England v Australia, 2nd Investec Test, Lord's, 2nd day July 19, 2013

The worst dismissal in history?

Plays of the day from the second day of the second Ashes Test at Lord's
  shares 53

Worst ball ever of the day
Chris Rogers' ludicrous dismissal has a case for being the worst wicket in Test history. Usually a wicket comes from a combination of excellence and error. Here as many as five people were at fault, and none in credit. Graeme Swann bowled a high full toss; Rogers missed it; Marais Erasmus gave him out even though the ball was missing leg; Rogers then decided not to review after a discussion with Usman Khawaja; he surely would have gone upstairs but for Shane Watson's indulgent waste of Australia's first review before lunch. It was a five-piece farce, but only England were laughing.

Review of the day
You need a lot of confidence in your ability to make it as a professional sportsman. Watson certainly has that. What he doesn't always have is an awareness of the world around him. There were people on double-decker buses on Wellington Road that saw Watson was plumb, but the man himself didn't see it that way. He decided to review the decision. Shockingly to no one at all, it remained out.

Lost saviour of the day
Bonnie Tyler wasn't at Lord's, but when Ashton Agar walked out every Australia fan was whispering "I need a hero". Agar's groin and finger injuries so far this series have limited his effectiveness as a bowler, but as a batsman, well, you know. In collapses, kids who didn't take things too seriously and haven't been beaten down by life can often stand up and do well. Instead Brad Haddin refused to run on Agar's call, and Agar almost completed two runs. Australia lost their magical No. 8 for only 2.

Walk of the day
Stuart Broad snicked James Pattinson behind to present Haddin with his fifth catch and end the England innings. But the hosts had a review left, and Broad would not have been sufficiently fulfilling his role as Australia's chief agitator if he had not called for it. So the third umpire was summoned, and the replays were forensically examined. Broad stood and waited, as did the umpires. But the Australians were in no mood to continue the charade, and bounded off the field, not waiting for Tony Hill's verdict to be relayed. They seemed in a hurry to start batting, and were equally enthusiastic about ignoring Broad.

Drop of the day
Khawaja never once looked comfortable against the spin of Swann, and it was not much of a surprise when on 7 he prodded at an offbreak and snicked straight into the hands of Jonathan Trott at slip. More startling was that, having been offered such a friendly chance, Trott spurned it, the ball slipping to the turf. It was the kind of missed opportunity that good players make a fielding side pay for but, on this day, Khawaja would not prove himself up the task. A mere seven runs later, he advanced with neither conviction nor precision to loft Swann, and succeeded only in popping a skier to mid-off.

Jarrod Kimber is 50% of the Two Chucks, and the mind responsible for cricketwithballs.com

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • jmcilhinney on July 20, 2013, 3:16 GMT

    Rogers can rightly consider himself unlucky but, while I don't quite have the view that the umpire does, I have to confess that I was more concerned about the height then the line. I'd also be interested to know what Rogers said to Watson when when he was consulted about whether Watson should review his LBW decision. If Rogers suggested reviewing then he contributed to his own dismissal right there. If he didn't and Watson still reviewed then that definitely won't help Watson heal any supposed rifts between him and team-mates.

  • on July 19, 2013, 22:41 GMT

    Rogers was just unlucky, to lay blame on the DRS or the umpires is a bit much. Rogers is a class bat, but was caught by surprise and made a mistake. The delivery he got was the last thing he was expecting. In reality the best way to not be given LBW is to hit the ball and there is nothing about Rogers or that ball that says he should not be able to hit it. If he had smashed it to the boundry which is what it deserved there would be no contraversy. Thus is the pain of batting, one minor error, one small lapse in concentration and its bye bye. Philip Hughes no different, given the match situation why was he swinging wildly at a wideish ball. If he'd let it go through to the keeper again, no issues. Umpiring is no easy task. DRS should be there to help the umpires, not to help the players. I say no limit let the umpires decide, they can say yes thats close we will have a look if the DRS says out its out. In reality now its pretty quick to do.

