)

Im reading a lot of justification over the Broad decision due to some marginal calls going Ozzies way earlier in the game. Thats fine. But how on earth does one of the best umpires in the world miss something like that. Thats the worst umpiring decision i have seen in a long while. Keep your eyes on the game Aleem Dar!!!

Posted by tests_the_best on (July 13, 2013, 2:06 GMT)

The controversial Broad not-out happened when the lead was already 232. If he was correctly given out, maybe England would have set Aus a target of 250 odd or so (it could have been more or less but that's a rough estimate). Assuming Aus fold cheaply in their second outing, that would be the end of the controversy but if Aus lose by being all out for some 200-odd, I would be very interested to check out the Aus fans' comments on this forum. Expect a riot lol!

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 2:06 GMT)

Im still an old school type of cricketer and believe bad decisions even themselves out over time, and to some extent that has already happened in this test. The Austs can't dwell on this and should take comfort in that fact that if they bowl and field like this more often, they will win more games then they lose. However in this Test Eng have played the conditions expertly and are clear favourites to take this one.

Posted by landl47 on (July 13, 2013, 2:02 GMT)

Getting back to the cricket, I suggested before the game started that if Australia used Pattinson and Starc as stock bowlers their effectiveness would steadily decline. They did and it has. Bad decisions or not, to take only 4 wickets in a day's play on a pitch which has grown more difficult as the match has gone on is not going to cut it for Australia. If it wasn't for the heroics of Agar and Hughes, this game would be out of sight for Aus. As it is, another 40 runs is going to leave a stiff target. Once the ball has the shine off it, Swann and Anderson will be a difficult proposition. Great work from Bell, well-supported by the middle order.

For Australia, the 3 quicks had their moments, but long before the end of the day Siddle and Starc were bowling medium-pace and Pattinson no more than fast-medium. Agar wasn't accurate enough on a pitch which cried out for line and length.

Unlike the first two days, tonight it's advantage England- but will there be more twists to come?

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 1:55 GMT)

So lets split the discussion into 2 parts. First should batsmen walk - certainly they should but they are correct in saying that when they get bad decisions they dont get called back - so for the spirit of cricket they should walk, realistically they dont. We can all live with that.

Secondly do you walk against the Aussies? The hardest playing nation on earth. With grudging respect we understand the way they play the game and aspire to be as clinical as they are - we accept their mantra to "allow the umpire to make the decision" - they ARE in a position to question the umpires decisions today, they are not however holders of the moral high ground of "walking".

Still this test has been unbelievably wonderful and great for cricket as a whole and test cricket in particular - this is a great thing and as an Irish person, only wants us to play at that level even more (any chance please ICC?)

Posted by David_Boon on (July 13, 2013, 1:55 GMT)

More biased commentary about how nobody walks anymore so its OK for Broad not to. Jonny Bairstow walked only a few hours before him! Edged it, saw it caught and just started walking, didn't look for the umpires confirmation. So people do walk....

Posted by Shaggy076 on (July 13, 2013, 1:47 GMT)

Having now seen the Broad dismissal - I have never seen an Australian not walk for that. What was the umpire thinking I have never seen a more obvious dismissal not given. However, Clarke has ony himself to blame for not having use of DRS.

Posted by gusg1981 on (July 13, 2013, 1:35 GMT)

Great day of test cricket. Tiring to watch, such discipline from both teams, such concentration it was tremendous. Bell was superb and the Australian bowlers toiled admirably to make the 3rd day as gripping as the first two, even if runs and wickets were hard to come by.

However, the ICC needs to sort out the technology to prevent it from overshadowing good test cricket. It was brought in to eliminate the howlers and it isn't! How many times have we seen a batsman dismissed only to have the front foot checked to discover the bowler was over? So what is wrong with the 3rd umpire radioing down to Aleem Dar "Aleem, he has clearly hit it to first slip" Aleem Dar can then give him out,howler averted, anger averted, more importantly the right decision is made!

I think the teams should have 2 LBW reviews and that is it. All other decisions the umpires look after. Replays are available within seconds, so why can' t the 3rd umpire chime in when obvious mistakes are made?

Posted by adeelicap on (July 13, 2013, 1:24 GMT)

Aussies stop commenting on umpires decision we know how Aussies world class umpires used to keep silence wan it matter Aussies win. N no body want to leave crease except few names includes gilchirist nd younis khan

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 1:08 GMT)

so good to see a team who doesn't use the DRS as it should be, finally get punished, needed to happen and what better team and moment to have it happen, so teams wise up, DRS is for 'HOWLERS', not possible LBWs. DRS is for catches and inside edges in the main and this approach is the one to take. bad luck aussie, oh well it wasn't really was it, it was poor referral management.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 1:03 GMT)

Chris Broad the match referee would have suspended an Indian player had he done what Stuart Broad had done. I presume these code of conduct things do not apply to white players especially sons of match referees!

Posted by indianpunter on (July 13, 2013, 1:01 GMT)

Agree that Dar made a howler. But Trott didnt deserve it, neither did England. Erasmus was not even aware that Hot Spot was NOT available for the delivery that got Trot ( it was still keyed into the previous delivery, Root's dismissal). As much as i am not a Broad fan, he was well within his right to stay put. Sydney 2008 anyone?? andrew symonds hit the cover of the ball and stayed put ( Bucknor gave it not out). Same test.The paragon of virtue, Michael Clarke, hit the ball to slip and stayed put. He did NOT walk. But this time Bucknor gave it out. What goes around, comes around.

Posted by DukeRama on (July 13, 2013, 0:54 GMT)

@Nursery-ender- atleast an Aussie walks..name an Englishman who's walked with or without petrol??

Posted by DukeRama on (July 13, 2013, 0:51 GMT)

interesting comments from some..setting up new precedence... i hear you say, hit to mid on or mid off..or even pop it to long on..and still stand your ground until the ump gives you out..does this make it right?..This bloke blatantly hit it to first slip and knowing Aus didnt have a referral left, he stood his ground..I'd understand if he'd done a feather nick to the keeper..This is i believe is the death of cricket if we think Broad did the right thing..Now every batter will hit it to 3rd slip or 3rd man and stand his/her ground..Go figure..

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 0:49 GMT)

test cricket at its best ! some - great performances - Drama - Whinging - Application - fantastic :)

Posted by Chris_Howard on (July 13, 2013, 0:32 GMT)

@just_Test_lover. Broad didn't have to walk. Why would he? Many decisions go the other way as in your batting career and you don't get the choice to stay then. e.g. Trott. He knew he'd hit it but he doesn't get the option to stay in. So nor should a player have to walk when they know they're out.

If a batsman should have to walk, then an umpire should believe him when he says he knicked an LBW.

It goes both ways or neither.

This also proves yet again that DRS should only be used for the howlers. They are the ones that cause the most angst.

Still reckon England need at least another 40 runs. They need runs to play with to keep the pressure on when the Aussies build partnerships.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 0:26 GMT)

Congratulations to the 6 English batsmen who are already out, the one Ian Bell for whose dour but sensible batting, and the TWO Broads, for the laborious but committed fightback!

