Eng v Aus, 3rd Investec Test, Old Trafford, 1st day August 1, 2013

Clarke century puts seal on Australia's day


Australia 303 for 3 (Clarke 125*, Rogers 84, Smith 70*) v England
Scorecard and ball-by-ball details

What a difference a day's batting makes. Clueless, hopeless and helpless at Lord's, Australia summoned long-dormant reserves of application and patience to force England's bowlers to slave at a hot, humid Old Trafford. In doing so they breathed belated life into an Ashes series that now seems a fraction less inevitable in outcome than it did 24 hours ago.

It was no surprise to see the captain, Michael Clarke, at the centre of it all, marrying grit with glitz in one of his best and most satisfying innings, the first century by an Australia batsman since Clarke himself seven Test matches ago. But there were also critical contributions by the well-travelled Chris Rogers, a sparkling 84 that set exactly the right tone, and by the precocious Steve Smith, helped by a liberal supply of the luck that had previously deserted the tourists in the series.

Australia had felt much harder done by in the minutes before lunch, when Usman Khawaja was given caught behind and then had his referral rejected despite ample evidence that he had not touched Graeme Swann's offbreak. That verdict, reached by Tony Hill and upheld by Kumar Dharmasena, will serve mainly to batter the reputation of the serving umpires and the protocols of the DRS, which place a heavy weighting on the on-field umpire's initial call.

Khawaja's exit enhanced Australia's sense of injustice in a series where the wide margin so far has been hurried along by numerous questionable decisions but England were to join their opponents in feeling they had been wronged, as Smith was escaped three times in all, twice for lbw and once on a raucous appeal for a catch at the wicket. James Anderson, Stuart Broad and Swann were all showing signs of fatigue by the end, as Clarke and Smith capitalised on Rogers' bridgehead.

Anderson took the new ball at his home ground, though its reconfiguration in the middle and in the stands made it something of an unknown quantity for players on both sides. Watson collected a single and Rogers a boundary from the first over, a pattern that would be maintained throughout their partnership in conditions quickly revealed to be the most friendly for batsmen all series.

Rogers and Watson had trained together in London between Tests rather than travelling down to play against Sussex, and their new approaches reflected plenty of thought. Watson was largely conservative, battling to value his wicket and also to avoid the lbw fate that had befallen him three times in four innings. But Rogers showed far greater intent to score than simply survive and punished all but the most minute errors of line and length.

Sequences of boundaries pushed Rogers along in between the deliveries he gave their due respect, a brace off Tim Bresnan through gully and down the ground, then a trio to the fence in a single Anderson over took him to a second Test fifty. All these shots were played with assurance and no great sense of haste, but Rogers' intent had given Australia an ideal start.

At the other end, however, Watson was becalmed, and though he did not fall lbw it was less of a surprise to see Bresnan find a way through, coaxing an edge from a firm defensive blade that flew straight to Alastair Cook at first slip. Watson wandered off having again made only a start, his wicket drawing England back into the morning.

Khawaja was greeted by the introduction of Swann, and in his second over an optimistic lbw appeal was followed next ball by a more convincing shout for a catch at the wicket. Khawaja's bat brushed his pad well before swishing at the turning ball but Hill's finger was raised. After a brief pause to consult Rogers, Khawaja referred, shaking his head as he did so.

Despite replays that offered no evidence whatsoever of an edge, the third umpire Dharmasena upheld Hill's original call. Khawaja walked off with the air of a man found guilty of a crime he did not commit. Heated discussion of the incident, both at Old Trafford and around the world, extended well beyond the lunch interval. On resumption, Rogers lost some of his earlier fluency and Clarke dealt in edges as often as the middle of his bat. The combination of a looming century and inattentive stewards behind the bowler's arm did for Rogers, who lost concentration when facing Swann and swished across a straight ball to be lbw.

Smith came to the crease in halting form, despite a century at Hove, and gave England hope of another wicket. They thought they had it when Swann spun an offbreak sharply to strike Smith in front of the stumps, only for Hill to decline the appeal and then Hawk-Eye to deny the decision review by a millimetre. Happy to be reprieved, Smith gathered in confidence alongside Clarke, who had shed his earlier uncertainty to purr past 50.

As the tea break neared England had another moment of frustrated jubilation, when Smith drove at Anderson and a loud sound accompanied the sight of ball passing bat. Anderson and Matt Prior were utterly convinced, abandoning their usual tact to gesture for a review from Marais Erasmus even before the captain Cook had done so. But in the absence of a Hot Spot or a visible deflection Smith survived, leaving England to enter the final session without any reviews left to call on.

It would not be long before this came back to haunt the hosts, Hill declining an lbw appeal by Broad against Smith that struck the batsman in line and would have plucked out middle stump. English exasperation was to be heightened with every subsequent run, as Clarke and Smith established the most productive union between two Australia batsmen all series. Smith's effort was never quite fluent but showed plenty of gumption, while Clarke rediscovered the confident batting groove he had sat in throughout 2012.

At times Clarke could be seen to stretch his back, an ever-more-present handicap for Australia's captain, but his discomfort was no more evident than that of several Englishmen. Swann resorted to painkilling tablets on more than one occasion, while Broad spent a decent chunk of the final session off the field and receiving treatment for a tight calf. Given the toll taken on Australia's bowlers by earlier poor batting displays, it was a source of relief to Peter Siddle, Ryan Harris and company to see their opposite numbers starting to struggle.

A handful of overs before the second new ball was due, Clarke tucked Swann away to the leg side for his 100th run, and minutes later Smith paddled the same bowler to fine leg for his 50. They were to negotiate the new ball ably, settling in for further occupation tomorrow with a stand unbroken at 174. While Cook's men remain in charge of the series, Rogers, Clarke and Smith have at least ensured they will have a steep task ahead to seal it in this match.

Daniel Brettig is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo. He tweets here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • fguy on August 2, 2013, 20:18 GMT

    @brusselslion you're obfuscating what i said, i wasnt talking about the results nor did i say that the dravid decision affected the end result. yes, you lot won. get over it. i was speaking about the selective outrage. anyways looking forward to the time when an in-form England player gets a decision like that at a crucial time in a important match/series. we'll see how much you-know-what hits the fan then.

  • H_Z_O on August 2, 2013, 12:15 GMT

    @Henrik Lovén on (August 1, 2013, 21:38 GMT) unfortunately the only umpires Hill can be replaced by are Dharmasena (who was third umpire for the Khawaja one) or Dar (who missed the Broad edge at TB). It's this ridiculous insistence on neutrals. I for one would be quite happy with one of each.

    Gould and Davis for me are the best Test umpires we have. While Tucker and Llong do make a few "mistakes", they're often borderline ones which you can accept.

    I actually don't think Hill got the controversial ones wrong. Khawaja to me did look, at first glance, like he hit it. He obviously didn't, but it wasn't immediately apparent in real-time, so you can't blame Hill for that. Smith lbw to Swann was fine too. Back on his stumps, so height not an issue, but spun a long way. You'd be guessing. And to Broad my first instinct was "outside the line". He wasn't, but it looked it.

    Surprised Erasmus didn't give the Smith nick. Funnily enough, I reckon the same audio would've seen his review fail too.

  • Surajrises on August 2, 2013, 11:31 GMT

    Now Australia has to somehow get to 450....

  • on August 2, 2013, 10:16 GMT

    England made the first mistake of not picking Montey Panesar, and are now paying the price

  • sachin_vvsfan on August 2, 2013, 10:00 GMT

    One thing obvious about DRS is that it encourages/makes umpires incompetent. I remember in WC 2011 (i think Canada vs some associate) umpires were very careless and gave some 5-6 obvious howlers assuming that players would anyways review it.

    Now with no reviews left and 7 wickets to take Eng loose some edge here. Don't expect Aussies to walk off for obvious edges and two more sessions from them this is game on.

  • Harmony111 on August 2, 2013, 9:58 GMT

    @dinosaurus: that is how it should be and that is how it is even now. The words "Conclusive Evidence" mean precisely this. The problem is that in the case of Hot-Spot, there are now quite a few cases where there was a sound but no spot. Haddin's wicket in the 1st test is an example as is Smith's non-wicket vs Anderson in this test. Weirdly, one was out, the other wasn't out. Umpires have unconsciously become aware of this and do not trust hot-spot too highly now. For them "no spot" is not conclusive enough now. They have moved away from the basic components of DRS and at the same time have also forgotten to use the older tools such as slo-mo. Above all, they have also parceled their common sense to Antarctica.

    Not even the tech of 2050 will help if umpires can't even understand what "Conclusive Evidence" means. Perhaps they need a crash course in what the law of evidence means. Perhaps we should now have retired judges officiating as 3rd umpires.

  • Sultan2007 on August 2, 2013, 9:55 GMT

    I'd love to see Australia bat out Day 2 as well and grind the English bowlers down. Lets see how they deal with that. Without taking anything away from England's successes at home, I can clearly recall several instances from the India series (not that India would have won!) and other home series where either England have had the benefit of the toss or the benefit of bowling in cloudy conditions which changed when the opposition has bowled

  • ghostcall on August 2, 2013, 9:28 GMT

    1936 - English won Wimbledon, Brith of Royal baby, Australia won the Ashes 3-2 after trailing by 0-2.... 2013- Murray ( English) won Wimbledon, Birth of royal baby , England leading 2-0 ... can history repeats ???????? u never know

  • on August 2, 2013, 9:25 GMT

    England's 2 frontline quicks have taken 0 for 152 so far, and their fans still claim they are the best in the world................

  • Not_Another_Keybored_Expert on August 2, 2013, 8:58 GMT

    Clarke and smith need to dig in and bat for as long as possible,or they might just collapse for under 400, I hope aus win for the sake of the series.

  • fguy on August 2, 2013, 20:18 GMT

    @brusselslion you're obfuscating what i said, i wasnt talking about the results nor did i say that the dravid decision affected the end result. yes, you lot won. get over it. i was speaking about the selective outrage. anyways looking forward to the time when an in-form England player gets a decision like that at a crucial time in a important match/series. we'll see how much you-know-what hits the fan then.

  • H_Z_O on August 2, 2013, 12:15 GMT

    @Henrik Lovén on (August 1, 2013, 21:38 GMT) unfortunately the only umpires Hill can be replaced by are Dharmasena (who was third umpire for the Khawaja one) or Dar (who missed the Broad edge at TB). It's this ridiculous insistence on neutrals. I for one would be quite happy with one of each.

    Gould and Davis for me are the best Test umpires we have. While Tucker and Llong do make a few "mistakes", they're often borderline ones which you can accept.

    I actually don't think Hill got the controversial ones wrong. Khawaja to me did look, at first glance, like he hit it. He obviously didn't, but it wasn't immediately apparent in real-time, so you can't blame Hill for that. Smith lbw to Swann was fine too. Back on his stumps, so height not an issue, but spun a long way. You'd be guessing. And to Broad my first instinct was "outside the line". He wasn't, but it looked it.

    Surprised Erasmus didn't give the Smith nick. Funnily enough, I reckon the same audio would've seen his review fail too.

  • Surajrises on August 2, 2013, 11:31 GMT

    Now Australia has to somehow get to 450....

  • on August 2, 2013, 10:16 GMT

    England made the first mistake of not picking Montey Panesar, and are now paying the price

  • sachin_vvsfan on August 2, 2013, 10:00 GMT

    One thing obvious about DRS is that it encourages/makes umpires incompetent. I remember in WC 2011 (i think Canada vs some associate) umpires were very careless and gave some 5-6 obvious howlers assuming that players would anyways review it.

    Now with no reviews left and 7 wickets to take Eng loose some edge here. Don't expect Aussies to walk off for obvious edges and two more sessions from them this is game on.

  • Harmony111 on August 2, 2013, 9:58 GMT

    @dinosaurus: that is how it should be and that is how it is even now. The words "Conclusive Evidence" mean precisely this. The problem is that in the case of Hot-Spot, there are now quite a few cases where there was a sound but no spot. Haddin's wicket in the 1st test is an example as is Smith's non-wicket vs Anderson in this test. Weirdly, one was out, the other wasn't out. Umpires have unconsciously become aware of this and do not trust hot-spot too highly now. For them "no spot" is not conclusive enough now. They have moved away from the basic components of DRS and at the same time have also forgotten to use the older tools such as slo-mo. Above all, they have also parceled their common sense to Antarctica.

