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

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on July 18, 2013, 19:04 GMT

    Don't understand why Smith's bowling/wickets came as such a big surprise. Couldn't understand in the first game, and again as I was watching the highlights today - why on Earth Clarke didn't use him/use him more when Pattinson and Siddle were getting nowhere, and Agar was getting spin.

    Now, are you watching and talking notes Cook/Flower? You both remember Root/KP/Trott/Bell can bowl a wee bit don't you? Anderson and Swann can't do all the bowling... Hopefully Bresnan will do well...

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on July 18, 2013, 19:04 GMT

    Don't understand why Smith's bowling/wickets came as such a big surprise. Couldn't understand in the first game, and again as I was watching the highlights today - why on Earth Clarke didn't use him/use him more when Pattinson and Siddle were getting nowhere, and Agar was getting spin.

    Now, are you watching and talking notes Cook/Flower? You both remember Root/KP/Trott/Bell can bowl a wee bit don't you? Anderson and Swann can't do all the bowling... Hopefully Bresnan will do well...

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • MelbourneMiracle on July 19, 2013, 3:06 GMT

    Dharmasena is probably the best umpire in the world!

  • on July 19, 2013, 3:01 GMT

    @Sridhar Allanki: Do you know that in tests you only play 90 overs in a day and in this match 89 overs were bowled. These 15 mins of play were added into the game. This was tol quite a few times i am guessing you didn't watch the match. So before you start riding on your high horse please check the facts.

  • Greatest_Game on July 19, 2013, 2:23 GMT

    @ Sridhar Allanki. i'm not even English and I can see that you need to chill out and show some respect for the game & some of it's quirky traditions. If you don't like it, don't follow cricket.

  • cnksnk on July 19, 2013, 1:52 GMT

    @Sridhar. While the start of the match was delayed by 15 min, the time was made up at the end of the day with the closing timings extended from 630 to 645 local time. So no time was lost and hence no complaints. But yes, it would have been ideal for the introductions to be done before the scheduled start and play to start on time

  • on July 19, 2013, 1:51 GMT

    @Sridhar They made up the 15 minutes. Normally play ends on 6:30 bug today it ended on 6:45. Therefore no time was lost and no harm was done to the test match.

  • Mad_Hamish on July 19, 2013, 1:37 GMT

    @R_U_4_REAL_NICK Smith hardly bowls at any level. Before the current match In first class cricket he's played 45 matches and has 47 wickets @ 57

    In the last shield season he took 1 wicket for 71 runs, in 2011-12 he took 4 wickets @103.5 He's basically quit bowling to focus on his batting

  • DKan on July 19, 2013, 0:43 GMT

    @Sridhar Did you even watch the game? They extended play by 15 mins, no time was lost.

  • mshyder on July 19, 2013, 0:36 GMT

    @Sridhar Allanki. Thank you so much for a perfect explanation of the phrase "Making a mountain of a mole hill."

  • funkybluesman on July 19, 2013, 0:25 GMT

    What's this about Watson's bowling being benign? The commentators were talking about bringing on the slower bowler, but his average speed was only a couple of mph less than the rest, and he can move the ball around in the air and off the pitch both ways. He is always handy and can bowl very testing spells and occasionally can be a real destroyer with the ball.

    And Joe Root's dismissal was not an instance of the third umpire not having enough evidence to overturn the onfield umpire. It was very tight, but reasonably clear that the ball struck the pad first. The side on shot on hotspot from the off side showed it well, with the ball striking the pad while the bat was still just behind the ball.

    From the naked eye it looked pretty clear to me that it hit the pad just before the bat. Very close, but clear nonetheless. And all different angles and things simply served to verify that.

    If given not-out I think that would have been enough to overturn it.

  • 2MikeGattings on July 18, 2013, 23:50 GMT

    Everyone is talking about how inspired Clarke's captaincy is. Few would have left Smith on after Bell's wicket, it's true. But tell me this: is he getting the best out of his bowlers? Does Pattinson know what plans he is supposed to be bowling to? There's a lot of clever-clever field placings but Harris has succeeded by hitting the top of off.

  • disco_bob on July 18, 2013, 23:35 GMT

    Seeing as the Root dismissal has been mentioned as 'simultaneous contact' I must point out that due to the complete lack of commentator discussion after seeing the replay and unanimous instant agreement that the ball had indeed hit pad first, when in reality it was only Root's lack of instant appeal that gave it away, it seemed to me that the commentators have specifically been asked to not inflame the DRS wars that started at Trent Bridge. And to my mind this is a good thing.

  • on July 18, 2013, 23:15 GMT

    @Sridhar Allanki, play was extended an extra 15 minutes at the end of the day, so no time was effectively lost.

  • JasperT on July 18, 2013, 22:08 GMT

    Lunch, tea and the close of play were also delayed by 15 minutes. There was a full six and a half hours of play, and Australia only bowled 89 of their allotted 90 overs because they bowled the overs too slowly. No time was lost.