Posted by Noel-Kalicharan on (July 13, 2013, 0:24 GMT)

What say you now, Mr Chris Broad? You fined West Indies wicketkeeper Denesh Ramdin 100% of his match fee and suspended for two-thirds of the ICC Champions Trophy for claiming a catch he had not taken. You stated then "This is regarded as a serious offence as it is the responsibility of all players to act in the spirit of the game." So how do you regard the action of your son, Stuart, for remaining at the wicket when it was obvious to all that he was out? He knew he was out since "he turned so red you could not see him blush". Isn't this contrary to the spirit of the game? I expect that the match referee will impose the severest penalty on Stuart. If not, it will just highlight the hypocrisy and double-standards that exist in cricket today.

Posted by   on (July 13, 2013, 0:21 GMT)

'Spirit' of Cricket? Don't talk about it any more! Both these teams had demonstrated over the years, that is something they down like any other 'spirit' they down through their over- hollering throats, in their favourite pubs at the end of the day, or in the Australian equivalent ! The old two 'masters' of the great game seem to say, "Anything goes in this ruthless 'modern' version of the game!". Love and War has new company; Cricket!

Posted by Regriot on (July 13, 2013, 0:12 GMT)

For just test lover. So far about 120 runs in Australia's credit. Plus agar was out. Broad was not.

Posted by Chris_P on (July 12, 2013, 23:55 GMT)

@nursery_ender . Let me tell you my friend, with the advent of mobile phones, we don't even walk for that any more! That aside, these are the rules they agreed to play by, so let's move on. I have seen some absolute howlers in the past & probably will see more than a few more in future. Has this game still to give us any more twists? 3 days, & still many of us are intrigued. This is what Test cricket is all about!

Posted by electric_loco_WAP4 on (July 12, 2013, 23:29 GMT)

I predict that the Aus bowlers will be fired up tom. and the bad decisions they got will only add to the fire in the belly. They will be all out on attack to avenge the wrongs and it is not good signs for Eng. The Aus quicks have bowled well within themselves and tried more on lateral movement and swing and being accurate. Expect the spell of the match by Pattinson and Ian Bell getting a peach @95 mph in the first over of the day and his stumps uprooted for 95. The tail be cleaned up by Patto within 10 runs and a well deserved 5-fer for him. I've got a feeling Aston Agar will come in at 3 at the fall of an early wkt and complete an incredible debut by dominating the Eng bowling with a 100 and an easy win for Aus. No guesses as to who will be the Man of Match!! - :)

Posted by cloudmess on (July 12, 2013, 23:29 GMT)

Broad was right to stand his ground and Australia were right to be angry. But the person I feel sorry for tonight for Aleem Dar. With the technology available, there just should have been some system in place to quietly overturn his decision. Instead of which, he's now been hung out to dry in full view of the media, Boycott, Warne et al, for one correctible mistake.

Posted by seniorgators on (July 12, 2013, 23:28 GMT)

Neil Perry Root not out? He has played away from his body, snicko has shown a noise, the Aussies have appealed, the umpire has given out and Root who had the opportunity to appeal has NOT. Why ? Because he very faintly nicked it! He was disappointed and it is a terrible way to get dismissed nicking down the leg side but you are kidding yourselves if you think he was not out. He knew it. THAT IS WHY HE DID NOT APPEAL IT. They did not have to show Hot spot because Root had already conceded he had knicked it. Australia have had 3 lbw decisions go against them where the ball has been shown to have hit the stumps but the umpires have not given it, if they had and the English had appealed it would be still out. The other lbw for Australia where the ball was shown to have just hit the stumps was Rogers but you guessed it. On that occasion the umpire DID raise his finger. Agar got the benefit of the doubt because part of his foot was inside the line and may have been grounded.

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 23:27 GMT)

I remember Justin Langer not moving when he absolutely smashed a ball to the keeper in Hobart test against Pakistan in 1999, resulting in an unexpected Ausi win, however this was even worst than that as Broad smashed it from face of his bat and stayed. I think tomorrow I'll hot one straight to the long on boundary, and will stay on the wicket like broad saying that it hit something else and not my bat.....Broad should be ashamed and if I was England's captain, I'd have said that in public.

Posted by RJHB on (July 12, 2013, 23:24 GMT)

Well the umpiring has been average, for both sides, but that Dar decision is an absolute disgrace. Add to that a most disgraceful bit of sportsmanship by smug Broad and you have a situation where no Pom should bother opening their fat traps to whinge about anything again this series! In any case, in the broader picture, pun I know, who thinks umpiring has improved in standard since the DRS? There have always been the odd bad decisions, but I reckon the standard is maybe 30% worse today than it was back in the 1980s at least. That is unless you were touring Pakistan or NZ, those home umpires were horrendous!

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 23:24 GMT)

why should Broad leave when Dar gives not out. Ricky Pontiong didn't know that expression.

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 23:22 GMT)

Good God. Test cricket. What a sport. Today's play was everything that's absorbing about the game. Bell was brilliant, beyond brilliant. Watson's line was immaculate. Agar bowled well, though I have sympathy with those who say asking him to bowl out a test line-up at his age is a bit steep. A little more love is needed for Prior, I think, England were on the rack when he came in, but he simply wasn't bothered. The momentum shifted. And Broad. It's a shame,of course, we'd all love to live in a world where batsmen walk, but they don't. I recall Graeme Smith leathering the cover off the ball and then going "who, me?". I suspect if Aus had a review left Broad wouldn't have bothered hanging around.

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 23:18 GMT)

How can you expect batsmen to walk if he is given not out for out when he cannot play if umpire given out for not out? Eventually everything will cancel out..... Keep cool and enjoy the game guys!

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 23:14 GMT)

There is no moral difference between a thick edge and a thin one. Almost every batsman who thinks they have a chance will hang around. Broad is no better or worse than any of those.

Posted by Shan156 on (July 12, 2013, 23:05 GMT)

@Stumay, yes, and let's not forget the Symonds incident in Sydney 2007-2008 against India and the same Michael Clarke in the same match standing his ground after edging Kumble to slip.

I still think Broad should have walked if he knew that he edged it (which I think he would have known for sure). Not walking gives the Aussies an excuse if we win:-)

Posted by dmat on (July 12, 2013, 23:04 GMT)

Can't remember the last time an English batsman walked - probably before the war.

Posted by electric_loco_WAP4 on (July 12, 2013, 23:00 GMT)

Well England living upto their name! What's new? First the ball tampering issue that surrounded the Eng team - just ask Bob Willis - and now this! Can't get worse than this by Eng, can it ? And what will the match ref's action against Broad ? - Stuart, not Chris, mind you - :) A hefty fine and 1 match ban will do just fine. Although Aus fans will want it to be just the former and not the latter - :)

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 22:58 GMT)

Who remembers Andrew Symonds with a big thick outside edge on a stretch far from his body? Steve Waugh never walked. The Trott decision..? The list goes on .... this is a storm in a teacup. Great test cricket though!

Posted by Baundele on (July 12, 2013, 22:53 GMT)

When playing against England, every team has be prepared to get such decisions from the umpires. Australia gets similar advantages while playing against any other team. Once Pakistan visited Australia, and they were hard done by biased umpiring. Aus should not complain much.

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 22:51 GMT)

Just makes me sigh when Billy Bowden was dumped from the elite group of umpires for 'form' reasons. Load of crap. He was no worse than any of the others. Just look at Dar for peaks sake. Makes me feel that dumping Bowden was political to get another Englishman onto the panel.

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 22:49 GMT)

I thnk england will set 350 target easily which will be a big challeng for aussies......from my side england will win the 4th day of cricket.....