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on July 20, 2013, 10:03 GMT

    @Optic & Trickstar: I do agree with your comments. It would be a very, very brave selection panel that leaves KP out - I certainly wouldn't despite my moaning! I'm just frustrated by talented players throwing their wickets away so close to end of play. KP gets my attention more because I favour 'slow and steady' players like Trott and Bell, rather than 'all or nothing' players like Seywag and KP. But I can't deny a good, balanced team needs both kinds of players. Somehow KP getting out always looks more ugly than the others - it might be just my disappointment. I had a good sleep last night nonetheless.

  • jackiethepen on July 20, 2013, 10:03 GMT

    How about Catch of the day? But that would have to go to Bell's great catch at short leg. . And we know that Kimber is finding it hard enough to praise Bell for his back to back centuries which so far have rescued England. I read his article about Bell as though the batsman has been hiding away since 2009. He did the same rescue job at the Oval in the Ashes decider. He played wonderfully in South Africa. Overlooked by Kimber and Co he has been playing key innings. Bell has been almost invisible on Cricinfo. But his best century must be at Trent Bridge 2011 when he batted at 3. The media were more interested in the controversy over his 'teabreak' dismissal. How they all chortled after Bell had batted sublimely. It doesn't matter because Bell isn't driven by ego. But why not face facts? 19 Test centuries tell a different story than Kimber has been relating.

  • t20-2007 on July 20, 2013, 9:19 GMT

    India has best batting line up in the world currently..n nobody can deny that

  • on July 20, 2013, 9:16 GMT

    We have all seen Tendulkar getting out for"Head before the wicket", a few years ago. But this is perhaps the first time one could dee a batsman getting out for "groin before the wicket"! Roger to that!

  • sachin_vvsfan on July 20, 2013, 7:58 GMT

    Certainly not the worst dismissal. There were much worse lbw decisions given in the past like lbw where all the 3 wickets were visible or lbw( sbw) for ducking

  • crh8971 on July 20, 2013, 6:45 GMT

    @Amith I have no idea what makes you so sure that Watson will learn his lesson as he has shown no indication of learning anything in his career. I am not sure they keep stats on it but Watson would have to be the international cricketer with the highest number of failed reviews. His standard mode of dismissal is to fall away to the off side and play around a ball angled into him. He always reviews and he is always wrong. Selectors don't learn their lesson on him either!

  • Sarangarajan on July 20, 2013, 6:13 GMT

    Hawkeye system is flawed in design and operation.Easily can be manipulated by intent or oversight.Hot spot- the less said the better as shown in the Ashes series now and the England Vs India series last summer- with these systems in place it is a farce to restrict the DRS to only two unsuccessful per innings.When you see test matches in HD and see these glaring follies go unaccounted for, one wonders where is the game going to?What is a big deal in slowing down a test match to get fair decisions.

  • Whatsgoinoffoutthere on July 20, 2013, 6:00 GMT

    @Vaidy Krishnan:

    The thing wrong with unlimited reviews is that we'll all die of old age before Shane Watson is off the mark. He'd probably start trying to review the reviews.

    And in deciding the outcome of the reviews, Erasmus can be heard whispering; "One potato, two potato, three potato, four..."

  • jmcilhinney on July 20, 2013, 3:16 GMT

    Rogers can rightly consider himself unlucky but, while I don't quite have the view that the umpire does, I have to confess that I was more concerned about the height then the line. I'd also be interested to know what Rogers said to Watson when when he was consulted about whether Watson should review his LBW decision. If Rogers suggested reviewing then he contributed to his own dismissal right there. If he didn't and Watson still reviewed then that definitely won't help Watson heal any supposed rifts between him and team-mates.

  • on July 19, 2013, 22:41 GMT

    Rogers was just unlucky, to lay blame on the DRS or the umpires is a bit much. Rogers is a class bat, but was caught by surprise and made a mistake. The delivery he got was the last thing he was expecting. In reality the best way to not be given LBW is to hit the ball and there is nothing about Rogers or that ball that says he should not be able to hit it. If he had smashed it to the boundry which is what it deserved there would be no contraversy. Thus is the pain of batting, one minor error, one small lapse in concentration and its bye bye. Philip Hughes no different, given the match situation why was he swinging wildly at a wideish ball. If he'd let it go through to the keeper again, no issues. Umpiring is no easy task. DRS should be there to help the umpires, not to help the players. I say no limit let the umpires decide, they can say yes thats close we will have a look if the DRS says out its out. In reality now its pretty quick to do.