    Not even the tech of 2050 will help if umpires can't even understand what "Conclusive Evidence" means. Perhaps they need a crash course in what the law of evidence means. Perhaps we should now have retired judges officiating as 3rd umpires.

  • Sultan2007 on August 2, 2013, 9:55 GMT

    I'd love to see Australia bat out Day 2 as well and grind the English bowlers down. Lets see how they deal with that. Without taking anything away from England's successes at home, I can clearly recall several instances from the India series (not that India would have won!) and other home series where either England have had the benefit of the toss or the benefit of bowling in cloudy conditions which changed when the opposition has bowled

  • ghostcall on August 2, 2013, 9:28 GMT

    1936 - English won Wimbledon, Brith of Royal baby, Australia won the Ashes 3-2 after trailing by 0-2.... 2013- Murray ( English) won Wimbledon, Birth of royal baby , England leading 2-0 ... can history repeats ???????? u never know

  • on August 2, 2013, 9:25 GMT

    England's 2 frontline quicks have taken 0 for 152 so far, and their fans still claim they are the best in the world................

  • Not_Another_Keybored_Expert on August 2, 2013, 8:58 GMT

    Clarke and smith need to dig in and bat for as long as possible,or they might just collapse for under 400, I hope aus win for the sake of the series.

  • GrtIndia_Ann on August 2, 2013, 8:57 GMT

    So...from being nearly flawless position, DRS has declined to be "It has its own pros and cons..it depends on how it is used". And some argue that it is still nearly flawless, it all depends on how it is used...som blame the umpires and some blame the players for its misuse....whatever the situation may be, DRS is primarily intended to minimize the controversies involved with the decisions concerning OUTs....but the thing is it seems to inject more controversies into the came than were present with out DRS....my best wishes to those who support it and hatsoff to those who BLINDLY support it

  • kennor on August 2, 2013, 8:34 GMT

    Khawaja review decision was appalling, but a good ump would've rejected the appeal in the first place. The noise wasn't quite right, and it would take a vivid imagination to see any deviation. On video evidence, the seam didn't even scramble on its way into Prior's gloves. That's when top umps look for other clues. They see a player with the best close-up view in the game - Trott at slip - watch the ball go past the bat, know how much it had missed by, and not even bother appealing. So what if the hairy-chested keeper's running about waving his arms in the air? That's in keepers' DNA. If umpires start putting the finger up every time a keeper's convinced there's a feathered edge, we'd best get used to sub-200 innings scores.

  • JG2704 on August 2, 2013, 8:10 GMT

    Just one more thing re DRS and it's detractors. I don't follow tests not involving Eng too closely , but in the 6 other series in 2012/13 in which Eng were involved in where DRS was used , I don't remember a major issue. Would this not suggest that is more the 3rd umpire than DRS?

  • JG2704 on August 2, 2013, 8:10 GMT

    @thebrotherswaugh on (August 2, 2013, 6:50 GMT) It's a difficult one. There are pros and cons. In Eng's position I'd generally have made 5/1/5 the norm but as 6/1/4 worked well last time out and Aus's batting looked pretty woeful I would probably have stuck with 6/1/4. With Aus (like Eng in UAE) - it looked like they needed a change of tact. I'd almost certainly have changed it although I believe Watson has been top 10 rated in the past as a bowler so maybe they see him as a 5th bowler. Aus are obviously doing brilliantly as it stands but you wonder if (if the pitch is as flat as they say it is) whether Aus might feel they could have done with the extra bowler. I thought Clarke (being the more proactive captain) might try it

  • brusselslion on August 2, 2013, 8:05 GMT

    @dunger.bob on (August 2, 2013, 0:04 GMT): The 3rd umpire has had a shocker no question but, in fairness to him, he's not alone in having little idea about the physics governing parallax errors. (:

    @James_Murphy on (August 2, 2013, 3:29 GMT): I should get that selective memory seen to, mate. You seem to forget that Agar added 90-odd runs after he should have been given out in the 1st Test

    @MrCricketFan1981 on (August 1, 2013, 20:41 GMT): If you're neutral, then I'm the Queen of Sheba!

  • ZuluFlow on August 2, 2013, 8:01 GMT

    Great to finally see these two teams turn up after such paltry displays from both batting line ups in the first two tests. Nearly all batsmen from both teams giving away their wickets. England bowlers (bar Bresnan) have not been patient enough, nowhere near as many maidens or dot balls bowled than last two matches.

    Captain Cook, Trott, KP, Prior are all due. Looks like a decent batting strip if you employ patience and application.

    @Wellrounded: regarding an investigation. Might be better to look in the direction of the BCCI - they may be involved, "encouraging" third umpires to uphold and make howlers of their own - one for all the conspiracy theorists ;o)

    Looking forward to see the unfolding of this match. Hopefully we get at least a session or two today

  • on August 2, 2013, 7:58 GMT

    clarke and smith should bat patiently for the first hour because the poms will be fired up!A score of around 450-500 should be decent for australia

  • Scube on August 2, 2013, 7:54 GMT

    I don't know why there is so much fuss about few normal occurances in a day's cricket1! Stats from Richardson after the match: Total decisions by the umpires: 90; Correct decisions without DRS: 60; Correct decisions with DRS: 65; So, DRS still adding rich value to cricket to be played farly!!! Everyone, pls move on with life!

  • aracer on August 2, 2013, 7:40 GMT

    I'm a biased Pom, and I know Khawaja was not out. Mind you Smith was out at least twice.

  • jmcilhinney on August 2, 2013, 7:35 GMT

    @thebrotherswaugh on (August 2, 2013, 6:50 GMT) and others, I'm not going to say that there isn't a logic to playing 5 bowlers but I think that you oversimplify the issue at times. By playing 5 bowlers you reduce your run scoring capacity. You say that the extra batsman likely won't contribute anyway but how do you decide which one? With 6 batsmen you increase the likelihood that someone will make a significant contribution. If you left someone out, they might be the one who would have contributed. When you play 5 bowlers, you can still only bowl one man at a time and you can still only bowl the same number of overs. In this game, all the England bowlers bowled fairly well and could have taken more wickets on another day. Is there evidence that a 5th bowler would have done more? Is a 5th bowler any more likely to contribute than a 6th batsman? Granted, if one bowler has a bad day or gets injured then having a 5th is great but I don't think it's quite as simple as you imply.

  • jmcilhinney on August 2, 2013, 7:26 GMT

    @Neil Robinson on (August 2, 2013, 6:45 GMT), the technology is fine as it is right now. The issue is the use of that technology and the interpretation of the information it provides. Even if there is logic to the current protocol of DRS and even if that logic is sound, it's clear that the general consensus is that it's not acceptable as it is. The ICC just need to modify the protocol such that it more closely aligns to what the majority of the cricketing community - both players and spectators - believe to be correct. To that end, I don't think that we need a third umpire at all. There should be someone specifically trained to view and interpret the DRS technology and report what they see and hear to the on-field umpire, who then makes the decision based on the laws of the game. If that person tells the umpire that there's no mark on HotSpot and there's no noise as the ball passes the bat, the on-field umpire should say not out, regardless of their original decision.

  • RagTagTeam on August 2, 2013, 7:13 GMT

    Finally! A proper batting display from the Aussies! Also glad the Aussies didn't have an argument with the umpire when decisions didn't go their way, not a good look.

    I'm not convined the Aussie bowling attack can take 20 wickets on this pitch though. The only fast bowler who had any idea was Bresnan. Every ball he bowled was top of off or just outside, and he was the only one to trouble Clarke throughout the entire day. Swann was brilliant early on as well, sharp turn and bounce for him, but the pitch/ball softening seemed to take the bite out.

    Harris and Siddle should be alright with line and length, but I'm not convinced Starc will hold up his end - I like Starc, but Bird would have been a better choice for this style of bowling. Although, if there's some swing, Starc will make up for it.

  • thebrotherswaugh on August 2, 2013, 6:50 GMT

    @JG2704 & @Pyketts on (August 1, 2013, 14:59 GMT) re 4 or 5 bowlers. I reckon a lot of sides could benefit from this. Being an OZ fan, and with the poor recent form of the top order, I've often advocated using 5 specialist bowlers, because what's the point of having an extra batsman who, in all likelihood, will contribute very little. That plus the fact that we have a much bigger talent pool of medium/fast bowlers seems to make it a viable course of action to my way of thinking. With regards to ENG, with the ever dependable Bell propping up the middle order and an established squad of high performing batsman, I reckon you could do without the extra batsmen. Imaging if you had went with Swann & Panesar plus three seamers this match - I reckon it would have been the last thing the OZ team wanted to see happening. Cook will cash in & get a hundred in the 1st innings, and I've got a gut feeling that we might see KP put on something special (in his own inimitable style).

  • oval77 on August 2, 2013, 6:46 GMT

    @wickedballs - I think that's because we're not forced to drop half our bowlers after every consecutive loss, like the Australians! Lol

  • on August 2, 2013, 6:45 GMT

    Re the DRS saga. JMcIlhenry - you're right up to an extent. Of course the Khawaja incident would have stayed the same if there was no DRS. The umpire heard something and gave him out - almost certainly incorrectly. But, and here's the rub, it's the inherent fault that instead of the umpire being the final arbiter, he/she (yes it will happen) knows now that there is the Court of Appeal. If a decision is made, it can be overturned. Instead of a previous world where there was no 'second appeal' only tomorrow's fish and chips wrapped up in the newspaper of wronged indignation. Interestingly, there is now almost no argument over LBW based technology - it is fully accepted because there is little human intervention. Perhaps the time is right to abandon multiple replays / snickometer / hotspot until the technology improves (if it can) or the 3rd umpire is 're-trained'. Of course, there is the other alternative - why does the 3rd umpire have to be a 'mate' of the standing umpire?

  • one-eyed-but-keepinitreal on August 2, 2013, 6:33 GMT

    @Abhijit Deonath...you could not be more any more wrong. Even with the aim to find evidence to overturn the umpire's ruling as the axiom for decision making the DRS provided the appropriate information un this case. There was a clear gap between bat and ball. Why the third umpire did not see this, or convey ths crucial information to the on field umpire is the real mystery and not a failing of the DRS per se.

  • Naresh28 on August 2, 2013, 6:32 GMT

    WELL DONE AUSTRALIA........Steve Smith is a future captain of Oz.

  • spot_on on August 2, 2013, 6:26 GMT

    No pun intended. But the English bowlers, if being attacked, are going clueless. Classic example: Jimmy Anderson. I have been waiting for ages to see the Aussies show this kind of maturity at test level. Keep going, A 500+ total and a decent 2nd innings bowling from the OZ can win this match for them. I'd have liked bird in place of starc though.

  • Redbackfan on August 2, 2013, 6:04 GMT

    Good job by the Aussie batsmen except for Watson. Great effort by Rogers, good to see Clark back in the runs and Smith continue his good run. I think Hughes is a better option than Watson the short form man and Khawaja well what a terrible decision from Tony Hill and the 3rd umpire. See they did the square up later cause Smith was plumb LBW. England bowlers are having to work for it which is great to see, pace bowlers have all bowled 20 plus overs and Swann is up to 25. Bat another full day and grind them into the ground with a lead of 550 plus. Go Aussie

  • jmcilhinney on August 2, 2013, 6:03 GMT

    It's worth comparing Khawaja's dismissal with Trott's LBW in game 1. In that case Trott was given not out on the field, presumably because the umpire thought he got an inside edge (because he was plumb otherwise). In that case, the original decision was overturned based on the fact that there was no HotSpot and apparently no noise as the ball passed the bat. That was even without the side-on HotSpot being available so, in that case, there being no HotSpot and no noise was considered compelling evidence that Trott didn't edge the ball enough to reverse the on-field decision. In Khawaja's case, the same evidence(no HotSpot, no noise) was not considered enough evidence to overturn the original decision. The ICC have admitted an error in Trott's case but I presume that to be related to the fact that one HotSpot angle was missing. If that angle showed no edge the you'd expect that Trott would have been given out and noone would have complained. Inconsistency is the issue.

  • on August 2, 2013, 5:54 GMT

    very well written and witty. one can almost visualise the day's play. kudos Australia on rediscovering the grit and gumption - the great Australian character.