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 22:35 GMT)

Why is everyone complaining about the Root dismissal? That was just a regulation out. You could hear the nick which was confirmed by Snicko. Both Root and Cook new it was out so they didn't appeal. Confused. The Agar dismissal was a 50/50 call. In the end the umpire decided there wasn't conclusive evidence (which there wasn't).

The Trott decision was a shocker as he clearly hit the ball. You could see the rotation of the ball change direction as it slid past the bat. And not much more needs to be said about the Broad decision. Australia only has themselves to blame for wasting appeals on pure speculation. Although I don't think it is fair that the fielding side loses an appeal when the DRS shows that the ball would have hit the stumps (as in the first appeal). At the moment the ball basically has to hit middle stump for an LBW appeal to be overturned. I think the fielding side should only lose an appeal when the ball is going to totally miss the stumps.

Posted by A_Vacant_Slip on (July 12, 2013, 22:33 GMT)

Ho ho - very funny Australian here moaning about Broad "unsporting" LOL.... Australia made an art-form out of not walking!!! NO Australian EVER walked - so why should Broad??? Why do Aussie want one rule for them and one rule for everyone else? Aussie - stop whinging and get on with the game. This game is a real real gem of a Test match.

Posted by Shaggy076 on (July 12, 2013, 22:26 GMT)

The DRS was designed to remove the howler but captains tend to use them up on speculative calls and this happens. The umpires should have control over it not the captains.Having said that they know the. system and should be only angry at themselves for not using it correctly. move on the pitch is still playing pretty well and its still game on.

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 22:25 GMT)

Why didn't Australia use one of their two dismissals? Oh yeah that's right, they'd already wasted them. No one to blame but themselves.

Posted by BlueyCollar on (July 12, 2013, 22:15 GMT)

Watched the first 2 sessions and respect to England. They all batted very patiently and responsibly. Aussies bowled ok but they still bowl a bad ball most overs, something that needs to rectified. Don't know why Watson doesn't bowl more, he is very accurate and looks dangerous. Pitch isn't as bad as everyone reckons and there is an opportunity for a couple of Australian batsmen to make heroes of themselves and graft hundreds. Great test though. Re - DRS - Just get rid of it. It doesn't matter if you nick a ball or look like you are out LBW through hawkeye. You are only out if the umpire thinks you are.

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 22:13 GMT)

These are the wickets I believe the system was designed to overturn. For me, LBWs I would give it 95% that the umpire was right, and the other 5% coud go either way.

I would prefer it if the Challenge system was only for plays where the ball either hit the bat or missed the bat. These are the ones which as a fan disgruntles me when the decision is wrong.

Posted by X_Bat on (July 12, 2013, 21:52 GMT)

Keven Pieterson was quoted as saying, "Every single batsman, who plays cricket, no matter who you play for, has the right to wait for the umpire's decision, and nobody makes decisions for them. We play hard and we play very fair. Aleem Dar is a fantastic umpire and we respect his decisions." To all cricketers who don't walk when they know they are out, and to others who even say it is fair, do you realize you are ruining the game for everyone. Shame, shame shame!

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 21:49 GMT)

Can't believe no one is saying anything about the Rogers/Root LBW decisions........

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 21:46 GMT)

LOL , Now the poor Ausis are showing their frustration.. by blaming Aleem Dar for all of their failures. I agree Dar made mistake while taking this decision , but this is the part of the game & incidents like that have happened b4 so many times. I am just wondering when Shane warne will start blaming Dar for their last consecutive defeats in Ashes :p .. I hope they will find a way :D. Aleem Dar is still the best umpire of the world & it has already been proved. Cricinfo can still take the survey , I bet he will be the NO.1.

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 21:38 GMT)

The point of DRS is to remove the subjective and enhance the objective elements of decision making within cricket. With technology able to provide an accepted level of accuracy within an objective context, so it has been accepted by most of the major cricket-playing countries (India excepted).

With two opportunities per team per innings to utilise the objective DRS referral system, it is inherent to each team captain to use these wisely to ensure that a situation such as Broad's non-dismissal can be catered for. If the decision-making protocol of each team is such that opportunities for over-ruling a subjective (umpire) decision by an objective (technology) decision are no longer available, then this would suggest that the decision-making protocol is inefficient.

The spirit of the game disappeared with the introduction of technology, as the objective over-rules the subjective. If you want the spirit to remain, then remove the objective decision-making. You can't have both ....

Posted by brittop on (July 12, 2013, 21:34 GMT)

Everyone seemed to agree before the series started that Clarke would out-captain Cook. I've always thought he did things just to give the impression he's a great captain. Better to get basics right like not reviewing LBWs that are obviously missing leg.

Posted by SICHO on (July 12, 2013, 21:30 GMT)

I remember last year at Headingly when Alviro Peterson nicked it and didn't walk, England reviewed it and he was dismissed. The funny thing is he was booed by the crowd and the English fans (here on cricinfo) were questioning his "spirit of the game", now it's their player who didn't walk and it's not his fault the umpire should make the decision, hmmm........ And guess who the bowler was? Stuart Broad.

Posted by ozwriter on (July 12, 2013, 21:30 GMT)

aleem dar as far i am aware was given the best umpire award 3 years running. goes to show even the best can make mistakes. but overall, australia are still in the 'positive' regarding questionable calls. Agar was out on 6, trott and root were not out (calls agains england); versus one questionable decision against australia

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 21:26 GMT)

Problem is there is so much money at stake in these high profile sports events that this is what happens, same in football with the diving

Posted by 2.14istherunrate on (July 12, 2013, 21:18 GMT)

A day of huge intensity and even more attrition. In the end the scoring rate was okayish but much of the time it seemed as though runs were like hen's teeth. I suspect that confirming history England should be ssfe with this but 50 or so more will be pleasant. For much of the time it seemed as though the batsmen were making their way along a narrow ledge over a 200 foot drop onto rocks along a clifface. Occasionally an air of levity would come across proceeding like Prior's bright little knock, shortened by the commentators curse, and earlier KP had moved up a gear before seemingly distracted. For the rest though there was little levity in execution of purpose and the nature of the contest was encapsuled in Broad's refusal to walk as well as Bell's frequent dabs to the third man boundary. Bell was great for his time there and had returned to appreciated status by close. Th4e two milestones should be reached in the morning as a motivation. The bowling was oft4en tight.

Posted by nicevans on (July 12, 2013, 21:16 GMT)

As a neutral I find it crazy that england supporters keep comparing the agar dismissal to the broad fiasco. Agar had no idea about where his foot was, and more importantly the video evidence was inconclusive - right decision made. Broad clearly knicked it, knew it, and didnt walk. Two completely different situations

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 21:15 GMT)

Broad should have walked. There is no way Umpire Dar could have judged that. I 'Believe" if it had been an Australian Batsman, he would have "walked'.

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 21:08 GMT)

Can Broad be suspended like Ramdin? Or at least get some of his pay deducted? Ramdin thought that he caught it. Broad thought that he had not nicked it. A gentleman's game, right? So the same rule should apply to both

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 21:03 GMT)

Aleem Dar should have given Broad out simply on the basis that if he was n.o he could revert to the 3rd umpire having 2 challenges remaining. I think the umpires should be also aware of the DRS situation much like the Duckworth Lewis for the teams.