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on July 20, 2013, 10:03 GMT

    @Optic & Trickstar: I do agree with your comments. It would be a very, very brave selection panel that leaves KP out - I certainly wouldn't despite my moaning! I'm just frustrated by talented players throwing their wickets away so close to end of play. KP gets my attention more because I favour 'slow and steady' players like Trott and Bell, rather than 'all or nothing' players like Seywag and KP. But I can't deny a good, balanced team needs both kinds of players. Somehow KP getting out always looks more ugly than the others - it might be just my disappointment. I had a good sleep last night nonetheless.

  • jackiethepen on July 20, 2013, 10:03 GMT

    How about Catch of the day? But that would have to go to Bell's great catch at short leg. . And we know that Kimber is finding it hard enough to praise Bell for his back to back centuries which so far have rescued England. I read his article about Bell as though the batsman has been hiding away since 2009. He did the same rescue job at the Oval in the Ashes decider. He played wonderfully in South Africa. Overlooked by Kimber and Co he has been playing key innings. Bell has been almost invisible on Cricinfo. But his best century must be at Trent Bridge 2011 when he batted at 3. The media were more interested in the controversy over his 'teabreak' dismissal. How they all chortled after Bell had batted sublimely. It doesn't matter because Bell isn't driven by ego. But why not face facts? 19 Test centuries tell a different story than Kimber has been relating.

  • t20-2007 on July 20, 2013, 9:19 GMT

    India has best batting line up in the world currently..n nobody can deny that

  • on July 20, 2013, 9:16 GMT

    We have all seen Tendulkar getting out for"Head before the wicket", a few years ago. But this is perhaps the first time one could dee a batsman getting out for "groin before the wicket"! Roger to that!

  • sachin_vvsfan on July 20, 2013, 7:58 GMT

    Certainly not the worst dismissal. There were much worse lbw decisions given in the past like lbw where all the 3 wickets were visible or lbw( sbw) for ducking

  • crh8971 on July 20, 2013, 6:45 GMT

    @Amith I have no idea what makes you so sure that Watson will learn his lesson as he has shown no indication of learning anything in his career. I am not sure they keep stats on it but Watson would have to be the international cricketer with the highest number of failed reviews. His standard mode of dismissal is to fall away to the off side and play around a ball angled into him. He always reviews and he is always wrong. Selectors don't learn their lesson on him either!

  • Sarangarajan on July 20, 2013, 6:13 GMT

    Hawkeye system is flawed in design and operation.Easily can be manipulated by intent or oversight.Hot spot- the less said the better as shown in the Ashes series now and the England Vs India series last summer- with these systems in place it is a farce to restrict the DRS to only two unsuccessful per innings.When you see test matches in HD and see these glaring follies go unaccounted for, one wonders where is the game going to?What is a big deal in slowing down a test match to get fair decisions.

  • Whatsgoinoffoutthere on July 20, 2013, 6:00 GMT

    @Vaidy Krishnan:

    The thing wrong with unlimited reviews is that we'll all die of old age before Shane Watson is off the mark. He'd probably start trying to review the reviews.

    And in deciding the outcome of the reviews, Erasmus can be heard whispering; "One potato, two potato, three potato, four..."

  • AlbertPintoGussaHua on July 20, 2013, 4:30 GMT

    Hawkeye is taken for granted by everyone but that technology is actually flawed and unreliable.

  • Batmanian on July 20, 2013, 4:29 GMT

    As I recall, Khawaja also came close to running Rogers out, dozing at the non-striker's end.

  • on July 20, 2013, 4:13 GMT

    Jai Ho India.....No DRS ever...! Cant Complain, Can we Folks ?

