England v Australia, 1st Investec Test, Trent Bridge, 3rd day July 12, 2013

Broad's edge

ESPNcricinfo presents the plays of the day from the third day at Trent Bridge

Edge of the day

How much did Australia regret using up their reviews earlier in day? A lot. Stuart Broad edged Ashton Agar to Michael Clarke at slip, via Brad Haddin's glove, and the Australians celebrated the vital breakthrough as everyone waited for the formalities of the decision. They never came. Broad stood there; Dar said not out. Australia could not believe it. Surely it was a thick edge? Yes, it was, the replays confirmed. There was anger in Australian eyes, Darren Lehmann was fuming on the balcony. Debate quickly surged about Broad's lack of walking. It was the howler DRS is there to get rid of. The impacts of this could rumble on.

Good review of the day

A groan rose from Trent Bridge - well, the England section of Trent Bridge - as umpire Kumar Dharmasena lifted his finger after what seemed an age to give Ian Bell out leg before for 34 to a delivery from Shane Watson. It was not much of a shot from Bell, moving over to the off side and playing across the ball but, after a quick consultation with his partner, Jonny Bairstow, Bell decided to utilise the DRS and Hawk Eye showed that the ball would have passed down the legside without hitting the stumps. Bell was reprieved.

Bad review of the day

This was not the best day for Dharmasena. While his decision to give Bairstow, on 8, not out following an appeal from James Pattinson for leg before was quite right - replays and Hawk Eye suggested the ball was passing well down the leg side - his decision to award Bairstow a run was puzzling; the bat missed the ball by some distance. More pertinently, Australia squandered their final DRS option for the appeal which left them without the option for the rest of the innings. Had they had another review available, they may well have used it against Stuart Broad, on 1, who was given not out after padding up to a delivery from Ashton Agar that was shown to be hitting off stump flush on.

Near miss of the day

Michael Clarke had chosen his field for Matt Prior like he was playing chess against Deep Blue. Players were moved inch by inch. Angles were discussed and measured until the player was in the exact right place for the exact kind of Prior slash we have seen a million times. It was only when everything was perfect that the bowler was allowed to come in. So when a Peter Siddle delivery was slashed in that very way, Clarke must have thought he had his man. Instead the very man that should have been the most important, the point fielder, couldn't get off the ground at all as the ball sailed inches from his hands. That man was Ed Cowan, who was back on the field after a couple of days of vomiting. His jump was so low it had no official hang-time. The next over, Steve Smith had replaced him at point. So Cowan took the catch off Prior at midwicket, by jumping, although still not very high.

(New) ball of the day

Not only had Australia maintained control with the old ball, they had managed to gain reverse swing. England had scored only four runs in the previous six overs, five of the last eight overs had been maidens and they had lost the wicket of Bairstow, edging a defensive prod well outside off stump off Agar. But instead of persisting with that method, Australia claimed the new ball and, with the extra pace helping the batsmen a little, England plundered 20 runs off the next three overs and 42 off the next 10; a feast in comparison with the famine on offer for most of the day. The newer ball soon offered reverse swing, too, but in a low scoring match, that relative run glut might yet prove crucial.

George Dobell is a senior correspondent at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • John on July 14, 2013, 8:21 GMT

    @Sanjiyan on (July 13, 2013, 12:47 GMT) Even Kallis hasn't always walked. I think as he's matured he has but (I'm sure it was him) didn't walk when Chris Adams caught him out yesteryear. It was a close thing but TV evidence made it look like Adams had caught it

  • John on July 14, 2013, 8:18 GMT

    @Mitty2 on (July 13, 2013, 6:23 GMT) I have in the past both criticised and praised Bell. Some would say more of the former , but what's wrong with criticising players selection when you feel they're not contributing enough and praising them when they perform well? Also re a player not walking on an lbw - surely that's different. I mean if a player clearly nicks it (a la Broad) he knows he's nicked it. If a player gets the benefit of a plum lbw decision is he for sure going to know it was plum? However I do get your points re modern players not walking but this case is unusual in that I reckon 99.9% of the time a 1st class umpire would not miss the blatant edge

  • Nicholas on July 13, 2013, 17:11 GMT

    @Mitty2: Please read my comments in article "Foolish to write off any Australian side". I am a fan of Bells; I think you're confusing me with someone else...