Posted by 2MikeGattings on (July 12, 2013, 20:57 GMT)

Glenn McGrath's comment about Broad's non-dismissal was on the money. Trott's wicket was the upside of gambling 3 times on LBW reviews. Broad still out there is the downside.

Posted by SirViv1973 on (July 12, 2013, 20:52 GMT)

@jmchinney, I agree with you re Bell. His form has been ave over the past 18 months but a test ave of 46 doesn't lie. I'm delighted he's been able to perform today when Eng really needed him to. As for Agar, I think Aus will play him at Lords. However I do believe Lyon is a better bowler than Agar at this stage of his career & Aus would be better off with him in their XI.

Posted by landl47 on (July 12, 2013, 20:49 GMT)

I said yesterday that we have neutral umpires who do the best they can and once they have made their decision that should be it. The decisions happened to go Australia's way yesterday, and England had one go their way today. Everyone should accept ALL the decisions.

I have also said that I favour dropping the '2 reviews' policy and letting the 3 umpires make all the decisions. That's the way to get the best possible decisions, even though it will never be 100% uncontroversial.

As for Broad walking, why should he show up the umpire? Aleem Dar made the decision, it's not for Broad to replace it with his own opinion. Those comparing this with Ramdin's action are wrong. Had Broad told the umpire he didn't hit it, that would have been comparable and he should be punished. No-one has claimed he did that.

If everyone just accepted the umpires' decisions, whether they agreed or not, then we could all just get on with the game. But this is cricket, that will never happen!

Posted by YorkshirePudding on (July 12, 2013, 20:48 GMT)

@GrindAR, you mean like Erasmus was yesterday during the Trott dismissal as the only way he could have given this is if he was still half a sleep, especially without the evidence of hotspot.

Umpires should be the ones that ask for reviewed, as for delays it takes about 5 minutes to get the data for Hawk-eye as it has to undergo some serious calculations and image processing to get the predictive element going.

It also then asks what is the point of the umpire in the middle as all they will do is mark time and stand there like robots.

Posted by IndianSRTfan on (July 12, 2013, 20:45 GMT)

This has been a memorable test match so far. A young debutant playing a great innings, Anderson nd Siddle 5fers, Bell playing well, it was all good to watch. Sadly this test will also be remembered for horrible umpiring. This current combo of technology and referral system needs improvements or better alternatives hands down, this is not working. That we need a referral system is clear but there is no point in putting in place a system supposed to get rid of a howler only to have two howlers mar the outcome simply coz of poor processes and regulations in place for execution of the system. If hotspot can't be queued up for two successive balls, it's simply unacceptable.

And Broad was right to wait for the decision there is no need of debate there. My problem is with application of laws and uniformity of that. If Ramdin was fined and banned for "not playing in the spirit of game", so should be Broad coz both did essentially the same thing, violate the spirit by their behaviour.

Posted by RajMaTaj on (July 12, 2013, 20:39 GMT)

Just deserts for the Aussies ....

07-08 India Tour of Aus, 2nd Test SCG, Day 1 .. Aus 134-6, Andy Symonds nicked one and was given n.o. by Bucknor when 30 odd. Went on to make 167 n.o.

Posted by JG2704 on (July 12, 2013, 20:33 GMT)

Great/lucky day for England. Was away for the day but avoided the score and watched the highlights as if it was live Have to say England were very lucky with some of the inside edges etc and have to say brilliant from Bell. I have recently questioned why his position should not necessarily be nailed on but full credit to the guy and if Eng go on to win this game you have to say Bell has played a huge part in it. Also brilliant from Bairstow in advising Bell to review. Had his advice been different - a la Cook/Root - Eng could well have been staring down the barrel. As for Broad - very lucky inns indeed and the not out decision was a shocker

Posted by Raki99 on (July 12, 2013, 20:32 GMT)

Aussie should just keep quite about the decision, As we all know they do everything and anything to get a victory. We have all see that before.

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 20:31 GMT)

as obviously bad as the broad not out decision was, england have suffered far more in this game due to decisions...Agar stumping when on 6 followed by Root and Trott dismissals..So far, Broad added another 15 runs or so since that decision..Not been too major so far. As an England fan, i am frustrated that Broad cannot show the same application batting on a regular basis..

Posted by Fluffykins on (July 12, 2013, 20:31 GMT)

Really not impressed with Pattinson wasn't he supposed to blow us away??? Clearly very immature and needs to calm down when things don't go his way.

Posted by SpizenFire on (July 12, 2013, 20:23 GMT)

DRS is not necessary in cricket. Where else can we get such rich comments bringing character of a player / team etc. when it is all left to the player. Just yesterday's comment had more vitriol directed towards the umpires. Today it's about sportsperson and IMO this is what it should be in cricket. A gentlemens game encouraging such behaviour rather than ignoring it and passing ,the buck to unscrupulous business interests.

Posted by just_Test_lover on (July 12, 2013, 20:16 GMT)

The difference between Broad's snick and Agars stumping. Agar had no idea he was out of his crease. He might have felt he may be in and probably needed a review. Broad clearly felt it and would have made a decision to stand!

Posted by whatawicket on (July 12, 2013, 20:14 GMT)

jason hayes true but these things happen in cricket, if given England have maybe a lead of 100 give or take with 350 or so to add. this is why cricket is a great game. but it does not help my poor old heart. lol

Posted by R_U_4_REAL_NICK on (July 12, 2013, 20:08 GMT)

Well, howlers aside, another fascinating days play at Trent Bridge. Bell you little beauty! That knock should silence a few critics.

Australia fielded really well I thought, but I think Clarke missed a few tricks: where the heck was Smith? Why not let him turn his arm over for a few overs? With that pitch, I'd put money on him getting a breakthrough. Watson has already showed that taking the pace off the ball can work wonders...

Posted by nursery_ender on (July 12, 2013, 20:06 GMT)

As the old saying goes 'the only time an Aussie walks is when he runs out of petrol". Apart from Gilchrist, that is. It would be a bit rich if they were to make an issue of this.

Posted by tjsimonsen on (July 12, 2013, 20:00 GMT)

Well, Broad was out and it's easy to say that he should have walked. But when the oposition's captain has previously said that he wouldn't walk as it is the umpire's work to make the decision, the Aussies certainly can't blame him. As for what it means for the match: both Root and Trott got dubious decisions against them, and Agar was let off although he should have been out at 6. If that had happened the game would have been all but over now. As it is, Australia still has a fair chance to win. So in the end it porbably evens out.

It was also rather interesting to hear Boycott, Vaughan and Daimen Martyn ALL agreeing that Broad SHOULDN'T have walked.

So far this has been great advertiment for test cricket. It's already turning into a classic for better and worse.

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 19:54 GMT)

This Test just carries on giving, doesn't it? Bell batted superbly, as did Cook, Pietersen, and Broad, who certainly rode his luck. The Aussies have never walked, so, tough! I thought before the start of the day that a chase of 350 would give both teams an idea that they could win the game. Looking at the wicket, with the odd uneven bounce, that target will take a lot of getting, especially if there is a bit more wear on the pitch. Advantage England.

Posted by Harlequin. on (July 12, 2013, 19:50 GMT)

Hopefully Bell will get his hundred in the morning, but even if he doesn't, this innings really should lay to rest the theory that he never gets important runs. This is one of many crucial innings The Terminator has played over the years and hopefully it bodes well for the rest of the series (I did mention in an earlier post that I had a hunch he would rake them in this summer!)