  • on July 18, 2013, 20:54 GMT

    So, now test matches can be delayed for reasons other than weather! WoW. If this test match goes for 5 days and ends in a draw on last day with 1 wicket left, then everyone will start talking about the lost 15 min.

    Lets be uniform here. In the past, several test matches have been forced as draws by umpires in the past because time ran out on day 5. There are lot of times, when 15 min of rain have altered the results of test matches in various ways.

    Its a good tradition to follow, but ECB should have accounted those 15 min before the official start of play.

    What is ICC's explanation about these 15 min? Once you make rules stick to them, rules can't change for any tradition. I know I am exaggerating, but lets be clear on protocols. This can't become a precedent tomorrow where each host country decides they need to honor somone and start delaying the test matches by 15 or 30 min.

  • sarangsrk on July 18, 2013, 18:35 GMT

    So, for all the big talks and hype of following age-old english traditions, start of the match was actually delayed by 15-20 mins because the queen was visiting. Great..England keep surprising me.

  • on July 18, 2013, 18:16 GMT

    Nothing new about Peter Siddle clean bowling batsmen off what eventually turns out to be a no-ball. He never seems to learn. Two years ago he bowled Rahul Dravid off a no-ball in the Melbourne Test.

  • swervin on July 18, 2013, 18:13 GMT

    clarkey can't have too much of a problem with watto if he bowled him in the fifth over??

  • swervin on July 18, 2013, 18:13 GMT

    clarkey can't have too much of a problem with watto if he bowled him in the fifth over??

  • on July 18, 2013, 18:16 GMT

    Nothing new about Peter Siddle clean bowling batsmen off what eventually turns out to be a no-ball. He never seems to learn. Two years ago he bowled Rahul Dravid off a no-ball in the Melbourne Test.

  • sarangsrk on July 18, 2013, 18:35 GMT

    So, for all the big talks and hype of following age-old english traditions, start of the match was actually delayed by 15-20 mins because the queen was visiting. Great..England keep surprising me.

  • on July 18, 2013, 20:54 GMT

    So, now test matches can be delayed for reasons other than weather! WoW. If this test match goes for 5 days and ends in a draw on last day with 1 wicket left, then everyone will start talking about the lost 15 min.

    Lets be uniform here. In the past, several test matches have been forced as draws by umpires in the past because time ran out on day 5. There are lot of times, when 15 min of rain have altered the results of test matches in various ways.

    Its a good tradition to follow, but ECB should have accounted those 15 min before the official start of play.

    What is ICC's explanation about these 15 min? Once you make rules stick to them, rules can't change for any tradition. I know I am exaggerating, but lets be clear on protocols. This can't become a precedent tomorrow where each host country decides they need to honor somone and start delaying the test matches by 15 or 30 min.

  • JasperT on July 18, 2013, 22:08 GMT

    Lunch, tea and the close of play were also delayed by 15 minutes. There was a full six and a half hours of play, and Australia only bowled 89 of their allotted 90 overs because they bowled the overs too slowly. No time was lost.

  • on July 18, 2013, 23:15 GMT

    @Sridhar Allanki, play was extended an extra 15 minutes at the end of the day, so no time was effectively lost.

  • disco_bob on July 18, 2013, 23:35 GMT

    Seeing as the Root dismissal has been mentioned as 'simultaneous contact' I must point out that due to the complete lack of commentator discussion after seeing the replay and unanimous instant agreement that the ball had indeed hit pad first, when in reality it was only Root's lack of instant appeal that gave it away, it seemed to me that the commentators have specifically been asked to not inflame the DRS wars that started at Trent Bridge. And to my mind this is a good thing.

  • 2MikeGattings on July 18, 2013, 23:50 GMT

    Everyone is talking about how inspired Clarke's captaincy is. Few would have left Smith on after Bell's wicket, it's true. But tell me this: is he getting the best out of his bowlers? Does Pattinson know what plans he is supposed to be bowling to? There's a lot of clever-clever field placings but Harris has succeeded by hitting the top of off.

  • funkybluesman on July 19, 2013, 0:25 GMT

    What's this about Watson's bowling being benign? The commentators were talking about bringing on the slower bowler, but his average speed was only a couple of mph less than the rest, and he can move the ball around in the air and off the pitch both ways. He is always handy and can bowl very testing spells and occasionally can be a real destroyer with the ball.

    And Joe Root's dismissal was not an instance of the third umpire not having enough evidence to overturn the onfield umpire. It was very tight, but reasonably clear that the ball struck the pad first. The side on shot on hotspot from the off side showed it well, with the ball striking the pad while the bat was still just behind the ball.

    From the naked eye it looked pretty clear to me that it hit the pad just before the bat. Very close, but clear nonetheless. And all different angles and things simply served to verify that.

    If given not-out I think that would have been enough to overturn it.

  • mshyder on July 19, 2013, 0:36 GMT

    @Sridhar Allanki. Thank you so much for a perfect explanation of the phrase "Making a mountain of a mole hill."