  • one-eyed-but-keepinitreal on August 2, 2013, 5:44 GMT

    I love the language being used by the commentators which also assists the poor arguments presented by those people for whom the existence of the DRS is a slight on their misguided nationalistic pride. "Despite replays that offered no evidence whatsoever of an edge" should actually read "Despite replays that offered clear evidence that there was no edge, i.e., a clear gap between bat and ball". The first instance is still consistant with there also being no evidence that there was not an edge. The second being unequivocal. The Khawaja decision was not a problem with the DRS. It was clearly designed to correct such a clearly incorrect decision (I don't like the subjective term howler unless it includes all clearly discernable incorrect decisions). The problem was either with the questioning of the original decision maker or the vision or post-modern argumentation of the third umpire. Having watched Dharmasena I could not question his integrity.

  • runout49 on August 2, 2013, 5:33 GMT

    4th test - Hughes to open with Rogers. That's the only change needed.Shane (I'll-bat-where-I-want-and-bowl-when-I-feel-like-it) Watson is better suited to the shorter versions of the game. He is not a test match opener.

  • brisCricFan on August 2, 2013, 5:32 GMT

    For all those that say these things eventually even themselves out, that is never the case, the timing of the event i.e. a bad decision when a team is just building momentum can swing the game, and the actual batsman the subject of the decision can have a huge effect... Complaining about a bad decision against Smith when Khawaja is a more accomplished and stable batsman capable of making solid runs doesn't make it even, only in a purely numerical sense...

    Similarly, the decision against Trott was atrocious and saying you got one back with Broad doesn't make things even, Trott is a far more capable batsmen and who knows what he could have done...

    The point of the DRS is to remove the howlers, in this series especially, the 3rd umpire has made a bad decision (and in some cases a howler) look so much worse. The Indian fans using this as an argument for not using technology are misrepresenting the real issue... it was the Umpire that made the mistake and not the technology.

  • on August 2, 2013, 5:30 GMT

    Well done captain ...... Only the man who can fight and save this Australia....

  • wickedballs on August 2, 2013, 5:09 GMT

    Just looking at the state of the English pace bowlers after 2 and one days of tests, how are they going to cope after 10 straight tests! Back in Oz there are fast bowlers lining up....

  • on August 2, 2013, 5:06 GMT

    @cric_J, it was as much fault of system around DRS as was of 3rd umpire. DRS aims to seek evidence to overturn field umpire's decision as opposed to seek evidence for the *correct* decision. There is a difference. Khawaja was victim of that difference. I my view, the system should allow field umpires to refer all close calls to 3rd umpire and then let the 3rd umpire make the final decision. In Khawaja's case, if the 3rd umpire had the powers to rule OUT/NOT OUT, he might have said NOT OUT as majority of evidences were against Khawaja being out. But he could not get *all* evidences to conclude against field umpire's decision and hence made it field umpire's call which was OUT.

  • balajik1968 on August 2, 2013, 4:59 GMT

    Australia needs to put at least 450 on the board, and back it up with disciplined bowling and good fielding. This is where England can show if they are a great team. England have the firepower to take a lead even for a total of 450 when they bat and push for victory. Will they do that or will they shut shop? England are a great defensive team. Will they attack now or stay true to type?

  • hiltot on August 2, 2013, 4:55 GMT

    On a number of occasions in this series, umpire Dharmasena gave the wrong call against Australia. He should be investigated, as he seems to have something against Australia. If that be the case, he should be removed from umpiring international games at this level.

  • KaRaN_24 on August 2, 2013, 4:34 GMT

    The first day showcased the hard work, effort and application put in by the Aussie top order ... for the first time in the series they were lukin rather more confident in their shot selection and interestingly for the first time English bowlers are looking lackluster ... And what an aplomb innings by Clarke , could turn out to be the turnaround knock for the series, ... looked like they had done their homework for tackling Andersen's swing ... they were playing him with the straight bat and that's the way to go .... Brits today will be relying immensely on Anderson and Umpires to get them some early breakthrough else Aussies are looking towards a Big Score !!!

  • SaadRocx on August 2, 2013, 4:32 GMT

    Go Clarke go,,,you're the national Hero of Australia..Score a double TON!

  • EverybodylovesSachin on August 2, 2013, 4:18 GMT

    First Draw of the series is on the way....

  • brisCricFan on August 2, 2013, 4:10 GMT

    Here come the calls of the Eng fan about Smith getting three chances... lets not forget the four LBW calls in the first test - two by Aus bowlers reviewed when Umpire Call was Not Out... with most the ball hitting it was still deemed umpires call. The two reviewed by the Aus batsmen (both from Anderson) had the Umpire Call as Out... the ball just nicked the edge of the stumps. The rule is ridiculous that in cases like that the ones 'more' out are still N.O. and the doubtful ones are OUT. It should be very clear... if ANY part of the ball is hitting, then its out... at least then there is no cause for complaint, the umpires decision on-field has no relevance to the decision. As for the days play, Eng bowled well early, Aust batted well throughout the day. The technology worked perfectly, the third umpire and the regulations that they are working to worked imperfectly. All set for an exciting next 2 days, as I see it will be end of day 3 before both first innings are complete.

  • cric_J on August 2, 2013, 4:08 GMT

    Now THAT's why I felt that this won't be a 5-0 whitewash. There are still 2 more matches and 4 days left in this one , but Australia have got themselves in a commanding position here.

    A classy century by a very classy player in Clarke and a highly crucial and pleasingly fluent knock by Rogers who deserved a ton. Smith had all the luck with him yesterday but it was a decent effort nonetheless.

    I can't find much fault with England's bowling yesterday. They tried some variations and bowled a lot of good bowls that would have got them a wicket on another day. Just as Aus in the first 2 tests , they'll consider themselves unlucky with a few decisions here. Broady, in particular, seems to have lost all his luck after that "Broad edge". He looked the best seamer again yesterday , but his figures showed him to be the worst 1

    The Khwaja decision was a horror show but it was the 3rd umpire's fault and not that of DRS.

    England need 2-3 wkts ASAP in the 1st session and then bat long and solid.

  • whofriggincares on August 2, 2013, 4:06 GMT

    @Salazar , you keep saying Smith was out 3 times . The first LBW off Swann turned a huge amount and the umpire understandably thought there was some doubt about it hitting leg: not a howler. The caught behind off Anderson was clearly not out, no hot spot no deviation and snicko proving the sound came when the ball was well past the bat. Anyone who has stood in slips over a long period will tell you sometimes there are noises when there is no edge simple as that. Whether it is air flow , spikes on a hard wicket or the dreaded creaky handle the fact is it does happen! As for the Broad LBW that was clearly plumb however in real time my first thought was that looks out but he might just have got outside the line, as it turns out he didn't and should have been walking. IMO that doesn't qualify as a howler but was clearly the wrong decision that would have been out had England not already used up there allowance. A good case for not losing a review for one as close as the Swann one was.

  • on August 2, 2013, 4:04 GMT

    England to collapse in a sorry heap once Bell fails to bail them out yet again. You heard it here first folks.

  • on August 2, 2013, 3:50 GMT

    I wrote previous day that Clarke has to score hundred and that he did so. and i also wrote that top 6 will perform automatically and what happened what i wrote anybody can see my comment before the first days play.

  • James_Murphy on August 2, 2013, 3:29 GMT

    Daniel Brettig mentions in this article there is a wide margin between the two teams. I'm not sure i agree it is wide at all. England won hands down the second test no question. In the first test Broad went on to make another 28 runs in a match England won by just 14, it should be 1-1. England has won both tosses in the first two tests as well. The decisions and DRS have been beyond belief at times. Agar and Hughes in the second test, Broad's edge and now Khawaja have been the worst i have seen in a long time. Australia has received the wrong end of the stick in critical times too often in this series. Smith's clear catch another one. We need technology experts to be the third umpires, not umpires who have clearly proven to be inept at using the technolgy. They are umpires not technology experts. Can't wait to see the shoe on the other foot and Australia pouring pressure on the English and the series becoming 2-1, it should be 2-1 to the Aussies.

  • on August 2, 2013, 3:26 GMT

    A great first day but still very hard to imagine the Aussies snaring a victory, at least 3 members of the English top 7 will fire in this match against a bowling attack which is powerless to stop them. England is suburbs ahead of Aust in all aspects of the game, nothing I seen last night has changed my opinion on that.

  • on August 2, 2013, 3:25 GMT

    I thought the third umpire always listens to the commentators while reviewing a decision?

  • shiro1019 on August 2, 2013, 3:05 GMT

    Best umpire in 2012 and worst ever decision in being 3rd umpire.just because Tony Hill made a horrendous mistake being as the on field umpire (as usual) dharmasena could have rectify that mistake with ample credible evidence and he has no right to upheld whatever on-field guy says. If you made decisions to protect and upheld all mistakes by on field umpires there is no need of third umpire.Even my little child was able to judge that horrible decision being a 7 year old by just watching the TV,i cant UNDERSTAND HOW PROFESSIONALS made such poor decisions.Good that India is always refusing this, not because of the system but because of man behind the machine.

  • anandvaid on August 2, 2013, 2:58 GMT

    I recall that this time Australia finds themselves in a similar position that Anil Kumble's India found themselves a few seasons back in Australia. That time, in addition to the woeful and partisan umpiring, salt was added to the wounds by the worst behavior possible by Aus players and bad sportsmanship. I feel no sympathy for Australia if i recollect what they have done in the past. DRS or no DRS, doubts will always be there on all decisions in view of technology available to scrutinise the umpire or the on-field umpires should be given time to see replays instead of giving decisions immediately.

  • jmcilhinney on August 2, 2013, 2:57 GMT

    I didn't see the final session and it sounds like the England bowlers ran out of puff a bit, but the way they bowled in the first two sessions seemed deserving of more than 3 wickets. It's a testament to the batting of Rogers and Clarke in particular that they were held off as well as they were. Smith got Khawaja's share of the luck today but is also to be commended for making the most of it. It's good to see this game shaping up to be a contest but, with the forecast not looking great, we may be robbed of an exciting finish. Still a long way to go so neither team is out of it yet but, in the context of this game if not the series, Australia will definitely be the happier. David Warner may be relishing coming in with a good score already up and the desire for quick scoring to the fore. England will want to get him early but they have to break this partnership first. Hopefully all the bowlers are fit for day 2. I wonder what pain Swann was trying to kill.

  • on August 2, 2013, 2:53 GMT

    Umpiring issues seem to be usurping the attention of all concerned in this Ashes series, a very sad state of affairs. Whilst the DRS has taken the brunt of the criticism and innuendo so far, one must also consider the quality and competence of the on-field Umpires. As per the current rules, and because this is an Ashes series, there are no English or Australian Umpires operating. Those appointed for this series from other Test-playing countries, have till now, have taken great pains to underline their very obvious lack expertise and common sense, thus making a mockery of aa eagerly awaited and anticipated sporting contest. This should be an eye-opener for the ICC who should definitely review their system of deployment for the Elite (?) Panel of Umpires. From the evidence in this current series so far,it seems that these Umpires do not deserve the Elite status.

  • jmcilhinney on August 2, 2013, 2:49 GMT

    I think that some DRS opponents are a bit confused. Firstly, if there was no DRS then the score would be exactly what it is now, so to use this game as evidence that DRS is specifically bad is a deception. Secondly, most would agree that Khawaja's dismissal was a huge blunder but you can't use that against DRS technology either. If you think that Khawaja was not out then it's because of the evidence provided by technology. If you don't trust that technology then how can you say that he was not out? Once again, the issue is the interpretation of that evidence by the third umpire. Let's be honest, we can't be 100% sure that he didn't hit the ball but the chance that he did is so small as to be negligible. Most would agree that the complete lack of evidence that he did hit it should be considered sufficient evidence to determine that he didn't hit it and overturn the decision. The technology is fine and did its job. Most would agree that interpretation of evidence has to improve.

  • heathrf1974 on August 2, 2013, 2:49 GMT

    Good day for Australia, with or without the Khawaja decision. Steve Smith was lucky also given the close appeals and the lbw that should have been given. England bowled well on a wicket not offering much on day 1. Seems to be a bit like Adelaide Oval, where it's good for batting and then will begin to take spin on day 3.