  • ADB1 on July 20, 2013, 4:03 GMT

    @GrindAR: "Taken them out and see, these two teams are equivalent to Zimbabwe/BD in batting."

    Typical SC trolling. If England's batsmen are at Zim/BD level, what does that make India? Associate-level?

  • Someguy on July 20, 2013, 2:46 GMT

    @Vaidy Krishnan - unlimited reviews? I don't really have a problem with that for the batting team. I think every dismissal should be reviewed for anything blatantly wrong, but the fielding team should only get the 2. If they got unlimited we'd only get 10 overs in a day. Have a look at how many times they consider reviewing even though they only have 2. If they could review every time they hit the pads they would.

  • on July 20, 2013, 2:43 GMT

    A review is wasted not when taken, but when found to be taken incorrectly. If either Rogers OR Khwaja (2 of Australia's top 3) was 100% sure the ball was missing leg, he could have insisted on taking the review for Rogers. Clearly, none of them was sure the ball was missing leg. For a team whose striker & non-striker both don't know where the leg-stump is ....and worse, have both of them in the top-order, Australia deserve what they got by way of the Rogers' dismissal. Let's start putting blame in the right place, rather than pamper player incompetence just because there is somebody else to point a finger at. I am not for a minute saying Erasmus' decision was right - but the Aussie batsmen on field could have got it reviewed - they didn't, confirming that either they are incompetent as batsmen (none knows where the Leg Stump is) & do not therefore deserve to play OR irrespective of TV Replays, Erasmus was right ! Leave it there rather than pampering Aussie incompetence.

  • scarab666 on July 20, 2013, 2:15 GMT

    Not only has the standard of cricket diminished over the last few years but so has the umpiring. Firstly, the DRS has to be taken away from the teams and given to the umpires to use at their discretion and as often as they like. Before DRS all players had to accept the umpires ruling no questions asked.....now the players use the DRS is a legal way of questioning the umpires decision. And that is not cricket in my books. As long as we continue with our current system...who would want to be an umpire ! and we need future umpires.

  • Barnesy4444 on July 20, 2013, 2:11 GMT

    Rodgers' decision was a howler. For whatever reason a terrible umpiring decision remains, again. Isn't this further proof that the DRS review system is failing and needs looking into by the ICC? Why is it a batsman's job to make umpiring decisions?

    As for some people saying Rodgers was plumb, Swann was right arm around and the ball hit Rodgers in front of leg. The ball would have easily missed all 3 stumps.

  • Trickstar on July 20, 2013, 1:50 GMT

    R_U_4_REAL_NICK You always make me laugh when you pipe up about KP. Yes he got out playing an attacking shot but it doesn't deserve any extra attention than any other England batsmen. Look at the ways Trott has been getting out the past couple of years, going for big drives and throwing his wicket away. Prior, who funnily enough got out at TB in exactly the same manner as KP. Cook as been out playing silly shots, they've all been at it, It's what happens in cricket, so why do feel the need to give KP special treatment. He's not there to play like Cook or Trott although like I said they often get out in the same way as him. He's an aggressive batsmen, paid to take the attack back to the opposition and more often than not win matches for England. Why England fans like you feel the need to pick fault but I bet you, when he's gone we'll miss him and no doubt be all sat there asking where's the next KP but there won't be one. Ateotd KP averages most past 2 years out of all England players.

  • lillie_express on July 20, 2013, 1:31 GMT

    DRS shows us and the players a couple of things: generally the umpires do a great job summing up all the requirements for an out verdict. The replays show the ball just pitching in line, just hitting leg...it is actually quiet impressive at times to see them getting it right. There are the occasional howlers, but I would like to point out that the players have committed more decision howlers than the umpires and do nothing but prove that the umpires are skilled at decision making and the players are not.

  • on July 20, 2013, 1:27 GMT

    Unlike the third umpire was 100% sure, Rogers' lbw would not have been overturned. Rogers should have had more courage resisting Watson too.

  • Chris_Howard on July 20, 2013, 1:24 GMT

    Agar forgot that he was running with one of the oldest guys in the team. You've got to remember your partner's running ability when batting. Always telling the kids that. Haddin reacted way too slowly.

