England v Australia, 2nd Investec Test, Lord's, 1st day July 18, 2013

A royal visit and Clarke's intuition

George Dobell and Jarrod Kimber at Lord's
ESPNcricinfo presents the plays of the day from the first day at Lord's
28

Visit of the day
The start of the Test was delayed for 15 minutes so that Her Majesty The Queen could be introduced to the players of both sides on the outfield in front of the pavilion. As Greg Baum pointed out on twitter, she did appear to be wearing batting inners. Perhaps she had come to watch Kevin Pietersen bat for, shortly after his dismissal, she left having watched about an hour's cricket. Just after she had met the players, the honour of ringing the Lord's bell was given to Steve Waugh.

Change of the day
Shane Watson, whose bowling can sometimes be described as benign, was brought on to bowl the fifth over the day. It could have been so James Pattinson could change ends, which did happen eventually, or because tactically, Michael Clarke is more cunning than HAL 9000. What resulted from this fifth over was eight runs and the wicket of Alastair Cook. It was the sort of dream moment for Watson, one over of effort, the captain and best batsman out, and then back into the slips to have a rest.

Simultaneous contact of the day
When Ryan Harris whirred down a ball towards the stumps of Joe Root, the batsman was fractionally late on his drive back down the ground, the ball clattering into pad and bat. Harris's appeal was vehement and Kumar Dharmasena's finger was raised, compelling Root to wander down the pitch and consult Jonathan Trott. After a delay he motioned for a review, and replays showed the ball meeting bat and pad at almost exactly the same time. It was another instance of a review going on a marginal call and another of the third umpire not having enough concrete evidence to overturn the original verdict. So Root had to go and Harris celebrated his first Test wicket in England.

Gift of the day
Jonathan Trott was progressing smoothly. He had just completed his half-century - his eighth score over 50 at Lord's in eight Tests on the ground - and, efficient off his legs and driving sweetly, had helped rebuild the England innings. While he had experienced a couple of uncomfortable moments against the short ball, he looked to have weathered that storm and appeared set for a big score. But then, as so often of late, an error of judgement saw him paddle a short ball from the deserving Ryan Harris almost directly to the man on the square leg boundary. It was a soft end to an innings that promised much and will have left Trott feeling that he failed to capitalise on his good form and the effort he had put into to reaching fifty. Trott has now been dismissed between 27 and 76 in 10 of his last 12 Test innings.

Reprieve of the day
Jonny Bairstow was on 21 when he was clean bowled, missing a straight one from Peter Siddle. But umpire Kumar Dharmasena suspected that Siddle may have overstepped and requested that the TV umpire, Tony Hill, check. Replays showed that, by the narrowest of margins, Siddle had no part of his foot behind the line and Bairstow was recalled. Had he been out, England would have been 171 for 5 and his Test career, with six dismissals bowled in 14 completed innings and only one half-century in his last 10 innings, might have been in jeopardy. He went on to make 67.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Crimsonbat on July 19, 2013, 10:23 GMT

    Eng should open with Cook and Trott. Trott has all the qualities of a very good opening batter. He sets up shop. Put Root in the middle after runs are on the board.

  • dummy4fb on July 19, 2013, 10:20 GMT

    with Clark its intuition with Dhoni its luck!

  • sarangsrk on July 19, 2013, 9:58 GMT

    @Sridhar, Though no time was lost yes'day, I agree with you completely on this becoming a precedent in each country. If the Queen had to meet the teams, it should have been done before the play or during lunch/tea breaks. I remember Mr Mandela meeting the Indian team during a break in India's 1st tour of SA after SA got reinducted in cricket world in 1992. I also remember lot of hues and cries being made when the play was stopped for 10 mins in 2008 when Sachin Tendulkar became the highest run scorer in test cricket and the fireworks went above the stadium.Mark Nicholas could not stop himself from repeating that this is unnecessary waste of time. This is for something that doesn't happen every year or 2 years. Mr Nicholas, how would you justify this "necessary" time utilisation?

  • Rahul_78 on July 19, 2013, 9:06 GMT

    First sign of wrist spin (very ordinary though) and England loose 3 for 18. Wickets include two highest run scores of the innings and last recognized batsmen. Heck most ridiculous thing was Poms sent Night watchman to shield Broad and Swann. This is a good batting wicket and will play at its best in day 2. Now Aussie needs to keep Poms in the middle as long as possible. Wining the toss and batting first England has made a right mess of things. People might be saying England are overwhelming favorites but they aren't certainly playing like one.

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on July 19, 2013, 8:11 GMT

    @funkybluesman (post on July 19, 2013, 0:25 GMT) & Mad_Hamish (post on July 19, 2013, 1:37 GMT): In English conditions, taking the pace off the ball has always worked wonders. I don't think the speed guns are broken/different here in U.K. - I genuinely believe by dropping the pace, you give much more opportunity for the ball to swing and seam, = two devastating weapons for seam bowling. Gun-barrel straight fast bowling races off the bat faster to the fence!

    Bringing in part-time bowlers like Smith just mixes things up; keeps the batsmen on their toes; late in the day like Clarke used Smith, takes advantage of wavering concentrations - especially in this alien heat for U.K. England (Cook) MUST do this more as well if they're going to persist with 6-1-4 formations all series.

  • dummy4fb on July 19, 2013, 8:08 GMT

    Regarding Baistrow's clean bowled of Siddle's ball (no ball), what would have been n happened if the ball does not hit the stumps? Because the ball hit the stumps, umpire called for review. If not, the umpire would have not called for review for over stepping. It is not fair. I have seen this so many times. Umpires are raising concerns only if the ball hit the stumps or if it is wicket taking delivery.

  • sachin_vvsfan on July 19, 2013, 6:21 GMT

    @ Vakkas Ashraf not 'only 90 overs' they can play more if time and light permits. #justsaying

  • orangtan on July 19, 2013, 4:37 GMT

    Can't they make up the 15 minutes by starting early on Day 2 ?

  • joprev on July 19, 2013, 4:35 GMT

    Can someone please explain to me how or why the umpire is allowed to review a No-Ball decision. Shouldn't it be up to the non striker to watch the bowlers feet before setting off? If he suspects a no ball then call a batting review??? Why is the umpire doing this on behalf of the batting team????? It is flat out unnecessary.

  • dummy4fb on July 19, 2013, 3:15 GMT

    @Kiran DS, in that test Dravid went on to make 68 but India still lost. It was also his last score over 50 and turned out to be his last series as an Indian great.