  • on August 2, 2013, 2:42 GMT

    DRS in England, oh', I can not understand how always England gets the benefit of doubt.India also had torrid time during the last English summer with DRS.

  • on August 2, 2013, 2:17 GMT

    Rewind 2005-06 ashes. Lee and Kasperwitz needing two runs to win the test and a huge impact on series. Kaspa given out caught behind with his glove off the bat. England win the test and the series. That was a howler. Fast foward 2013. 1st rest Haddin and Pattison already put on 60+ runs. Need another 14 to win the test. Appeal for caught behind. Adjudged not out by Dar. OVERTURNED BY DRS. ENGLAND win the test and the possibly the series.

  • dpool on August 2, 2013, 2:17 GMT

    Great to se Aussie batsmen finally scoring some runs. I have to wonder though how much impact winning the toss is having on these matches. With pitches tailored to break apart quickly and spinners gain advantages early, batting first these days has got to worth a few extra sessions of batting. Perhaps the Australian first innings is a more accurate reflection of how they can bat when given a fair chance on an intact pitch?

  • _Australian_ on August 2, 2013, 2:16 GMT

    Posted by Nutcutlet on (August 1, 2013, 18:14 GMT). How can you say that is the first time we have had a tremendous day's test cricket in this series? Did you miss the first test? It realise most English have short memories, but that was only a few weeks ago.

  • Orsoncarte on August 2, 2013, 2:12 GMT

    With regard to DRS decisions it appears that the laws of cricket are not being upheld. Law 27 (The Appeal) Clause 6 (Consultation by umpires) clearly states: 6. Consultation by umpires

    Each umpire shall answer appeals on matters within his own jurisdiction. If an umpire is doubtful about any point that the other umpire may have been in a better position to see, he shall consult the latter on this point of fact and shall then give the decision. If, after consultation, there is still doubt remaining, the decision shall be Not out.

    Surely this can include the 3rd umpire? At the moment it appears that it is the field umpires who are receiving the benefit of the doubt and not the batsmen. While the term "benefit of the doubt" does not appear within the laws its spirit is clearly enunciated in the last sentence of 27.6 "If there is still doubt remaining..... the decision shall be Not Out."

  • Batmanian on August 2, 2013, 2:11 GMT

    Khawaja was one off eighteen before he was robbed. The fact is, he doesn't look up to scratch adjusting to Tests. He didn't top scoring with a 54 at Lord's either; very fragile innings. A lot of his advocates don't actually seem to watch him batting. I'm not saying there is a lot of other obvious options around, but I think it's worth trying some other promising prospects out in his stead if he doesn't make good on his obvious talent very soon.

  • Not_Another_Keybored_Expert on August 2, 2013, 2:03 GMT

    This series shows a big gap between the sides, but it was always going to happen, England have a mediocre team but luckily the Australians are atrocious.

  • CustomKid on August 2, 2013, 1:52 GMT

    Love the one eyed comments from both sides of the fence. As an Aussie though it was nice to wake up and see the scores of 3/303 rather than all out for less than 200. Still a lot of work to go however, 500+ will be needed.

    Credit where credit is due, Clarke is a class act and regardless of whether it was a road you've still got to make them which he did. Don't forget he's apparently facing the best bowling side to ever don the blue skull cap so that has to count for something for those writing the AUS performance off. in fairness to ENG they did bowl well without luck, there were a lot of plays and misses.

    Rogers was fantastic and Smith rode his luck that's how it rolls sometimes. I look forward to watching tonight and with a little luck we can make 500+ and put some pressure on ENG. THey're a quality batting unit and I expect them to respond well. At least we've got a bit of a contest for this test. It is only day 1 though.

  • runout49 on August 2, 2013, 1:37 GMT

    Bring back Billy. Why was he dropped from the panel ?

  • Shaggy076 on August 2, 2013, 1:34 GMT

    It was always going to happen on one day of cricket in this series, as Clarke has shown his class time and time again in the last couple of years. All it took was for a couple of the other batsman to produce there best. Now we have done it in one-day its time to back it up tomorrow and do it again. Consisteny is the key and if the likes of Warner, Smith, Rogers, Khawaja can start helping Clarke out then AUstralia will be a very competitive test side again.

  • PFEL on August 2, 2013, 1:29 GMT

    I just don't understand why people are saying that DRS should be dumped? and that BCCI was right? That wouldn't solve anything. There would just be more wrong decisions

  • Shaggy076 on August 2, 2013, 1:22 GMT

    Maximum6 - Michael Vaughan and a long line of Englishmen have made the same comments so is it only Australians that exaggerate? Its come about through everyones frustration with the people in charge of implementing the DRS system and from what I can tell, there has been people from all nations commenting.

  • on August 2, 2013, 1:15 GMT

    @maximum6 not your day? So Rogers and Smiths innings are to be ignored? that score reads 3/303, even if Australia collapse it won't be less than 400... Anderson and broad suddenly looked like they were back in NZ... That Khawaja dismissal was a howler, don't deny it, you could see daylight between bat and ball on the reply

  • PFEL on August 2, 2013, 1:15 GMT

    Why would Australia want a left-armer to make footmarks? England have Swann you know . . .

  • siddhartha87 on August 2, 2013, 0:52 GMT

    waiting to see Warnet at no 6. I am sure he will demolish Braod,Bresnan and Anderson

  • Stand on August 2, 2013, 0:45 GMT

    Perhaps the umpire did not have time to put his glasses on. A good sponsor would be an optometrist. STAND

  • Sanj747 on August 2, 2013, 0:40 GMT

    Scene set for a big game. Aussies should put another 200 plus on the board and with their bowlers well rested for the first time really push England. Watching Clarke and Smith continue to bat for a while is the key and then Warner and Haddin scoring quickly. Smith is being touted as a future leader. Has already shown maturity that he has developed over the last season or two. Good luck to him.

  • landl47 on August 2, 2013, 0:36 GMT

    A very good day for Australia and both they and the series needed one. A good toss to win (just how good we'll see on days 4 and 5) and to bat through the day with only 3 wickets down was a great performance. Clarke stepped up with a century, well-supported by Rogers and Smith. I didn't think England bowled badly, but it wasn't their day and that's the way it goes sometimes. Let's see how England get on now they are going to have to come from behind.

    I feel sorry for Khawaja; like almost everyone else I was surprised by the 3rd umpire's ruling. However, let's not forget that the DRS reversed no decisions today, so the same outs and not outs would have been given if they'd switched the technology off and put their feet up. The fact that a lot of people think bad decisions were given is a reason for improving the DRS, not scrapping it.

  • Julian_Vella on August 2, 2013, 0:34 GMT

    Finally Michael Clarke makes a century batting @ 4 hopefuuly now he finds the confidence to stay there. It just never made sense him batting @5 leaving it to poor Hughes or others to bat above him, people will argue his stats are sublime @ 5 and are poor @ 4 which is true but maybe this is because he was just going through a 'Rough' patch when he was promoted to 4 ( Ashes 2010 ) and never got the chance to cement himself there ?? People must remember a few of his best innings @ 5 were when he came in with the score 3 for not many ( 329* against India, 220 against India, 150 against South Africa and 250 against South Africa ) my point being Clarke coming in @ 3 for not many is the same as coming in 2 down for roughly the same.

  • CosmoCrawley on August 2, 2013, 0:29 GMT

    The Australian media this morning are calling the Khawaja decision "the Howler of the Century". But surely that accolade belongs to the decision not to pick Jackson Bird for this Test. If Australia had a spinner in their squad who was fit, in form, and had taken 11 Test wickets at 16 each and 100 first class wickets at 20 each, would the selectors have picked him? So why should it be any different for a fast bowler?

  • Not_Another_Keybored_Expert on August 2, 2013, 0:28 GMT

    @maximum6,objective viewpoint your having a laugh aren't you? the English wanted Erasmus crucified when he gave Trott out in the first test.

  • LoungeChairCritic on August 2, 2013, 0:23 GMT

    @Front-foot-lunge are you getting soft? I was flabbergasted to read that you have given credit to Chris Rogers. Your compliments to Australian's cricketers are as about as rare as hens teeth. Although you are quite clearly an English fan it is ok to give balanced compliments or credit to the opposition. As a passionate Ozzi I am happy to admit that this is one of the better balanced English teams I have seen. I truly admire their side. Joe Root (he has fake id) is the second best 16 year old test batsmen I have ever seen (Tendulkar number 1). Jonathan Trott is the second best current South African number 3 in the world (Amla number 1). Kevin Pieterson is the second best batsmen ever produced by Natal (Barry Richards number 1). @Front-foot-lunge you need to feel the love a bit more.

  • wellrounded87 on August 2, 2013, 0:18 GMT

    In regards to DRS. I don't think it's the system at fault. It's quite clearly the incompetent umpires behind the screen. I am absolutely gobsmacked that the umpire couldn't find enough evidence to overturn the on field decision. I mean no hotspot, the sound clearly came before the ball reached the bat and the slow mo replay showed daylight between bat and ball. I also disagree with the haddin wicket from the first game. In my mind there was far less evidence to suggest he nicked it than there was evidence to suggest khawaja missed it. Yet they deemed the inconclusive stump mic noise as enough evidence to overrule the on field decision. Before you call me a whinging aussie, you should know that i'm convinced England are a much better side than us at the moment. Clarke is the only batsmen we have who'd get a run in the English side the only area that we aren't outclassed is in fast bowling which i'd say is pretty even I think these umpires ar favouring England nd should be investigated

  • on August 2, 2013, 0:15 GMT

    So Australia make 300 for the loss of 3 wickets with Clarke scoring a hundred and contributions from Smith and Rogers. Is this an improvement in Australian batting or is it a batsmen's paradise? Ideally this is what was supposed to be for Australia in the 1st test then Agar taking the game away from England with 98 from no. 11. Australia made more than 400 in India and still lost. Anything can happen in this test. England can come back strong and score big when it is their turn to bat. England could well hit back with a tumble of wickets and Australia might not reach 400. This match is anybodies game. Australia should not throw away this opportunity. It is a good start but too many good starts have been wasted.

  • IAS2009 on August 2, 2013, 0:13 GMT

    i am not sure why but most of the worst decisions are made by 3rd umpire which have all the tools to make it right, SL umpire is good umpire but looks like the control of tools make them dumb. I am very inclined to take DRS out of test and ODI, it ruins the game and it has not prevented the howlers decisions at all. the beauty and originality of the game is ruined.

    If DRS has to be there, only use it when a decision is given out, no appeals from any team period. conclusive evidence to overturn the out verdict or on field decision stands. Now if Aussies make 600 it will tall order for England to save the game, if the pitch will do what everyone saying will do. i am not sure Nathan Lyon will do the job, I like Ashton bowling more suitable for this pitch, once you have 600 in your pocket it is different ball game for bowlers like Ashton.

  • drdickdixon on August 2, 2013, 0:12 GMT

    Sad to see most of the comments revolve around Khawaja's dismissal which will be forgotten in due course as DRS beds in. In the old days we would have said "what goes around comes around". Move on. What should be discussed is Captain Clarke breathing life into the series - well played Aus. Get out of this one, England. Makes for a great Test.

  • gibbons on August 2, 2013, 0:06 GMT

    I read "Smith was escaped three times in all" expecting to see gross ineptitude and injustice. Instead I see the exact situation that the side which is not England was lambasted for in previous tests - two incorrect challenges followed by one they could have had if they'd not tossed them away. Interesting. Thankfully, the precedent tells me that it's that sides own fault, at least if I follow the commentators correctly.

    Also, at @maximum6 - I'm choosing to assume the best, that is, that you can see the irony of a statement like "Of course being Australian means being a master of gross exaggderation" (sic). If you're ever in Australia we should have a drink and a chat about hyperbole. That said, I should warn you that every being in the universe over-exaggerates, except me. Right?

  • dunger.bob on August 2, 2013, 0:04 GMT

    This pitch looks an absolute belter. It reminds me of Adelaide in that it's hard and has decent pace, carry and bounce with more than a hint of spin. .. what a little beauty, a little piece of Australia in the middle of England !!

    The 3rd Umpire is in serious need of some physics lessons. He seems to have no idea about parallax errors. While he's at it, he should get his hearing checked. .. the technology is fine, it's the people operating it who are letting the system down.