    And Haddin's reaction times certainly aren't what they used to be, exhibit B, one missed catch he hardly moved for but just enough to put off first slip.

  • vatsap on July 20, 2013, 1:20 GMT

    These are still early days, but the Agar runout reminded me of how Tendulkar used to sacrifice his wicket early on in his career to seniors like Manoj Prabhakar and Sidhu. An Indian fans worst night mare. Wish more for Agar.

  • BrisVegan on July 20, 2013, 1:06 GMT

    @Gautam No way, this dismissal was far worse than the Sachin LBW. Find a side-on video of the latter on Youtube - the ball was not rising or was even marginally descending when in line with the top of the stumps. Certainly no howler. If DRS was in operation then, at worst, the decision would've gone back to the umpire - hence, out.

    With Rogers' dismissal, in real time, it appeared there was plenty of doubt about whether it would have hit leg or slid down leg. The circumstances surrounding this dismissal were ridiculous - terrible ball, terrible miss, umpiring blunder and then non-referral when it should have been.

  • Amith_S on July 20, 2013, 0:59 GMT

    I think players have to be smarter with what they review, look at how well Cook does it, never reviews until he is sure, Watson will learn his lesson and won't review in future unless he needs to. Khawaja will fire for us in one of the games in this series but like Cowan needs a good go at this spot and not just 1 game as has been the case in the past, he is a real talent. All our lefties struggle against Swan so nothing new here. And drop of the day was Haddin not catching Root's edge which was his catch but he left for Clarke to catch.

  • on July 20, 2013, 0:57 GMT

    I reckon the worst decision in a test match to be WI and Eng in the mid ninties in the Caribbean(94 or 95). Eng has always had problems getting Chanderpaul out. The bowler delivered a knee high full toss which SC edged into the ground. The ball bounced about a metre behind the batsman and off the bounce was caught by slip and amazingly the umpire gave it out to Chanderpaul's disbelief. (Think the umpire was Eddie Nichols or lloyd Barker)

  • on July 19, 2013, 23:54 GMT

    Let's go the whole hog and get rid of on-field umpires entirely. Replace them with an on-field play manager, performing mostly administrative tasks. The OPM would hold the bowlers' hat and sweater during the over, and might intervene if it looks like there might be a punch-up about to happen between opposing players. Otherwise, a bell rings after each 6 ball over, and each delivery is electronically validated for no-ball and wide status. The fielding team appeals not to the umpire, but to whichever TV camera is trained on them - there's plenty to choose from. The verdict is delivered by the Match Referee in the stand with a simple thumbs up or thumbs down signal. The crowd must signal appropriately for four or six runs.

  • Optic on July 19, 2013, 23:46 GMT

    '@ R_U_4_REAL_NICK No more infuriating than the likes of Prior but lets be honest most of the stuff you've said about him has been frankly rubbish. it's the nature of the beast, he's an attacking batsman but as the last test match showed he can play patient innings. The fact is England were miles ahead & if that ball had gone 2 meters either side people would be saying what a great shot it was. I Don't mind him going after the bowling, when we're so far ahead and we needed to score runs. The fact is he isn't in prime form having played so little cricket, 2 innings going into this series but will no doubt come good, like he always does. The fact is he is England's most consistent batsmen , look at his year on year stats, always 50ish. We've enforced the follow on twice with Flower in charge. It was the right call only day 2 . Only way back for Aus is if they had the use of the pitch over day 3 and 4, scored 400 and made us chase 160. Pitch is already keeping low and it's turning more.

  • on July 19, 2013, 23:30 GMT

    @Vidyasagar Gec, you lost faith on DRS today, you are a grity man then, I've lost the faith in 2011 India Vs Pakistan, when Saeed Ajmal bowled a Floater and Hawk Eyes shows a big Offspinner. In this decision, Ball was half hitting the wicket when I saw it at first time and I also predicted it was OUT, but DRS has diff. views. The thing is the Host Country can Manipulate the DRS and Hawk Eyes trajectory within a sec bcoz its not under the ICC or a Neutral Umpires hand, its in the Broadcaster Companies hand thats the main and biggest demerit of DRS. DRS and Hawk Eyes are costly equipment hence no host company or ICC want to pay so they left for the Broadcaster and it can be easily manipulated.