  • Walter on July 13, 2013, 12:47 GMT

    @Mitty2 on (July 13, 2013, 6:23 GMT) Kallis and Amla walk. Though it is extremely rare to see a batsman walk when hes out. I dont blame Broad for standing his ground and waiting for the ump to decide, even though its not really sporting. But we can say that for a million other examples. Good to see the aussies getting on with it tho. As for Holdings remarks, hes spot on.

  • H on July 13, 2013, 12:37 GMT

    @bluetin I don't get why so many people are going on about the Broad lbw. Yes, he offered no stroke, yes that means if he's struck outside the line he can still be out.

    But you still have to be very sure the ball's going to hit. Agar wasn't turning it a lot, there's no certainty it's hitting. He was also getting a lot of bounce out of the rough so the ball might have been going over. I've not seen a hawk eye to see how close it was, but unless was hitting the middle of middle the umpire's got every right to conclude he can't be sure if it's hitting or not.

    For the same reason I didn't agree with Rogers being given out lbw by the on-field umpire. Right arm over bowler around the wicket to a leftie, hit in front of leg. Too much doubt imho, force the bowler to review it if he wants.

  • H on July 13, 2013, 9:56 GMT

    @Mitty2 You're a class lad, mate. I like the way you call it how you see it, straight down the middle. Real cricket fan, which is great to see.

    Personally I don't think Broad can be criticised for not walking, hardly anyone does and it's the batsman's right. The issue of punishment is more troubling. Holding has a point that when the ICC took action against Ramdin for conduct contrary to the spirit of the game, they opened up a massive can of worms. Ramdin didn't claim a catch, he just didn't correct the umpires or his teammates. A fine might have been justified but a suspension was too much and now, to be fair, Broad has to be held to the same standard.

    Fact is the Agar decision was just as game-changing, as you say, although I would say the Agar decision was much more marginal. Broad clearly nicked it, there's no way you could argue he didn't, and for the umpire to miss it is a big mistake. Not going to write off Dar as an umpire based on one mistake, but it was a huge one.

  • Trevor on July 13, 2013, 9:37 GMT

    Replacing the on field umps with computers is the worst way you could go. The technology is far from infallible, in fact I and a lot of solid commentators believe it is far from that. Hawkeye has never been accurate.

    As for Dar being good I would have to seriously question this, first there was the not out to the no stroke LBW when Broad was on few then there comes the unbelievable decision to fail to see Broad hit the cover of the ball when caught out.

    As far as Broad walking or not I have no problems with that, you get good ones you get bad ones, you go with the flow, but there can be no excuse for Dar, he must be dropped as an umpire in the biggest series around. With the Agir decision, it was line ball, if you are going to use technology on these you MUST have true slow mo cameras, there is too much doubt generated by the possible movements that can occur between frames.

  • suresh kumar on July 13, 2013, 9:22 GMT

    Clarke has no moral right to ask broad to walk or to talk about spirit. Had he walket when he edged in first test against india last series against ashwin?

  • sri on July 13, 2013, 8:06 GMT

    @Mitty2 "No modern players walk, so why should broad? Tendulkar got plumb LBW a million times against us in the 4-0 hammering"

    Excuse us. Are you saying not walking for nicking and not walking for an lbw that was not given out( and that too umpire himself was not sure) are same? This also brings back the memories of sachin's lbw decision in 2011 WC against Pak when we all thought it was plumb but umpire didn't think so(and so did DRS)

    As for Sachin not walking You have very selective memory. He did walk in WC 2011 against WI and also in Your own soil you might want to check how he conducted himself after wrongly given out for all those pad bat catches and shoulder before wickets

    And It is not million times there were 3 shouts and 2 of them were close :)

    @electric_loco_WAP4 Tendulkar knicked off Stuart Clark in 2008?? How did you know just because the fielders were appealing ? :)

  • Albert on July 13, 2013, 7:48 GMT

    On field umpires should be replaced by 3CPO like robots who can see and hear everything -- the data that is used for DRS -- and make an instant on-field decision for every appeal. No human errors and no time wasted by referring to the third umpire.

  • No featured comments at the moment.