    I love watching Clarke bat. He's the smoothest, most fluent Aussie batsman I've seen in years. He has so many shots it's hard to keep him on strike for more than a few balls at a stretch and that's why he seems to whizz that scoreboard over. .. you think he's been quiet but when you look at the board you see that he's advanced his score by 20 or 30 runs, more or less unnoticed.

    We need 500 at least. If all goes well, we'll have that by tea-time and could be looking at 40 minutes or so at the Poms b4 stumps

  • on August 2, 2013, 0:00 GMT

    DRS system with this ridiculous hotspot thing should be seriously pondered upon...as poor Usman Khawja's dismissal on the first day of the 2nd Ashes Test says it all !! also many more decisions under DRS purely made a mockery of ICC....

  • legend_963 on August 1, 2013, 23:51 GMT

    I would like to know something are these umpires trained to use the drs system because what I have seen so far in this ashes series so far it really isn't drs but actually how the umpires used it . Very poor decision making by the umpires. For the past years people say how the quality of batting has dwindled in Cricket but has anyone seen the quality of umpiring over the past years to me it has been horrible and is getting worse. Fom obvious no ball calls reviewed by third umpires and yet wrong decision is made, to deciding whether a ball went for six or four yet it is so apparent what the correct decision is , to short runs and the one that baffles most umpires LBWs a full toss going down leg given out very poor decision. The ICC needs to fix this

  • Rowayton on August 1, 2013, 23:48 GMT

    Saints preserve me, I almost agree with something FFL said. I agree that the innings of the day was actually by Rogers, who showed that if you bat properly and hit through the line runs can be scored off anyone. And to be controversial - Khawaja was unlucky, but not that unlucky. He should not be giving umpires the opportunity to give him out caught behind by playing shots like that. And as for the evening up thing - I'm an umpire and I would not have given either of the Smith LBWs out either. First one it looked the ball was turning too much - it's really hard to give those out as generally when a ball is turning that much and it hits a batsman in line it is missing leg; and the second one did look at first look (which is of course all Hill gets) like it hit him outside off.

  • Paul_Rampley on August 1, 2013, 23:42 GMT

    Fantastic work pup, you have made your country proud. Khawaja can hold his head high, he should not have been given out and hopefully the mistake made on his wicket will help us improve the system.

  • TheBigBoodha on August 1, 2013, 23:31 GMT

    As I suggested, there is no reason why Australia can't rack up some good scores in this series. It is still utterly beyond me how they got done for 120 at Lords on a perfect batting strip. England had absolutely everything go their way that game, and there was zero pressure on the batsmen in the second innings. All far too easy. Good to see a little luck going Australia's way after the khuwaja DRS abomination. We sure have had a terrible time with margin calls this series - up till that point.

    The "dry turner" policy has backfired in this instance for England, simply because they lost the toss. Swann won't have much fire power till day three onwards, and hopefully by that time AUS will have racked up 600-odd. They'll need it if they are going to win the game. I do recall India being 3/300 on day one in AUS a couple of years ago. They lost the game.

  • GiantScrub on August 1, 2013, 23:23 GMT

    Player ratings for the day: 1. Clarke 2. Rogers 3. Bresnan 4. Swann 5. Broad

    People will make flat-deck excuses all day, but even on the most concrete of roads you still have to stay in and hit the ball. Rogers batted better than Clarke but loses points for getting distracted and missing one that five minutes earlier he would have clipped for four. Bresnan by far the pick of the bowlers and asked questions all day - Swann bowled well in the morning but resorted to the tired old "three balls on off followed by slider on middle looking for the lbw" formula for most of the afternoon, and looked pretty pedestrian.

    Smith gets reduced points because he should be back in the pavilion after the second lbw. Of course, after the Khawaja call you could argue that he should be there anyway waiting for his turn to bat.

  • H_Z_O on August 1, 2013, 23:22 GMT

    @gtr800 on (August 1, 2013, 19:35 GMT) wait wait wait, England's record against spin? Both sides recently toured India. England scored 6 hundreds. Australia 1.

    I'm not saying Australia can't win, or that England haven't had issues against spin in the past that could return, but this idea that England's batsmen are clueless at playing spin is nonsense.

    They struggled against Pakistan, yes, but that has more to do with Ajmal being an incredibly good bowler than England being particularly inept. We struggle with the mystery spinners, we always have, we can't pick em out of the hand. But Lyon's not that type of bowler.

    Again, I'm not saying Lyon won't take wickets, or won't trouble us. But the idea that we'll crumble against him just because he's a spinner is nuts. In fact, my worry isn't the spinner, it's scoreboard pressure. We've not looked like a well-oiled machine so far, Bell looks like the only one handling the pressure well. Cook, Trott and KP have to lead from the front.

  • funkybluesman on August 1, 2013, 23:21 GMT

    I still find it amazing that there are lots of people in Australia with such an irrational hatred of Michael Clarke that they say the first thing that needs to be done to fix the team is get rid of him. I don't know how you fix a team by getting rid of the one world class batsman they have, but that is the crazy talk regularly spouted on these forums.

    But Australia aren't in a solid position yet. Early wickets could still get England on top. Clarke and Smith need to push on from here. Clarke needs another big double, and go against his instincts for a sporting declaration.

    I know technically Australia has to win this test, but with the return leg in Australia so soon, they really need to try and not lose another test in England, and if possible win at least one, and call that a platform to build on heading back home. The last thing they need is Clarke to declare at 450, England then pile on 600+ and win the test.

  • MartinC on August 1, 2013, 23:13 GMT

    I was at OT today. Good atmosphere and the ground looks great after the revamp.

    As for the cricket excellent knock by Rogers and a very good hundred by Clarke. Clearly the Aussies day. The umpiring on and off the field though was woeful - it's not DRS technology that's at fault it's the humans using it.

  • Rooboy on August 1, 2013, 23:11 GMT

    Geez no wonder Clarke has a bad back. Carrying a whole team will do that to ya. And I don't think anyone can blame DRS for what transpired during the day ... if there are incompetent umpires who cannot make the simplest of obvious decisions correctly, it's pretty clear where the problem lies. And it's not the technology ...

  • RAYKAY on August 1, 2013, 23:05 GMT

    The ICC is becomming the laughing stock of world sporting events, in no other sport are events like the Kawaja incident or the Broad incident. I feel ashamed at time sitting with my friends watching cricket and explaining to them how the game is played, they call me idiot and fool and tell me try another game when these disgusting decisions are being made. I want my little boy to play cricket, he to sits with me to look at the cricket,sometimes the commentry on Sky call to the attention of the kids watching, complimenting good cricket and when the monsters show their faces like Kawaja and Broad my little boy says "but dad"i say to him they say" its a game of glorious uncertainities" what ever that means.

  • MinusZero on August 1, 2013, 23:02 GMT

    Watson fails again. I find it amusing that the coach said dropping Hughes was because he wasnt converting starts into hundred. The reason for keeping Watson is?....

    Watson is an ODI/T20 player period. They should get Maddinson over from the Australia A side, he is scoring runs.

  • funkybluesman on August 1, 2013, 22:56 GMT

    Great innings by Clarke, too bad it had to be overshadowed by such an absolutely shameful piece of umpiring. They need specialist 3rd umpires aren't just looking for every opportunity to uphold the onfield decision even against the evidence.

    The Aussies are in a good position, but it can still be precarious with a few early wickets on Day 2. Clarke needs to turn this one into another double, Smith get his century and then have Warner and Haddin come in and pile on a few more. Australia want at least 500+ here, 600 if they can get it. Absolutely rule out any chance of losing this test in the first innings, wipe out any 5-nil (or even 10-nil) thoughts and then see what they can do about winning it.

    Winning this test series now may be a stretch, but don't forget the return leg is soon. Turning predictions of 5-nil into something more like 2-1 could set a good platform for turning the tables back in Australia.

  • IndianSRTfan on August 1, 2013, 22:54 GMT

    Contd...Hawk-Eye struggles with predicting the trajectory of a cricket ball after bouncing when the time between a ball bouncing and striking the batsman may be too short to generate the three frames (at least) needed to plot a curve accurately.

    Posted by Greatest_Game on (August 1, 2013, 18:12 GMT): BCCI's TRUE rationale is simple. DRS as a whole system is not acceptable to us in it's current form, so we won't use it. Rest of the world are free to implement it in their own games if they want that, also we won't oppose it's use in ICC's global events. You say "The BCCI's position should be appraised, supported, or opposed on it's merits, & not on a single invalid premise." I don't think anyone here has bothered to find out what actually is BCCI's premise.

  • jackdaw on August 1, 2013, 22:50 GMT

    DrDamo. Interesting one there re: Watson. Before we blood new batsmen furthe, a few lessons are being learnt right now after the carping we've all given our bastmen since Lords. This Test may bring an Aussie win (damn well hope so) but nonetheless here's my take: 1) Clarke is our permanent No. 4 2) Although a bit of an enigma Smith is our No. 5. and he can bowl a few overs if required. 2) Watson is not a Test opener BUT he would make a great No. 6 again. Lest we forget his great service over recent years so lets take the pressure off him. Drop him down to when the bowlers are a bit tired and he can come in and either consolidate or cut loose. He's best when allowed to play shots freely no question and is a great medium pacer in the Steve Waugh mould to boot. Possibly a tad better bowler to be honest 3) Perservere with Kuwaja at No. 3 no matter what. Hardest position in team IMHO and he has a great technique 4) Rogers and Warner to open in 4th Test

    And best of luck Nathan Lyons

  • on August 1, 2013, 22:47 GMT

    Michael 'Phoenix' Clark? May be too early to say that!!

  • Nepali_Boy on August 1, 2013, 22:20 GMT

    I am a huge fan of Test Cricket. I don't care about T20s and ODIs much. But, If you get decisions like Usman Khawaja got!! It is really terrible in this age of technology. Really, ICC should suspend Umpires when they make such a blunder!! Please ICC if you are hearing!! Suspend umpires like you do for players when they make such obvious mistakes!!

  • on August 1, 2013, 22:17 GMT

    more would have been good for Australia if Usman khwaja wouldn't have been given out

  • gudolerhum on August 1, 2013, 22:12 GMT

    @harnmony111 there was clean air between bat and ball in the Khawaja dismissal. I can only guess that the third umpire did not want to embarrass the onfield umpire. There could have been no basis for his decision. The use of DRS definitely needs reassessment!

  • Chris_P on August 1, 2013, 22:06 GMT

    @H_Z_O Pretty good summing up. I would suggest from an Aussie POV things finally went to plan, Clarke had been in tremendous test form the past year, Rogers has been churning out runs for nearly all his career so had to convert this to tests, Smith is showing the result of his hard work on his batting with his recent form, Khawaja's ill luck still haunts him & Watson makes his usual start with his usual lapse in concentration. From a conspiracy theory, the result of making England bowl so many overs in getting us out in the first test has finally worn him & Swan out! It is still early days, how England performs against the Aussie attack on what appears to be a cracking wicket should reveal some more by the end of day 2.

  • on August 1, 2013, 22:02 GMT

    Inattentive stewards??? I don't buy it... There was considerable movement along the pavilion for three overs continuously and there was a prolonged delay before Rogers took strike... If it was in the stands it's acceptable but not there... I am not sure whether it was intended... but Broad leaving the field and coming back fresh... It's typical English bending the rules...

  • Chris_P on August 1, 2013, 22:00 GMT

    @IndiaNumeroUno . DRS is not rubbish. The decision by the 3rd umpire was. Everyone except 2 people thought it was not out. How is DRS at fault? The 3 appointed officials would probably hold the bottom 3 rankings of the umpires panel. I have stated it before & am happy to repeat again, I doubt there is a serious Aussie cricket follower who would have had objections having English umpires officiating this series, they were always among the nest before & continue to be now.

  • on August 1, 2013, 21:59 GMT

    Now do we understand why India have opposed DRS so strongly? Cos now of this is accurate and being eventually decided by a person anyway.

  • Mary_786 on August 1, 2013, 21:57 GMT

    Clarke performed well at no 4. now stick to 4 for life. Hopefully smith and warner can now hammer tons tomorrow ad get 500 for us. Khawaja was incredibly unlucky but i expect the talented leftie to bouce back in the remaining matches. He can't get 2 decisions in a row like this. Fantastic to see Kevin Rudd also comment on it, we love cricket in Australia.