  • orangtan on July 19, 2013, 22:56 GMT

    @Vidyasagar Gec, agree 100%, Hawkeye is reliable only to show where the ball lands ( cricket or tennis), no way can you rely on it to capture and rule on swing/spin/drift whatever unless you have a wire attached to the bowler's wrist, don't let the techies tell you otherwise.

  • whatawicket on July 19, 2013, 22:30 GMT

    i was under the impression when a full toss hits you full on then hawkeye should say it does not deviate, not dart down the leg side. before drs, that's what dictated the umpires decision.

  • StJohn on July 19, 2013, 22:28 GMT

    Haddin had an awful day. He ran out Agar when it was Agar's call, and a couple of times he didn't go for a catch which ordinarily you'd expect the keeper to go for, most notably off Root early in England's second innings. But for that, England might well have been 30-4 at the close.

  • TheDoctor394 on July 19, 2013, 22:12 GMT

    I find it astonishing that people are asking for unlimited reviews. Every time a batsman was LBW or caught behind, there'd be a review. Every time a bowling team even had a hint of the same kind of dismissal, there'd be a review. We'd hardly get in 50 overs a day. There has to be a limit, and I think two is fine. It's up to the respective teams to learn to use it properly. Like it or not, it's part of the game now.

  • sonicattack on July 19, 2013, 22:03 GMT

    @Jimmers - KP did get 60-odd in the second innings at TB, helped England move on from 11-2!

  • on July 19, 2013, 22:00 GMT

    Just like the commentators, stick with this squad for the rest of the Ashes and the result will be fruitful. The legendary Aussie team players weren't legends since their birth, the team management decided to stick with them for a longer period of time and they created what came out to be the best squad of all-time. Please stick with this lineup Australian Management! Fawad Ahmed can be given a go later in the series I feel. Probably the last test.

  • malinvancouver on July 19, 2013, 21:36 GMT

    @ Vidyasagar Gec

    What are you on about?

    Right arm round the wicket and it hit the batsman pretty much in line with leg stump. Where else could it possibly continue to other than missing leg stump?

    Specifically what about Hawk-Eye is it that you believe is incorrect? And I mean scientifically. They have spent thousands of hours testing and refining it.

    I'm very interested to hear exactly what 'evidence' you have to say that all that work is invalid.

  • on July 19, 2013, 21:20 GMT

    My suspicion is that the umpires have lost confidence in lbw decisions and are almost doing so by numbers.Some marginal decisions went against the Aussies in the first test and Marais Erasmus really probably just gave the decision on the full toss and the fact that it was Swann bowling,given his record to left handers.The Broad first test non dismissal and the Rogers one here are amongst the worst decisions in years.

  • mamboman on July 19, 2013, 20:13 GMT

    Khawaja. Not good enough, never will be.

  • on July 19, 2013, 19:52 GMT

    whats wrong with granting unlimited reviews?

  • inswing on July 19, 2013, 19:46 GMT

    One improvement to DRS is a must: All 'out' decisions should be automatically reviewed. More often than not, it is a farce when the bastman, who is not thinking straight after just being given out, decided by himself to review. It is not Watson's fault - LBW are particularly hard for top order batsmen to accept.

  • Jimmers on July 19, 2013, 19:42 GMT

    R_U_4_REAL_NICK you pretty much answered your own question there old fruit - the bowlers are probably frazzled from being in the sun all day, and Anderson in particular needs careful handling. KP admittedly done nothing in the series so far, but he's world class - unthinkable to not have him there.

  • on July 19, 2013, 19:32 GMT

    Yes Brian. Looking at the back of my ticket for tomorrow in the Lower Compton (in shade thank goodness). The information is the same for day 4 tickets: Full refund if no play or due to weather or match finishing only 10 overs. 50% refund if weather or completion of the match causes only 10.1 to 24.5 overs to be bowled. No other refunds. Hope that helps. And that Cricinfo post this all my previous humorous posting about dave podmore have gone missing.