For Broad, given that he is in the runs, expect him to be in the wickets tomorrow/sunday as well. His tail will be up and no doubt the Aussies have been chirping in his ear, so there will be a lot of bottled up anger to get rid of when he gets the ball in hand.

Posted by GrindAR on (July 12, 2013, 19:45 GMT)

@bobmartin : Good point. Symonds is not around now, and Clarke is a Captain now... We can blame only the ugly-sportsmanship in all such occurances. One thing ICC have give to people who have brains, to make decision fo rthem is, DRS should be always active. Review system is good only for tennis kind of sports. Cricket, there are too much in built delays, within which a replay can show clearly and the right decision can be handed out. From the time the ball crosses the batsman, the delays are ball travel time from batsman and back to bowler again - enormous amount of time within which atleast 3 decisions can be made by 3rd umpire. And then, the blowler walk up and runup delay before he delivers the ball. Certainly, it is not going to affect the timings. They can show the revised decision only if it is different from on field umpires decision. Adds can continue until then. They dont loos revenue as well. It is just the continuous effort by 3rd umpires, instead of 98% sleeping time now.

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 19:32 GMT)

has everyone forgotten the howler from the third umpire before Ager reached double figures? a clear stumping missed, honours even I guess?

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 19:32 GMT)

Anything beyond 100 in the last innings is beyond reach for Australia. In much better conditions in the first innings, they managed 117-9 before Agar's fluke got them out of trouble, a once in a lifetime innings. England are just having fun now. They just need a session or so to get Aussies bundled out. By the way, I thought Agar was a (full time) spin bowler. He looks more like a batsman who can bowl innocuous spin.. Maybe Agar should open the batting with Siddle next time.

Posted by GrindAR on (July 12, 2013, 19:31 GMT)

Watto & Cowan, when you play an out swinger or wide ones, play drives, not cuts, the timings did not work well for you on slow pitches. Just remember... I dont think the first innings ball will be a blinder for Clarke next time. Flemingo shorts are pretty for eyes... would like to see more of them... way to keep your wickets safe... :-). Would like to see if Aussie can draw this test, if not winning...Its is going to be in the hands of 1-4, how they negotiate the bowlers, just dont worry about run rate, it can be boring for spectators.... but be a delight for Aussie fans....

Posted by Lmaotsetung on (July 12, 2013, 19:31 GMT)

The most important thing is that Jimmy and Finn gets some much needed rest to try and bowl out Aus in the 4th inning being a bowler short.

Posted by Stark62 on (July 12, 2013, 19:26 GMT)

Ramdin was banned for going against the "spirit of the game", so shouldn't Broad be handed the same punishment?!?!

Posted by Jonathan_E on (July 12, 2013, 19:22 GMT)

More to the point, Watson bowling maidens without taking wickets means Broad gets an extra day before he has to start bowling with what might still be a not fully fit shoulder.

Expect him to end up wearing some short stuff from Siddle, Pattinson and Starc tomorrow morning, though...

Posted by akpower on (July 12, 2013, 19:13 GMT)

I can't believe how much space this one, admittedly horrendous, decision is getting. I don't know how Aleem Dar did not see the edge, but I see decisions as bad or worse in every series. Just yesterday, he adjudged Jonathon Trott not out, only to be overturned by the third umpire, who made a blunder of a decision even with technology on his side.

The Aussies have a habit of blaming everyone else but them. They are lucky to be in the game, because the English total would have been a bit bigger if Root took the review and Dar's decision on Trott stayed.

One just needs to look at the archives to see that Aleem Dar is the best umpire of this past decade after Simon Taufel. The last wicket stand notwithstanding, England has been the better team so far and deserve to win based on their performance thus far.

Posted by Beertjie on (July 12, 2013, 19:05 GMT)

@jmcilhinney on (July 12, 2013, 17:56 GMT) Agree Agar deserves another game. More runs and wickets will permit his retention for the entire campaign. Assuming England win Australia need to make a few changes for Lords. Harris is the best reverse swinger and should replace Starc. Khawaja deserves a crack at the expense of Cowan. A team reading Rogers, Watson, Khawaja, Clarke, Smith, Hughes, Haddin, Agar, Siddle, Pattinson, Harris may have a better shot at levelling the series at Lords. Agree @ Big_Maxy_Walker on (July 12, 2013, 18:12 GMT) about Haddin. Paine or Hartley are obvious choices and here's hoping Cummins can prove his fitness to add to our options.

Posted by epochery on (July 12, 2013, 19:05 GMT)

Australia have nothing to complain about, it is up to the umpire to give the decision, but still a bit embarrassing as far as Broad is concerned. A great 3 days of test cricket a good indicator this series will be closer than many were prediciting.

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 19:05 GMT)

This is one *long* sentence:

That England achieved such luxury, after an intense battle for supremacy over more than two sessions, owed everything to the serenity of Ian Bell, whose understated innings must be ranked as one of his best, and the effrontery of Stuart Broad, on 37, who shamelessly brazened it out when he was caught at slip, cutting the debutant left-arm spinner, Ashton Agar, only for the umpire Aleem Dar to be misled by a further deflection off the gloves of wicketkeeper Brad Haddin and turn down the appeal.

Posted by strikeforce2003 on (July 12, 2013, 19:05 GMT)

Bell rang the chimes on his bell and at the apt moment, steadying the English armada in rather turbulent waters. As for Broad, he was yet another loose canon ball on the pathetic umpiring, though Broad's credentials of sporting a 'sportive' sportsman image has definitely taken a hit. In time, he could well be regarded the loser of this moment in the Ashes history. All is not lost on the Aussies though, this Test is still wide open. With the rather poor run-rate paced in by the English bats, their response buying time at the crease rather than buying quicker runs, keeps Aussie hopes yet alive. This wicket with a 3.4 run an over run capability that the Aussie have in a chase of say a 350 score lead, if put in by the Pommies, can have them heading for a thriller win. Provided the bowlers get a great start and importantly bowl out the next 4 English bats within the 1st session tomorrow. Good luck All and Dhar !!

Posted by GrindAR on (July 12, 2013, 18:59 GMT)

Clarke, Use Patti & Agar combination with short square leg placed closer to silly mid on/off area. Neither Bell nor Broad can escape... without hitting the ball with short flight, you will have many chances. Good Show by Bell so far. But the score might have read XXX/8 atleast, if Broad displayed professionalism to 19yr Old debutant. Anyways, shamefull acts are not new to Eng team.

Posted by YorkshirePudding on (July 12, 2013, 18:59 GMT)

Broad should really have walked but 'justice' for Trotts dismissal yesterday.

A good innings by Bell when england needed someone to stick around and put a total together.

The added bonus is its keeping the Australians in the field and will be draining their stamina, especially the bowlers who will have to bowl again starting next thursday.

On this pitch England are going to want around 350 lead, which is attainable if the tail continues to wag. Ideally bat through to lunch, but an early wicket or two could leave the lead around 280-300.

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 12, 2013, 18:54 GMT)

@jmcilhinney Based on the way he batted (and I'm not just saying this because he scored 98, but because of the technical skill he showed with the bat) there's a case for playing him at 7 (much as people were saying Faulkner should have) and having Haddin move up to 6, making room to pick Lyon to give Clarke a proven Test wicket taker while still letting Agar develop his craft at Test level.