  • on August 1, 2013, 21:46 GMT

    Well, maybe things are evening out after Broad and Bell in the last test, and Kahawaja's in this. Oh, that's 3-0 England. But for timely luck, the series could well be closer and England have not dealt well with the new ball nearly as well as Australia. Not expecting too much, but Smith is a great example of the guts that England don't like dealing with. Keep it up, mate. Ride any luck you have, young fella, and make them pay for their arrogance. Great knocks by Rogers and Clarke.

  • SevereCritic on August 1, 2013, 21:46 GMT

    Give the onfield umpires Google Glass and let them watch the slo-mos when they want before making any decisions.

  • on August 1, 2013, 21:42 GMT

    Excellent toss to win for Australia, who certainly were on top by the end of the day's play. Superb batting by Clarke, Rogers, and Smith laid those foundations, but what a pity we're still talking about the umpires and the DRS system.

  • dinosaurus on August 1, 2013, 21:41 GMT

    @ Harmony 111, you are right to stress the difficulty of "proving a negative". The decision today means that either Dharmasena made a colossal mistake or there is no way a batsman can win in a review about whether or not he edged a ball. How about this for a protocol? If the batsman reviews a decsion that there has been an edge, the absence of a mark on hotspot is to be taken as conclusive that there has been no contact with the bat UNLESS there is conclusive visual evidence that there has been contact.(That could be a change in the rotation in the ball or evidence of a deviation in the path of the ball.)

  • hycIass on August 1, 2013, 21:39 GMT

    The incompetence of the third umpire means that we also lose one of the two rights of appeal. Previous bad DRS umpiring decisions in this series have also affected our ability to use DRS as it was intended. There is an obvious need to extend the rights of appeal to 5 as in tennis. The reason for having a small number is to prevent breaks in play. However, the over-riding reason for having DRS is to ensure that the correct decision is made on each occasion. I believe that balance is obtained by having up to 5 rights of appeal. Khawaja can consider himself the unluckiest batsman around with this decision and i hope he doesn't get a repeat of this in the remaining matches as he is one of our better young batsman This latest failure is so serious that it makes cricket fans turn off cricket altogether with the attitude of "What's the use in following a sport in which such injustice occurs?" I believe that, on this occasion, the IIC should require that Khawaja be recalled for his innings.

  • on August 1, 2013, 21:38 GMT

    Umpire Hill had a truly shocking day. Why can't an umpire who is so obviously inept be replaced same as a ball that has gone out of shape is? His incompetence is a far greater problem than the flaws of the DRS system as the latter only compounded his mistakes.

  • maddy20 on August 1, 2013, 21:37 GMT

    With Warner in next, hungry to make his mark, I have a feeling that Aus will post 500+ and toy with the English batsmen, using the footmarks to good effect. Make or break moment for Nathan Lyon coming up tomorrow!

  • on August 1, 2013, 21:33 GMT

    England with no reviews? Good, every bad decision they cop is now their fault, ala Broadwalkgate

  • brittop on August 1, 2013, 21:25 GMT

    If I wasn't an Englishman, I would love this Aussie performance. All the Aussies slating all their players, telling the selectors how useless they are and if only they picked different players everything would be great.

  • on August 1, 2013, 21:22 GMT

    pathetic umpiring nearly made another batting collapse. thank god Clarke and smith played really well. hopefull Clarke can score 200 and smith can score maiden test century. im also expecting fireworks from warner. hope warner smashes root for 6 sixes.

  • JG2704 on August 1, 2013, 21:21 GMT

    Re decs which went against Eng

    1-Swann lbw - Swann unlucky and it was more than clipping but rules adhered to so no problem 2 - Re Jimmy's- looked out and prob was but no hotspot etc so re that I have no problem. However if Audio evidence was ok to overturn Agar's decision in the last game and was deemed ok not to overturn the Khawaja decision then how come it was not deemed sufficient for this one? 3 - Re Broad's lbw - Well it was plum but no reviews left. Some would say it was poetic justice after Broad did not walk in the last test One change I'm strongly in favour of is that (re umpire's call) lbw's going against the fielding side , regardless of whether the original decision should stand etc , the fielding side should keep the review and not be punished for using it if the ball is hitting any part of the stumps. the problem is that the 3rd umpire's have been proven to be inconsistent in how they interpret DRS.The Khawaja,Agar and Jimmy/Smith decisions can't all be correct.

  • glance_to_leg on August 1, 2013, 21:16 GMT

    Fleming_Mitch. How was Khawaja robbed of a big innings? It was an appalling decision, but he could well have been bowled next ball. He scarcely inspired confidence in the 19 balls he faced. Had he stayed around he might well have made, say, another ten. I understand your frustration, but don't get carried away. Anyway, Smith was out several times and got away with it, so it all evens up really.

  • on August 1, 2013, 21:14 GMT

    @ H_Z_O ..... I am with you mate!!! 3-late nights staying up watching competitive TM cricket.

  • JG2704 on August 1, 2013, 21:12 GMT

    Firstly , absolutely full credit to Australia for a superb batting performance. Although I've not watched the game/highlights yet , I was tracking the progress on radio 5. So well played Rodgers,Clarke and Smith.

    Now re DRS , I see we have the usual balanced posts by the usual suspects - HZO,JMC,Greatest Game etc and plenty of others.

    Now Alec Stewart (who sounded as baffled as everyone) by the Khawaja decision/non reversal (which I've now seen and was obviously incorrect) indicated that the 3rd umpire has a sound mic (which Stewart and co had no access to) which is what he went by. What I'll then say is

    1 - If the umpire is going by audio evidence should we all not be able to hear it so it's at least more transparent? 2- Surely one piece of evidence is considered stronger than the other and I thought hot spot was considered stronger than audio evidence.

  • glance_to_leg on August 1, 2013, 21:12 GMT

    DrDamo, I have never understood why Cosgrove has not been given a shout. I suspect it is because he is fat, but he also happens to be fat and remarkably agile. He is an entertaining bat, and has some dog about him. Watson should be at six, and bowling. He is not and never has been an opener, and I feel thoroughly sorry that Australia have squandered an excellent all-rounder (albeit it a remarkably fragile one, despite - maybe because - of his powerful build) by making him bat in a position for which he is evidently unsuited both technically and temperamentally. Australia would have been better advised simply to swap him with Warner (or Hughes) in their batting order. Looking forward to this shaping up to be a good match. An Australian win would do wonders for the series (and I say that as an England supporter).

  • JG2704 on August 1, 2013, 21:11 GMT

    @Pyketts on (August 1, 2013, 14:59 GMT) Not just you re 4 bowlers , I've often said about playing a 5/1/5 but I'm guessing they thought Aus would fold again. Also agree that it would be nice if there were a few comms about the actual game. PS I guess you saw the snail clear the ropes on Tuesday evening ? Thought of you when that happened

  • popcorn on August 1, 2013, 21:06 GMT

    At last,the Australia we know has surfaced. And who else but Michael Clarke leading from the front! We have John Inverarity to thank for resurrecting Chris Rogers' career. Steve Smith has come of age.We will win the series 3 -2.

  • on August 1, 2013, 20:59 GMT

    Great summary by DB, even if you don't agree with every element.

  • chrishjah on August 1, 2013, 20:59 GMT

    Despite having a brilliant day, Australia must not make a mistake and assume this game to be won or drawn. I remember the 2nd test of the 2006/07 series where England were in a much better position than this, and assumed that the game was at least drawn, but they lost after a brilliant bowling performance by Australia. I'm not suggesting that's gonna happen, but if Australia aren't careful they could be out for 380-420 which is no more than average on this pitch. With this base they should be looking at at least 500 I would think.

  • on August 1, 2013, 20:53 GMT

    Very classy ton Mr Clarke!!! Are you up for a double ton tomorrow?!?!?

    Smith, with a bit of luck, looks like a middle order batsman.

    It was the first time I have really seen Rogers bat and it was something worth watching. Though I am critical of your age, I am more critical of the people who ignored such potential for so long.

    At 3/303 Australia has posted their highest Test Score on Tour and their highest in 8-innings. I do hope that this is not a anomaly of what has been a terrible batting year but this will only be judged at the end of the series and again in Sydney 2014.

    Good luck tomorrow!!!

  • CurrentPresident on August 1, 2013, 20:42 GMT

    Here is my prediction: - Australia will collapse by lunch tomorrow at around 400. - England will then bat until noon of day 4 to post a total of around 550 - Australia will collapse in their second innings around lunch on day 5 - England will then look at scoring around 200 in the final two sessions - Will they do it? I am betting on it.

  • MrCricketFan1981 on August 1, 2013, 20:41 GMT

    A good pointer for English cricket and their fans who think England is the best test team!! Fast bowlers who can't do anything without favorable (swinging) conditions, so called worlds best spinner can't do much without the earlier breakthroughs from the fast bowlers (and umpires, although he had one). I'm from India (neutral opinion), I still feel the Australian team is much better than England team. The only difference is the Aus batsman don't have the experience to bat long innings, its a concentration not a technical deficit. One day when they manage to do it, see where England is at. Bowlers having fitness issues for bowling 90 overs? Aus bowlers bowled nearly 3 days in a row at lords.

    Also, i see so many comments on not giving smith lbw, c'mon english fans, you know you won the first 2 tests 80% by umpiring errors

  • on August 1, 2013, 20:29 GMT

    So "can't bat, can't bowl, but future captain" Smith makes some runs after being dismissed atleast twice so far this innings. Give me three lives and I may make 70 too. Let us see if Aussies remember this decision when they start whinging after (inevitably) losing the ashes.

  • BHAARATVARSH on August 1, 2013, 20:17 GMT

    Great day at work Aussies! make it 3-2 now :)) (and stuff DRS completely please)

  • Beertjie on August 1, 2013, 20:16 GMT

    I'm no fan of Hughes but agree @grande-zaza on (August 1, 2013, 11:40 GMT). Why could he not have opened with Rogers. Imo Watson is surplus. His so-called experience counts for nothing. Irrespective of the result replace him with Hughes. I expect both to fail, but at least Hughes deserves a shot at opening!

  • 2.14istherunrate on August 1, 2013, 20:10 GMT

    Eventually the inevitable happened-Australia won the toss batted and Clarke made a ton. Big deal. Tomorrow's another day altogether and it only takes a couple of loose shots or unplayable deliveries and the Aussies are on the ropes again. Of course being Australian means being a master of gross exaggderation as p[ortrayed by Kevin Rudd when he said the Khwaja decision was the worst ever seen. Warne impled agreement but when it comes to taking an objective viewpoint Earnie does not quite hit the mark. It was not a good decision but I have seen far worse. The 3rd umpires need retraining though.

  • bobmartin on August 1, 2013, 20:08 GMT

    There's absolutely no point in arguing which side is getting the best or worst of the umpiring mistakes... and contrary to popular opinion, they do not even themselves out... If the tally at the end of the test match comes to, for example, England 3 - Australia 3... that does not make things equal..It adds up to 6 mistakes when there ought to be none...Although whenever humans are involved you will never achieve that ideal, you can just hope to reduce it to a minimum.

  • JoshFromJamRock on August 1, 2013, 20:05 GMT

    ICC should really consider some of these umpires behind the DRS. I don't know why but the umpiring of late has been horrendous. During the Champions Trophy and the recent Tri-nation series the decisions weren't too bad but the WI-PAK series (wides & catches), Ashes (LBWs and catches) and the just started CPLt20 (No-balls, run-outs and catches) have seen some awful ones. DRS or no DRS, is it that hard for the 3rd Umpires? Doesn't he have at least a big-screen high-definition slow-mo of the replays? If they can't get it right, do away with, demote, or charge the 3rd umpires for changing the outcome of the game (critical or not) with their howlers. It is ignorant to say that because someone's wrongly given out that its ok because without DRS it would remain. Thats what its for - to correct and/or clarify decisions. And on that note, cricketers need to do their part. If they can't be honest on the field, they won't be honest off it. Honesty helps us the fans, umpires and the sport.

  • DrDamo on August 1, 2013, 20:03 GMT

    Can we drop Watson now and bring in The Kat or a young opener. Cosgrove is not so young anymore but is he worth a shot. Surely Cowen is a better option then Watson currently.