  • on July 19, 2013, 19:19 GMT

    Worst decision ever? Nope. That has to be (sachin) shoulder before wicket

  • whatawicket on July 19, 2013, 19:17 GMT

    watched the full day on sky and just watched the highlights on ch 5. with all the pundits on both stations giving us their opinion of whats happening. i have to admit they know. as much or as little as me. hindsight can be a great thing from Michael Vaughn telling us its a batting paradise before the Aussie 1st innings or bumble tell us England are going to do to add to the follow on total. they should do the match commentary on the highlights its easier.lol

  • GrindAR on July 19, 2013, 19:13 GMT

    @Brian D'Monte: Seriously a good humorous question... If you wd have bought tickets for each day, then they shd. But for the match, probably not... at-least for this match, you may need to show-up on day 4 as well. Only difference I see between Eng & Aussie is, (IRB+JMB) wins the differentiating scores. Taken them out and see, these two teams are equivalent to Zimbabwe/BD in batting. Only their bowling units can say they are upto the international standards, honestly top notch setup. If any of these two play with any of other top 6 teams, they will loose every match possibly, without IRB+JMB. In this matchagain tailenders of england gave them advantageous score, if you include IRB+JMB contributions. Look like the only people who want to win are bowlers and their batting. All the primarily batsmen are competing to who loose the match better... Aussie can t even play swany.. how can they play other better spinners...

  • on July 19, 2013, 19:10 GMT

    I lost whatever faith I had on DRS with Rogers wicket... Its clear plumb, but hawkeye managed to show it as missing leg stump.

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on July 19, 2013, 18:48 GMT

    Now do people understand why I'm so infuriated by KP? Now do people understand why I hate the way Cook and Flower never enforce the follow-on? Australia already demoralised and the England bowlers going well, and England STILL insist on coming out to bat again after being cooked in the heat in the field all day.

  • on July 19, 2013, 18:40 GMT

    They give these guy's contracts....??????

  • on July 19, 2013, 18:35 GMT

    If any further proof were needed that Watson is out of sync with his team (or anything that doesn't involve him directly) his review of the plumb LBW decision surely was it! His team mates then had to work around his selfish decision and it cost them two further wickets!

  • CapitalMarkets on July 19, 2013, 18:32 GMT

    Today would have been a comedy of errors, except that Australia have little to laugh about. Australia's first mistake was to drop Cowan for being sick in the first test. Khwaja has a much poorer batting average than Cowan and was one of (at least) six players who caught the T20 bug and contributed to their own demise. There should be a simple rule for DRS LBW reviews; if you know you hit it, call for the review but if you don't, you need your colleague to call for the review. If he won't, walk. What on earth were Watson, Khwaja, Hughes and (especially) Haddin thinking of? Haddin was the least impressive for me as he threw away his own wicket and Agar's. Just because the other batsman wasn't born when you started out in representative cricket, it doesn't give you the right to ignore him when it's his call. He ran out Agar and then compounded his error by trying to go after Swann. Anyone else could see that it should be about survival against Swann and hitting the seamers on that track!

  • on July 19, 2013, 18:17 GMT

    What does one do when all is done and dusted by day three of this "Test" - are spectators given refunds ?

  • on July 19, 2013, 18:14 GMT

    I can't believe Marais Erasmus is in the ICC panel

  • Shan156 on July 19, 2013, 17:45 GMT

    Look at the series averages of our top 7 - except Bell and Bairstow, they all average around 20 with Prior averaging just around 12. While I have been a huge fan of Ian Bell, his inability to grind it out in tough situations in the past has been infuriating. He has answered all his critics, including yours truly, in some style. Without him, our batting is only just a little better than Aus. on current form. Bairstow has also batted well and while I have always advocated a 5 bowler policy, I am sure as glad that Bairstow is playing this series considering the poor form of our batsmen and the Aussies. 3 wickets gone in no time in the 2nd innings. While Siddle bowled well, he didn't bowl *that* well. It is again up to Bell and Bairstow to redeem our innings and give us at least a 450 run lead. Root and Prior should also step up now.