The argument for Agar doing it, imho, is stronger than for Faulkner, based on what he brings with the ball. Faulkner's a left arm swing bowler, and while this may be a bit reductive, so's Starc. Yes, they're not the same, but assuming Clarke's back is an impediment to him bowling, spinners turning it both ways is handy.

Assuming Australia won't be racking up 400-500 runs (which looks unlikely), having options in the bowling attack is no bad thing. If Watson can chip in with some tight overs, like he has done so far, Clarke would have four seamers, two spinners and a bit of occasional leg-spin.

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 18:54 GMT)

well according to me broad should have walked off ....he would have earned a lot of respect for that..now he will be having a black spot in his career due to this incident...this shows he lacks sportsmanspirit... i agree that aussies have also done the same in the past...but if one also does the same...then there is no difference between them and aussies... cricket is a gentleman's game( though its more about winning these days) so it should be played the same way

Posted by notimeforcricket on (July 12, 2013, 18:50 GMT)

some real shocking umpiring decisions and a mix of brilliant and terrible play from both sides. I have a feeling that when Swann gets going on this wicket, he might do some damage. Agar has 2 wickets and nearly had 3 but he cannot even land the ball on the seam... another prediction... I am pretty concerned about Bairstow. I think more of a keeper-batsman to come in at 7 if anything happened to Prior. i am not sure his technique is up to the job. I am also nervous about Root at the top of the order. Compton should have stayed and root at 6 in my view. Agar looks like he could bat up the order. The guy already has 4 first class 50s and an average over 40. I think he will end up as a top 6 batsman and part-time spinner

Posted by jackthelad on (July 12, 2013, 18:44 GMT)

Agar was picked as a bowler, and, despite his couple of wickets in the middle of the usual England mini-collapse, has looked a fairly innocuous bowler; his 98 not out, though possibly vital in the context of this game, doesn't make him a good bowler. Given, however, that Australia are desperately short of anyone who can make the ball deviate at all, he's probably worth another go. The fact is that 'the best pace attack in the world' (hem hem) is being shown up for the average medium-fastish outfit it is, and any variation on the 'same old, same old' must be welcomed by Australia. A many-years Oz concentration on 'pace and pace alone' has left them in a deep hole (possibly the foundations of their rebuiding?) simply because they haven't the bowlers to carry it through (who remembers 2009 when Mitch Johnson was supposed to be the new mcGrath, on the back of an extraordinary one-off series in SA? He was hit all over the park in England, and I don't see him figuring in current plans ...)

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 18:37 GMT)

If ramdin was banned for 2 ODI's for claiming a catch even though it had bounced , Broad should be banned for a test match as well for fully knowing that he had edged it and still stood there.

Posted by waza1234 on (July 12, 2013, 18:25 GMT)

Terrible umpiring throughout this test match. Yes it was a howler from Aleem Dar today but Root and Trott should not have been given out yesterday while Agar was clearly out stumped but not given. So without these incorrect decisions, England could have had an extra 184 runs with the averages of Trott and Root and the 92 runs Agar made after being reprieved.

Posted by Cpt.Meanster on (July 12, 2013, 18:21 GMT)

Absolute DISGRACE from Aleem Daar. He has once again proved he's an average umpire. Can't believe the ICC lets these guys officiate a major test series. Australia have every reason to be disappointed at Broad's dismissal or lack of it. I thought test cricket was a gentleman's game. I never expected this kind of behaviour from Broad. He edged it and should have rightfully walked. This was the biggest howler in the last 100 years. So much for technology being saviour of modern cricket. What a mess !

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 18:20 GMT)

@Satish - Yes Pup ought to be more selective from now on. However, he probably wont. Captains would be wise to simply not review unless 100% certain it's not out (i.e. when it's a howler) and just leave the 50/50 calls be.

@thebrothers waugh - Well said. I predicted on day 1 this match would be over before Day 5. Hopefully Aussies can put up a fight. hopefully Cook makes a fighting declaration, giving Aus 5+ sessions to survive or even go for the win and not just bat them out of the game. (Which would be smart however, tiring their bowlers for the rest of the series) a further prediction, Swann to take 6'fer.

@RU4RN - Watson been bowling super consistent line and length. Eng want Aus to bowl long as possible. By allowing Watto to bowl maidens it forces Pup to keep him on - heightening the chance he'll break down. Clever cricket!

Watson to bowl maiden after maiden it almost forces Clarke to keep him on. Always a chance his body will break down and the dangerous opener will be restd

Posted by bobmartin on (July 12, 2013, 18:18 GMT)

Walking ? When playing Australia ? No way... I can clearly recall several incidents, one invloving the current Aussie captain himself and another involving Symonds where they have stood their ground depite clearly getting an edge and being caught... So let's have no sympathy for them... they've brought it on themselves...and for them to be whinging about it is just laughable..Talk about dual standards...

Posted by Sir_Ivor on (July 12, 2013, 18:15 GMT)

This match is going almost on the same lines as the India England Test of 2011 at Trent Bridge. On the first day India bowled out England for 221 with Broad scoring 64 in the first innings. India replied with 288, with Dravid scoring 117 and the rest collapsing except for Yuvraj with 62. In the second innings England scored 544 courtesy Ian Bell's score of 159. Pietersen scored 60 odd. There was some very bad umpiring in that game with India on the recieving end. In this game also there has been some terrible umpiringl. England were bowled out for 214 in the first innings and Australia replied with 288 which gave them a small lead. England have reached 326 for 6 at the end of day 3 and look to be sitting pretty. There are 2 days to go. Are we going to see a great fightback by Australia to score nearly 300 in their last innings or are they going to lose badly as India did thte game in 2011. They were bowled out for about 120. My hunch is that Australia will fight but still lose.

Posted by Big_Maxy_Walker on (July 12, 2013, 18:12 GMT)

I agree with Mark Taylor. The technology is helping to get rid of most bad decisions but the review system for the captains has got to go. The 3rd umpire should check each decision themselves than advise the onfield ump. Trott got a bad decision the other day and now Broad gets away with one. It evens out, but both ones should have been handled right in the first place so there would be no lingering doubts as to who rightfully won a match. Brad Haddin has displayed the reasons he was dropped in the first place a couple of years ago. Fumbles, dropped catches, and mouthing off, and bad advice to Clarke on reviews. Wade is not any better. Tim Paine and Chris Hartley are the only options. Starc is painful as he is so inconsistent

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 18:04 GMT)

@runout: incorrect. This has been an enthralling test match. From ball one, up until now. It's been delightful to see the ebbs and flows. Despite the lack of discipline and overawe from all batsmen (bar A. Agar and P.Hughes) in the first innings' its been neck and neck the whole way. England have been the far superior team, but the Aussies have hung in there and plugged away showing quality fighting spirit. The entire match so far has been like watching a super close rowing race in super slow motion. High tension, drama, admittedly some super boring passages of play (no runs and no rip snorting bowling - but that's test cricket) and all the umpiring decisions have added to not taken away from this thrilling first round Ashes encounter. - When all is said and done, people will remember Siddle and Anderson's 5'fers, Agar's 98. (Broad and) Bell's rearguard p'ship and whatever else this match has in store. People forget about poor decisions MUCH faster than quality cricket..