  • Sunil_Batra on August 1, 2013, 19:56 GMT

    @Baundele well said mate, human errors cost Khawaja badly today. Just saw that Sutherland has requested an explanation on Khawaja's shocking call, and rightly so, it denied the young leftie of a big innings today. Overall Clarke and Smith have put us in a strong position, if we can get 500 then we can win this game, big session tomorrow before lunch.

  • dabhand on August 1, 2013, 19:54 GMT

    Back to test cricket as it should be and good on Aus for getting stuck in, BUT before the eedjits start their crowing they need to remember that England only need to draw to retain the Ashes and with rain threatened for late Friday and on/off for Saturday Aus will need to bowl well to get the win - but at least it will be interesting (I hope).

  • Flemo_Gilly on August 1, 2013, 19:44 GMT

    Khawaja's dismissal was comical, a young batsman robbed of a big innings. No hot spot and no sound as ball passed the edge of bat. So obvious to everyone at home and even the English commentators it wasn't out, so what was the 3rd umpire seeing. From the repeating of the incident over and over, one could tell the 3rd umpire was looking for a reason to give Usman out despite the evidence suggesting otherwise. An absolute embarrassment for the DRS when the 3rd umpire rejects all the evidence that the batter did not hit the ball. Did he press the wrong button? It was I am sorry to say but the decision was a disgrace, a clanger of a clanger.

  • Harmony111 on August 1, 2013, 19:42 GMT

    I haven't seen the actual video of Khawaja's wicket but based on what I have read and visualized, DRS per se isn't at fault here. We need to remember that proving a negative still needs some positive assertions. We can prove that the bat had edged the ball directly but how do we prove the negative? For that we would need to say that "If there is an edge, we would see a spot and since we don't see a spot thus it means there was no edge". In the current case, what else or what more can DRS do other than showing you that there is no hot spot? Even the slo-mo cameras showed a wide gap between the bat and ball, is this not enough?

    DRS per se did not fail but ICC has needlessly made the rules complex & unintuitive. High time that DRS be made a complementary tool rather than a supplementary one. High time the Umpire's Call goes. High time the 50% rule goes too.

    Sooo succinctly MSD had said "It was the adulteration of technology with human mind". Wow. One more reason to admire MSD :-)

  • brusselslion on August 1, 2013, 19:38 GMT

    Cracking day's cricket. Well batted Australia. Didn't see the last 15 overs but thought England bowled pretty well up to that point. It looks like a good batting track but should spin on Days 4 & 5.

    No point complaining about the Smith "dismissals". For all we know, Khawaja might still be there on 150no if it wasn't for that shocker. Got to feel for the bloke; it's his career at stake.

    This match could decide Lyon's future as Test player. If the track is spinning in the 4th innings and Oz have a change of winning, he'll need to deliver.

    @fguy: Mate, get over it. It was 2 years ago and you were well and truly beaten.

  • gtr800 on August 1, 2013, 19:35 GMT

    For all people calling this a road! I don't think its totally right. Swann was turning it a lot - just Smith & Clarke are pretty good against spin. Especially Clarke. There was some reverse, not really much. But the main point is its a day 1 pitch!. England managed to rack up around 400 in the 2005 ashes test here. Australia struggled thereafter. Day 1 pitches are much easier to bat on- Look at the previous test match where England made 350+ on a similar easy wicket. It will get progressively worse. If Australia can somehow bat till tea or maybe later for the whole day. They will get 300-350 more runs. This will give them 3 days on a deteriorating pitch to bowl England out twice! Very much possible given England's record against spin!

  • on August 1, 2013, 19:34 GMT

    My prediction of the wicket / swinging conditions in humid air completely destroyed. Marvellous batting by Clarke, good from Rogers, unlucky Khawaja, predictable Watson and somewhat fortuitous Smith gives Aus a position they shouldn't mess up. Not sure whether the forecast is good enough to allow them to back out all tomorrow (bar an hour) and bowl England out twice

  • poms_have_short_memories on August 1, 2013, 19:29 GMT

    What comes around, goes around.

  • milepost on August 1, 2013, 19:23 GMT

    @salazar555..... The noise for Smith's 'nick' came after the ball passed the bat - CLEARLY evident before snicko was even looked at in commentary. Thank goodness you aren't an umpire! When England go well it's all their class, when Australia go well it's all their luck. Don't be a sook, it's just cricket! A road? Batsmen still have to make runs and Cook, Trott and KP all failed on a belter at Lords? Tell us oracle, was that just cricket or something mystical us mortals can't understand. Let me answer - it was just cricket, not the unstoppable demise of their careers. It's just cricket and for those without self-esteem issues, it's ok to see a contest. England bowled pretty well today without much help from the conditions and Australia batted well. Good test cricket.

  • Edwards_Anderson on August 1, 2013, 19:20 GMT

    Firstly a great innings by Clarke. Shame it was ruined by a terrible DRS call. Usman khawaja is very unlucky. umpires have been very poor. although steve smith was lucky twice lol. Glad to see Sutherland asking for a review on his dismissal as its not acceptable for a third umpire with all the techology available to make such mistakes. Even English commentators were on our side on this one.

  • on August 1, 2013, 19:20 GMT

    Aus will need at least 450 to be safe..England will be looking to post 600

    England should have played Panesar and tremlett ( the chronic disease of poor team selection strikes again)

  • recycle-bin-is-empty on August 1, 2013, 19:16 GMT

    James Anderson, one of the best bowlers today but would still go down as one of the most overrated bowler of this generation.

  • Front-Foot-Lunge on August 1, 2013, 19:14 GMT

    A mere skirmish victory on a flat pitch for Australia in a series in which they've been otherwise totally outclassed by the far better team. On a sweltering dry day in the middle of a damn fine English summer, Clarke finally found the conditions he can play in but Rogers provided the innings of the day. His fifty provided the impetus Aus needed to land just their first blows in a series in which only one team has done the pummeling. Some shocking umpiring, Khawaja's was borderline but Smith being given endless reprieves whilst LBW to 'All Three Reds' was disappointing to see on the first day of any test. Looking at the recent Old Trafford FC results, I see that 474 Vs 567 was the last game played recently on this pitch, which is a typical mid-summer road. As I said before the game, should be an interesting match on a flat deck.

  • on August 1, 2013, 19:12 GMT

    Series 2-1, Won the toss, pitch look in aussies favour,they except lyon finally with handly left arm M.C. caption with smit .. best side on this pitch , Ausssy need more 150 runs to win or need to set 150 in second inng.

  • on August 1, 2013, 19:08 GMT

    actually the DRS seems to be getting worse but who's fault is it?

  • 2MikeGattings on August 1, 2013, 19:05 GMT

    Well played Australia, who won every session today, and especially Clarke who played with both fortitude and panache. The pitch seems slightly lacking in pace compared to previous years but I suppose judgment should be withheld until England have also batted. With the footholds crumbling I think seamers will struggle for rhythm so we might see quite a lot of part time spin from both sides.

  • Amith_S on August 1, 2013, 18:59 GMT

    Really proud of the way Clarke fought through today, he once again came through for us. Cannot believe Khawaja was given out, i am a fan of dharamisna but what was he thinking, the hot spot didn't show anything, the noise made was due to his bat hitting his backpad and worse there was nearly a inch between the bat and ball, absolute worse decision that i have ever seen and robbed Khawaja of a big knock today. Smith on the other had all the luck going his way and good on him for capitalising on it.

  • gmt88 on August 1, 2013, 18:45 GMT

    if australia score another 200 runs then it will almost mean they can't lose the test from that point.the intersting thing then will be if siddle,starc,harris,lyon and alrounders like watson,smith,clarke can take 20 england wickets to win the test for australia.there have been 4 results in last 5 international test matches in old trafford with the only draw being in 2005 ashes where australian last pair had to survive for 4 overs with also keeping in mind day 3 was almost washed out for rain with only 14 overs played during the whole day.there's still a possibility of a result no matter how the wicket looks after day 1 but the big question is can australian bowlers complement their batsmen as first time in a while australia has scored 300+ for a while when also someone has got a hundred for them in six tests.it's about time that mj clarke make his 125 into a double and australia put on another 200-250 to put the pressure well and truly on england batsmen 1st time in the series.

  • Vindaliew on August 1, 2013, 18:41 GMT

    Finally - after 9 days we finally have a game on our hands. Well played, Australia, and I hope that this game will provide tons of entertainment for everyone. The umpiring doesn't seem to have improved - both sides will rightfully feel upset about several things - but hopefully we will still have a great game despite all that. Clarke's already given everyone, even England supporters, some cheer already.

  • Shekahr_123 on August 1, 2013, 18:40 GMT

    What a refreshing day in Ashes. Thanks a lot Clarke , Smith and specially Rogers who set the tone of the innings. Today's batting has given a new life to Ashes and I am hoping Aussies will pull this out and give a tough fight to England. Clarke looks master of middle order again and hopefully he will extend it to 200. Even though picth is flat , the confidence from this innings will make wonders in Aussie dressing room and may turn the tide around.

  • Lermy on August 1, 2013, 18:39 GMT

    Who cares about the DRS, or about batsmen upset because they didn't hit the ball. Either hit the thing, or be prepared to be given out. Simple. Are they trying to argue it was a better shot because they didn't hit it at all? Ha ha. They were even more beaten if they didn't hit it. Walk, walk, walk!

  • Iddo555 on August 1, 2013, 18:38 GMT

    @ the brotherswaugh

    I think England have had quite a few go against them, they just haven't made as much noise about it. Trott in the first innings given out when he hit it, Agar should have been given out stumped and ended up where Aus got an extra 140 runs because of the mistake

    Smith 3 times today, one off anderson, nicked, Swann LBW taking leg stump out and Broad with the most plumb LBW you'll ever see, half way up middle stump. None given and Smith still there

    Yes Aus have had a few too, but the way some are talking it's as if every decision has gone against Australia, they haven't.

  • RohanMarkJay on August 1, 2013, 18:33 GMT

    Well Done Micheal Clarke and Australia. I knew they much better cricketers than what we saw in the first 2 test matches. Its game on now, as the Australians top order is starting to fire. Next three test matches are gonna be very interesting if Clarke and the Australian top order will fire. Well Done Micheal Clarke. A tremendous cricketer and batsman.

  • fguy on August 1, 2013, 18:31 GMT

    so now there's a furore. ONLY bcoz it was a player from Aus/Eng that is at the recieving end. how come no one denounced it when Dravid was given out similarly on more than 1 occassion during the 2011 Eng tour. atleast here Khwaja was given out by the on-field umpire (so even if there was no DRS he would've been out), Dravid was given NOT OUT by the onfield umpire but shockingly decision was reversed by DRS without a shred of evidence which could've been the basis to overturn the decision

  • Baundele on August 1, 2013, 18:28 GMT

    Umpires make unexplicable mistakes and the blame goes to the technology. Funny world!

  • on August 1, 2013, 18:26 GMT

    I used to think Smith in the Test side was a bit of a joke but the more I watch him the more I like him. He is technically still rubbish but so was Wessels and Chanderpaul. What he seems to share with these guys is fair bit of back bone and some fight. Australia's batting really needs that kind of player right now. Regarding this innings, the runs where there to be taken on this flat track and thank God we took them. But anything short of 500 on this deck would put us in danger. We simply cannot be chasing a sizable first innings deficient on this deteriorating wicket in our second dig. Swann will eat us alive and the 5-0 nightmare will be in reach.

  • DPENRAW on August 1, 2013, 18:25 GMT

    As I said, as I believed and as we all AUSTRALIANS believed that we will bounce back heavily, that's the sign. Michael Clarke had to wait till third test to score a century, Chris Rogers had to wait 35 long years to make a test fifty and we had to wait till third test to see the real AUSTRALIANS...AND WHEN AUSTRALIANS ARE BACK TO THE WAR, THE WAR BECOMES ONE SIDED!!!

  • thebrotherswaugh on August 1, 2013, 18:22 GMT

    OZ have done very well to battle through and end the day on 3/303. The wicket offered a bit for the bowlers in the 1st session, but really flattened out in the 2nd & 3rd sessions. OZ were once again saved by another magnificent innings from Clarke - anybody who doesn't rate him as one of the premier batsman at test level is either totally biased or knows next to nothing about the game. However, what happens should Clarke fail, as he did in the previous two tests. I suspect it would have been more of the same, and that 'batsman's paradise of a wicket' would have looked far more threatening. Oz would have been in all sorts of trouble. When Clarke makes runs, we're generally competitive, but if he fails, then we're not. That's the problem with the dynamics of the team at the moment. Smith was very, very lucky. However, you can't blame him for cashing in, and I sincerely hope he goes on with it to post his maiden test ton. Can't wait for tomorrow. PS - ENG can still win from here.