  • Shan156 on July 19, 2013, 17:45 GMT

    Look at the series averages of our top 7 - except Bell and Bairstow, they all average around 20 with Prior averaging just around 12. While I have been a huge fan of Ian Bell, his inability to grind it out in tough situations in the past has been infuriating. He has answered all his critics, including yours truly, in some style. Without him, our batting is only just a little better than Aus. on current form. Bairstow has also batted well and while I have always advocated a 5 bowler policy, I am sure as glad that Bairstow is playing this series considering the poor form of our batsmen and the Aussies. 3 wickets gone in no time in the 2nd innings. While Siddle bowled well, he didn't bowl *that* well. It is again up to Bell and Bairstow to redeem our innings and give us at least a 450 run lead. Root and Prior should also step up now.

  • on July 19, 2013, 18:14 GMT

    I can't believe Marais Erasmus is in the ICC panel

  • on July 19, 2013, 18:17 GMT

    What does one do when all is done and dusted by day three of this "Test" - are spectators given refunds ?

  • CapitalMarkets on July 19, 2013, 18:32 GMT

    Today would have been a comedy of errors, except that Australia have little to laugh about. Australia's first mistake was to drop Cowan for being sick in the first test. Khwaja has a much poorer batting average than Cowan and was one of (at least) six players who caught the T20 bug and contributed to their own demise. There should be a simple rule for DRS LBW reviews; if you know you hit it, call for the review but if you don't, you need your colleague to call for the review. If he won't, walk. What on earth were Watson, Khwaja, Hughes and (especially) Haddin thinking of? Haddin was the least impressive for me as he threw away his own wicket and Agar's. Just because the other batsman wasn't born when you started out in representative cricket, it doesn't give you the right to ignore him when it's his call. He ran out Agar and then compounded his error by trying to go after Swann. Anyone else could see that it should be about survival against Swann and hitting the seamers on that track!

  • on July 19, 2013, 18:35 GMT

    If any further proof were needed that Watson is out of sync with his team (or anything that doesn't involve him directly) his review of the plumb LBW decision surely was it! His team mates then had to work around his selfish decision and it cost them two further wickets!

  • on July 19, 2013, 18:40 GMT

    They give these guy's contracts....??????

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on July 19, 2013, 18:48 GMT

    Now do people understand why I'm so infuriated by KP? Now do people understand why I hate the way Cook and Flower never enforce the follow-on? Australia already demoralised and the England bowlers going well, and England STILL insist on coming out to bat again after being cooked in the heat in the field all day.

  • on July 19, 2013, 19:10 GMT

    I lost whatever faith I had on DRS with Rogers wicket... Its clear plumb, but hawkeye managed to show it as missing leg stump.

  • GrindAR on July 19, 2013, 19:13 GMT

    @Brian D'Monte: Seriously a good humorous question... If you wd have bought tickets for each day, then they shd. But for the match, probably not... at-least for this match, you may need to show-up on day 4 as well. Only difference I see between Eng & Aussie is, (IRB+JMB) wins the differentiating scores. Taken them out and see, these two teams are equivalent to Zimbabwe/BD in batting. Only their bowling units can say they are upto the international standards, honestly top notch setup. If any of these two play with any of other top 6 teams, they will loose every match possibly, without IRB+JMB. In this matchagain tailenders of england gave them advantageous score, if you include IRB+JMB contributions. Look like the only people who want to win are bowlers and their batting. All the primarily batsmen are competing to who loose the match better... Aussie can t even play swany.. how can they play other better spinners...

  • whatawicket on July 19, 2013, 19:17 GMT

    watched the full day on sky and just watched the highlights on ch 5. with all the pundits on both stations giving us their opinion of whats happening. i have to admit they know. as much or as little as me. hindsight can be a great thing from Michael Vaughn telling us its a batting paradise before the Aussie 1st innings or bumble tell us England are going to do to add to the follow on total. they should do the match commentary on the highlights its easier.lol