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 18:03 GMT)

What a bloody shame! Why cannot all decisions be instantly reviewed by the umpire on the field? Have a huge screen on the side and have the replay immediately following the appeal. Test cricket is played over 5 days. Surely a few seconds can be spared for the umpire to look at the screen? In this day and age, there should be no reason for a false decision except in the rarest of circumstances where even DRS cannot help. Having limited appeals has definitely hurt Australia.

Posted by Harmony111 on (July 12, 2013, 18:01 GMT)

I think Aus had their chances today and Eng fans might have been fearing a sub 2oo target for Aus in the 4th innings but this last partnership had put it beyond Aus. It is never easy to chase anything more than 230-240 in the final innings of a match and Aus, in all likelihood, will be chasing something like 320 or even more. Aus have some hopeless batsmen in their squad and it looks like they will not be able to do it.

The only way Aus will win this match, given its present state, is if Agar manages to en-cash his second chance to score a 100 on debut. :-p

Posted by jmcilhinney on (July 12, 2013, 17:56 GMT)

I'd say that Ashton Agar has definitely done enough to get himself another game. It looks like he's still got plenty to learn, as you'd expect of a 19 year old, but he didn't let the occasion get to him with the ball, just as he didn't with the bat. He could probably learn to turn the ball a bit more but he was getting good bounce and the fact that he doesn't spin the ball along the seam may mean that he gets more natural variation than other spinners, making him harder to predict.

Posted by Stumay on (July 12, 2013, 17:56 GMT)

Oh the irony of Michael Clarke moaning about that Broad edge. Didn't he hit Pietersen's slow, off-spinning ,long-hop straight to Cook and stand his ground and wait for the referral to give him out at Adelaide in 2010? He didn't seem to care that the whole world could that he hit it or worry too much about the spirit of the game then. Swings and roundabouts, old chap.

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 17:55 GMT)

So the first test is where teams approach things differently...Aus are throwing everthing at England and England playing very watchfully....below their capability..If England walk away with this one...they'll maintain mental ascendance for the next two games easily. The defining factor in this game is time... a result is a certaintly and Australia are gonna be at the wrong end of it....they'll have five sessions on hand....even if the pitch dies totally in that time it gives England enough time to do the job.

Posted by jmcilhinney on (July 12, 2013, 17:51 GMT)

Who says Ian Bell can't score runs when his team needs them? I'm a fan of Bell but I'm quite prepared to admit that his form has not been stellar lately, although I do think that some people have overstated the issue. I think that every England fan would be pleased to have seen this innings today. If Bell's LBW dismissal had stood when he was on ~30 then England may already be all out and staring down the barrel of 1-0. As it is they are not out of the woods but would have to be favourites at this stage. I can't feel too much sympathy for Australia regarding Broad's slip catch that wasn't, given Trott's dismissal, but I'm also not prepared to just say that things evened out and forget it. We need to strive for as many correct decisions as possible. Mind you, not wasting reviews on impossible LBWs might be one way to achieve that. Aleem Dar had a shocker but the third umpire was there to fix as intended, if Australia hadn't gambled on marginal (at best) LBW decisions.

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 17:49 GMT)

If fielders are fined, banned and reprimanded for claiming false catches, batsmen need to be punished in the same manner for not walking after clear edges like the Stuart Broad incident. The same argument of umpire being responsible for the decision stands true for the fielders as well.

Posted by GeoffreysMother on (July 12, 2013, 17:48 GMT)

Well played Ian Bell. I have often questioned his ability to play a meaningful innings to win a test rather than save one. Today goes a long way to proving me wrong. It was the best innings I have seen Bell play and a lesson for everyone who keeps picking their 'favourite team'. There is a lot to be said for a coach picking a team and giving people with class time to come good.

The interesting issue is, whilst Agar played a superb innings to get Australia out of deep trouble, on a spinning wicket would Lyon have give Australia more contol and a greater threat than Agar did? If Swann takes 5 or 6 for nothing in the second innings could the first innings hero have been a bad choice?

Posted by jmcilhinney on (July 12, 2013, 17:43 GMT)

@R_U_4_REAL_NICK on (July 12, 2013, 15:47 GMT), I think that Watson did get a little too much respect but England were being very careful and I also think that, on this pitch, his being a bit slower than the other seamers is an asset. On such a slow pitch, some extra pace on the ball probably makes it easier to score whereas, with Watson, the batsmen would have to try to hit a bit harder and take more risk as a result. This same point makes me a bit worried about Finn. It's absolutely essential for England that he bowl well because Australia can score quickly if they get anything wayward and Finn can go for a few at times. Broad will need to be firing too because Swann and Anderson can't do it all.

Posted by USA_Res on (July 12, 2013, 17:39 GMT)

@runout49: The talking point should be less about Umpiring decisions, and more about review decisions. Neither of the lost reviews by Australia, were even close. Neither had a chance of being overturned. And both were allowed by the captain, basically to appease the bowler. It is up to the Captain and the WicketKeeper to make these difficult decisions, and if that upsets the bowler then he needs to suck-it-up. Personally, I was a bit disappointed that Broad didn't walk, but nowadays, the general attitude seems to be "let the umpire make the decision, regardless." And this policy has been inplace with the Aussies since the days of the Chappell brothers.

Posted by MartinC on (July 12, 2013, 17:32 GMT)

England just edging ahead again - 260 odd ahead with 4 wickets left so thinking something over 300 as a lead. 300 plus will take some chasing on a pitch offering some spin and variable bounce .....but it's not impossible.

Australia will be hoping for a couple of early wickets and keep the lead to 280 but even that's going to take a good effort to chase batting last.

Great game and still open but I'd rather be in Engalnds dressing room at this point.

Posted by ozziespirit on (July 12, 2013, 17:29 GMT)

We've had our fair share of decisions going our way this test (Trott's was a bit shocking) so Broad's decision was fair enough to even things out. Difficult day for Oz, but this was always on the cards. Aus could do with a player with the shots of Ian Bell.

Posted by Shan156 on (July 12, 2013, 17:17 GMT)

I posted yesterday that Eng. have to move on with the Trott decision. It is not the first time it has happened and it won't be the last. With the howler that led to Broad's reprieve, it is vindicated. Things do even themselves out sometimes over the course of a series and sometimes over the course of the same match. Yesterday, it was Eng. who must have felt hard done by, today it is Aus. Such is life. Players and fans of both sides must move on. The game is excitingly poised. It won't be easy for Aus. to score 300+ to win but it won't be any easier for England to bundle them out cheaply either. With a 4th day pitch, there is no better opportunity for Swann to create an impact in TB. Go England!

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 17:14 GMT)

Big lesson learnt for Clarke. Don't waste the reviews..

Posted by runout49 on (July 12, 2013, 16:58 GMT)

Unfortunately whatever the result of this test will be overshadowed by the poor umpiring decisions.

Posted by thebrotherswaugh on (July 12, 2013, 16:49 GMT)

Well, ENG are clearly ahead at this stage with the runs on the board, 240+ lead and Swanny itching to bowl. Broad won't ever play a luckier knock - plumb LBW to Agar at 6-230 not offering a shot and the ball hitting inside of off-stump - then at 6-300 caught at first slip off Agar again but the umpire must have been resting his eyes. Such is life - both were absolute howlers, the latter one easily the worst of the match. Funny how things balance out, isn't it? Such is life, just get on with the game. OZ are going to need each and every one of their batsmen to perform in the 2nd dig and a good deal of luck, because it looks as if the chase will be at least 300. This has been a sensational match thus far and I'm really looking forward to Day 4. May the best side win - and I reckon we'll know by the end of tomorrow's play.

Posted by AussieSam on (July 12, 2013, 15:52 GMT)

Amazing figures from watson. Don't think i've ever seen a bowler go for so few runs without taking wickets though he's been excruciatingly close. 12 overs, 10 maidens, 0.25! Agar and starc have looked dangerous too. I know that england's plan was to bat the day and not try to force runs but this has been a great bowling effort. They deserve more wickets than they have. Broad seems to be happy to throw his wicket away though.

Posted by R_U_4_REAL_NICK on (July 12, 2013, 15:47 GMT)

O.K. baring in mind I'm not watching the game (I'm still at work, pretending to work...), why is Watson getting so much respect? Just looked at his figures: 11 overs, 9 maidens, 3 runs - for an economy of 0.27! Is he really bowling unplayable deliveries, or are England just being ultra selective (which is a good thing by the way)?

Posted by RednWhiteArmy on (July 12, 2013, 15:45 GMT)

200 lead now. England should declare soon.

Posted by HatsforBats on (July 12, 2013, 15:17 GMT)

I couldn't believe Clarke took the new ball, our whole attack is better with the old ball! Slow pitch, little bounce for the quicks, reversing, hard to score off...it's still not making any sense to me. England in front here, anything over 150 is tricky, 250+ would be almost unthinkable. The silver lining for Clarke is England might be a bowler down, but even so, on this pitch Swann & Anderson will be very threatening. Bell's playing a match defining innings here (at tea), not typically pretty, but gutsy. Gotta love good test cricket.

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 15:12 GMT)

I think 250 will be very difficult to chase on this pitch

Posted by Chris_Howard on (July 12, 2013, 14:57 GMT)

I reckon England will need 300. Every Australian down to number 11 has a Test half century except Pattinson, whose high score is 42 but has a healthy average of 28.

I don't think 300 is gettable, but anything less than that won't provide enough psychological pressure when wickets fall.

Posted by SirViv1973 on (July 12, 2013, 14:54 GMT)

Well 165 lead at tea, a lot depends on Bell here. I said at the start of the day we would be in a good position if we could bat the day out. We can only do that now if Bell stays in & is able to marshall the bowlers. I would say that as a minimum we need to try and find another 50 - 60 runs from here.

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 14:40 GMT)

The exhortation in the England dressing room would have been to bat all day. Next door, where Australia believed they can still fashion an unexpected win, the cry would have been to dry up the runs. After two days of enthralling, unstable Test cricket, the third morning was bound for a period of reassessment.

Cook struck the first single of the day, efficiently clipping Peter Siddle off his pads but Australia were in no mood to allow his staple diet. Their tactics are clearly to stifle him by bowling length outside off stump.

On another warm morning, Cook impassively watched the deliveries pass by, like a lizard on a rock, waiting for a suitable beetle to come into range. He didn't get another run for eight overs at which point James Pattinson offered up a juicy beetle which was short enough to whizz through point.

Such self-denial comes harder for Pietersen, but his look-at-me strokes were also conspicuous by their absence. He tried to hit Siddle straight and inside-edged to fine

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 14:26 GMT)

@Redandwhitearmy, I have noticed it's different for every bowler overseas, like Dale Steyn i have never seen him go over 145km outside SA. Anyways, good show on right now hopefully AUS can skitle them out for less than a 250 lead.

Posted by SirViv1973 on (July 12, 2013, 14:19 GMT)

Fairplay to Aus bowlers everytime a partnership starts to build that looks like swinging the game back in Engs favor they seem to be able to come up with a wicket.

Posted by RednWhiteArmy on (July 12, 2013, 14:04 GMT)

Did Australia pick their 2nd bowlers or something? 85mph? Im still waiting to see the "95mph+" bowlers that they had promised.

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 14:00 GMT)

If Bell and Prior bat decently and push the lead towards 200 it seems very unlikely that Australia will have the batting to chase down 200+ though much depends on fitness of Broad in second innings...

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 13:37 GMT)

Bring in Bopara for Next Test.. Johny biy no good at the Top level

Posted by somethingdifferent on (July 12, 2013, 13:33 GMT)

We all are giving unnecessary hype to Australian performance. They will find it tough to chase any target set by England even if it is 150. The english bowling would be too hot to handle in the fourth innings.

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 13:08 GMT)

The stats suggest that England will win ....before the series even started ,many predicted that England would sweep Australia with days to spare in each Test ....it could still happen ...but Australia have surprised England in this match ,and the stats from this match wont go away ,and as such shouldnt be ignored in the grand scheme .

Posted by thebrotherswaugh on (July 12, 2013, 13:03 GMT)

@R U 4 REAL NICK - yep, a lead of 200 would be exceptionally difficult to chase down for the OZ team, especially with Swann looming as the main danger man, although Anderson & Finn may have something to say on the matter. ENG have impressed in the 2nd innings, knuckling down and willing to do the hard yards. It took a classic catch by Clarke to get rid of his opposing captain, and I still reckon Prior is a dead-set 'cert' for 50+. I'll be happy if we're only chasing around 200, but I suspect it will be closer to 260-280. Very hard indeed. I've got ENG slightly ahead at this stage as they have the runs on the board and our top-order has a tendency to crumble when under pressure and the opposition get a sniff. Clarke has a very poor 2nd innings average, and our recent history shows the team as a whole struggles. It's been a great spectacle thus far, a true contest and a testament to virtues of Test Cricket over the other 'hit & giggle' formats. C'mon you Aussies, pull off a miracle!

Posted by   on (July 12, 2013, 12:40 GMT)

How about that catch from Pup, reminded me of Tubby Taylor flying about in that old sun hat! Super stuff that!

Some death defying leaves from Bell and Bairstow before the break. For mine England are playing as though everyone expects them to win, which they do of course, but it seems to put something of a strangle hold on their batting at times. Been some gold bowling too of course! Game is still there for both teams to win.

Posted by R_U_4_REAL_NICK on (July 12, 2013, 12:30 GMT)

Crucial session coming up after lunch now. I think England need a lead of at least 200. Please Swann, don't get injured once it's your turn to bat! Do your thing with the ball, not the bat (but both would be even better as long as it doesn't take too much outa ya!).

Comments have now been closed for this article

Email Feedback Print
David HoppsClose
David Hopps David Hopps joined ESPNcricinfo as UK editor early in 2012. For the previous 20 years he was a senior cricket writer for the Guardian and covered England extensively during that time in all Test-playing nations. He also covered four Olympic Games and has written several cricket books, including collections of cricket quotations. He has been an avid amateur cricketer since he was 12, and so knows the pain of repeated failure only too well. The pile of untouched novels he plans to read, but rarely gets around to, is now almost touching the ceiling. He divides his time between the ESPNcricinfo office in Hammersmith and his beloved Yorkshire.
Tour Results
England v Australia at Southampton - Sep 16, 2013
Australia won by 49 runs
England v Australia at Cardiff - Sep 14, 2013
England won by 3 wickets (with 3 balls remaining)
England v Australia at Birmingham - Sep 11, 2013
No result
England v Australia at Manchester - Sep 8, 2013
Australia won by 88 runs
England v Australia at Leeds - Sep 6, 2013
Match abandoned without a ball bowled
More results »
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days