  • Nutcutlet on August 1, 2013, 18:14 GMT

    A tremendous day's Test cricket! for the first time since this series began, I thought: at last we have the genuine article! Congratulations to the Australian top order for standing up (who'd have thought that would be said after Lord's!). Well done to Chris Rogers - if some buffoons hadn't been messing around with the door in your line of sight over the screen & broken your concentration, you looked nailed on for the ton you genuinely deserved. Clarke reminded us of the world class bat he is, hard though England's bowlers toiled. Steve Smith played the perfect foil for his captain & showed everyone that he is genuinely of Test calibre. His own ton tomorrow morning would be just reward for his concentration & technique. At last battle is joined, but will someone please find some competent umpires as * the third team* is letting the other two teams down!

  • Greatest_Game on August 1, 2013, 18:12 GMT

    @ IndiaNumeroUno. I do not disagree with your statements regarding the UDRS technology or protocols. I made no statement in support of or opposition to either the UDRS to the BCCI's stance on the UDRS. My observation is that if an umpiring decision is NOT overturned, then the UDRS had had no impact on the game.

    I did not go to work today. That did not overturn the umpire's decision. It cannot be said that because I did not go to work the BCCI's stance on the UDRS is therefore justified.

    I object to posters using INVALID observations to justify the BCCI's position because that distracts from the BCCI's TRUE rationale. A mass of invalid statements begins to create the appearance that the BCCI's stance is also invalid. The BCCI's position should be appraised, supported, or opposed on it's merits, & not on a single invalid premise.

  • thebrotherswaugh on August 1, 2013, 18:12 GMT

    A lot of the comments seem to forget that test cricket is played over 5 days. Yes, it is a good batting wicket, but what do you expect on the 1st day - I wonder if the comments would be the same if ENG had won the toss? I've already seen the odd ball stay low. Swann looked good but didn't bowl with much luck, and ditto for Bresnan. ENG absolutely squandered the last 10 overs with the new ball. @salazar555 - it's amazing what can happen when a few decisions go your way, as opposed to against you. I don't remember you lamenting any calls when they worked to your teams advantage. It's a 5 match series, ENG have got the 'rub of the green' in the early stages with regards to decisions, but now it's beginning to even out. It really shouldn't be that much of a problem for a team with ENG's vast talent. After all, many have been predicting the 5-0 whitewash. It's still only day 1 and there's a lot of things that can happen over the next 4 days.

  • Batmanindallas on August 1, 2013, 18:12 GMT

    So what are the predictions-A result possible. I feel England will bat well and the game could peter out

  • on August 1, 2013, 18:11 GMT

    Pleased with Smith here, he didn't look real good early but has looked pretty good after getting to 30, riding his luck for sure but he sure hasn't looked like throwing is hand away. He may have to play a big role with the ball too, could be a very big match for him here, hope his back holds up.

    @Mitty, if nothing else Starc will dig the pitch up for Lyon, the poms are already digging big holes in the pitch, should be a minefield day 5.

    If Aus don't win this match I am going to go nuts!

  • on August 1, 2013, 18:09 GMT

    No one likes a big hundred more than Warner; though admittedly not enough to push prod and scratch around like some other batsmen. Warner tends more to power all the way through his innings like a duracell bunny on speed! The stage is perfectly set and I am very glad that Australia has set a great platform for him! If Warner does get going aided by Haddin or Clarke or both, I shudder (in a good way) to think what kind of score Australia could get!

  • milepost on August 1, 2013, 18:06 GMT

    @salazar,555, @front-foot-lunge, you guys are hilarious, as always and as noted by other posters. Australia played well. Get over it. C'mon guys lighten up it's just cricket. Yeah it's a wicket where batsman need to cash in and 3 of them did and let's face it the Khawaja decision was awful, not one to throw into the 'they all even out' category. As I noted, the England bowlers are especially susceptible to throwing their toys out when under the pump and they were and did. In saying that, there's a lot of cricket left and it was a dominant day for the Aussies but this is far from a dominant position in the context of the match. Give some credit to Rogers, Clarke and Smith and a little sympathy for Khawaja. For Watson, different batting but same result.

  • solankibhavesh on August 1, 2013, 18:06 GMT

    Good batting by captain and the opener Roger and this is the team that everyone wait for .... good cricket not like club cricket

  • on August 1, 2013, 18:05 GMT

    @severecritic very very well said mate. totally agree with you

  • on August 1, 2013, 18:05 GMT

    Finally Australia get lucky as far as DRS is concerned This has been a frustrating series for then in terms of DRS but not today. Khawaja got a shocker from " the best umpire of 2012" according to ICC. In what ways was he given out? absolutely no evidence. Smith got lucky twice, the lbw and a close catch to the keeper which didn't look perfectly out. Clarke played very watchfully today, he was edgy at the start but he recovered well.

  • AussieSam on August 1, 2013, 18:01 GMT

    Good to see the Aussie top order bat out a day and prove that all the talk about 'too much T20', 'too much Big Bash', etc., was maybe a bit hasty. I'm sure the Aussie bowlers appreciated getting to put their feet up for once. Also enjoyed seeing the poms having a whinge after finally being made to toil by some solid batting. Don't think any of them will be get much pity from Aussie fans, particularly Broad.

    Clarke and Smith's excellent partnership was the real killer for England, but Rogers did a great job taking the lead in the opening partnership with Watson, who wasn't quite struggling but definitely wasn't in any position to do what was needed to get the innings a start like this. I'm glad Clarke has made some good runs at No. 4 now, even if just to prove to himself that he can bat there. I was never really keen on him moving to No. 3 but he was at No. 5 for way too long. Perfect situation for Warner to come in now and see what he can do batting at No. 6 with the bowlers weary.

  • on August 1, 2013, 18:01 GMT

    Amidst all the discussions, haze & dust, one man stood taller than the rest. Take a bow Michael Clarke! (not discounting the others but still..). It was great to see the captain himself rise up to the occasion. It was like he gave the other Aussie batsmen, lost in the desert, a much needed glass of cold water. Bits and pieces or tidbit kind of innings will not do the trick for the team morale & that includes even a 50+ innings! Only a century plus innings would do the trick & finally it happened, and that too from the captain himself! Very delighted to see Michael Clarke back to serious business. Mark my words, I have a gut feeling that whenever a captain does that, it signals a big revival in the fortunes of a team. This could be a major turnaround for Australia! It was stylish to see his highlights (after the day's play) with that background song 'oh oh oh, i know i know..all i need is you with me' Wonder which song that is, sounded great! Run Clarke run!

  • on August 1, 2013, 18:00 GMT

    I think Anderson is an over rated bowler. He is very good option to have in Typical English conditions but equally he is quite pedestrian when conditions are unfavourable for bowlers. This where the likes of Dale Steyn, Waqar Younis, Wasim Akram are a class apart. I am not sure how the Australian bowlers will perform on this track

  • InfiniteWhite on August 1, 2013, 17:55 GMT

    Great knock from Clarke! This time, given chance, he won't hesitate breaking The Don's record for the highest score by an Australian batsman in Tests.

  • thebrotherswaugh on August 1, 2013, 17:54 GMT

    @Front-Foot-Lunge - Clarke is unable to master anything outside the bubble of the middle order and proven useless in any other conditions as we've seen this series - what an absolute crock!! Credit where credits due and all that. According to your rather twisted perspective, then neither side possesses a genuine world-class batsman. Clarke's record is as good as anyone in either side, particularly over the last 3 years. As for the state of OZ cricket, it is poor at the moment and we will struggle over the next 2 years or so, but I'm not sure it will be an endless slide. We'll see how we're going in 3 years or so.

  • H_Z_O on August 1, 2013, 17:52 GMT

    @willu024 a) I wasn't whining about DRS, I was actually supporting/defending it as I don't think it's relevant here. This wasn't a DRS failing. b) I'm an England fan, so I am hardly using the poor decisions to make excuses for Australia. I think we're 2-0 up because we've been the better side in the first two Tests, but that doesn't mean I want the result devalued by poor umpiring.

    @IndiaNumeroUno you seem to be implying there would be no controversy without DRS. Nothing could be further from the truth. Australian fans would likely be angry based on the camera replays alone, which clearly showed he didn't hit it.

    I was furious about the Agar stumping, which didn't involve DRS, because it was no different to Bell's in the Champions Trophy final, which was given out. I didn't need DRS to feel aggrieved.

    We had controversy over umpiring long before DRS. I'm certain without DRS, given how poor these umpires have been, we would have had controversy anyway. India at the SCG comes to mind.

  • disco_bob on August 1, 2013, 17:48 GMT

    Now we will see the folly of dropping Hughes who performed well at No. 6 and did not deserve to be dropped. Warner will be too smug coming in with a good platform but at least we have a strong tail. I can't wait to see what Lyon can do on this pitch. I'm am surprised that we didn't lose two quick wickets in the last 5 overs so maybe the tide has turned, especially as England already had cause to regret burning their reviews so early.

  • slow.mo on August 1, 2013, 17:46 GMT

    In this non-swinging condition Australia will sorely miss Bird. Without much swing Starc is useless and will bleed runs.

  • Iddo555 on August 1, 2013, 17:41 GMT


    Smith's already had 3 decisions go his way, when the pitch is as flat as this England don't need the umpire to start giving the batsmen not out when they are stone dead plumb.

    As for green tops with cloud cover, that hasn't been the case in this series, England is going through a heat wave and the pitches have been dry with very little grass on them.

  • on August 1, 2013, 17:40 GMT

    @salazar555: I think the Australians deserve much more praise than that. Yes, the pitch is flat BUT one shouldn't take away credit where it is due. Clarke and Smith have played superbly and put Australia in command after day 1. England's bowlers simply weren't good enough. They looked tired, fatigued and uninterested in proceedings. If it wasn't for poor umpiring, Australia would realistically only be two wickets down. I am glad to see Australia fighting for the Baggy Green. This is what makes Ashes cricket special. So far it has been far too one sided. Can't wait for day 2 now and England better come prepared for another tough day in the office. First innings runs crucial at Old Trafford.

  • BradmanBestEver on August 1, 2013, 17:38 GMT

    So the day finishes with Australia at 3 down to 303. A fine performance in the face of extreme adversity by the Aussies. Well done Australia. Aussies well on top at the present time.

  • Cpt.Meanster on August 1, 2013, 17:29 GMT

    @Front-Foot-Lunge: Yet another one-sided comment from you. If England batted first and Cook makes 100+, it is "Well Done England !"; if Australia bat well and Clarke makes a 100+, "its a flat deck". Hilarious !

  • SevereCritic on August 1, 2013, 17:22 GMT

    @salazar555 - So, in a bowler's paradise (i.e. a greentop with cloud cover), if a batsman is caught struggling, then he is called technically deficient. But in a batting paradise, e.g.this Old Trafford pitch, if a bowler struggles, then how come people are so quick to defend the bowler's inability to take wickets. This is where Steyn trumps Anderson. Anderson needs the pitch and the ball to talk for him to succeed. Steyn makes the ball talk irrespective of what kind of pitch he is bowling in.

  • bobbi_143 on August 1, 2013, 17:21 GMT

    well, well, watching Clarke batting well has been a joy always. For all those people talking about flat pitch, I would say England will be definitely tested on this pitch. I reckon if Australia scores anything above 450, they will stand a good chance to win this test. I say so because Siddle can be dangerous and Lyon can be a handful on these type of pitches. well done Australia. job half done and a job well started is always more than a good one.

  • on August 1, 2013, 17:19 GMT

    This looks good for Australia - England aren't really capable of batting for a long time after fielding for 5 or 6 sessions, haven't done that since Brisbane 2011 (and that was 2nd innings.) Expect Aus to get a first innings lead of at least 150 here !

  • Iddo555 on August 1, 2013, 17:10 GMT

    Lancashire want their money's worth, they made an absolute road so the game goes 5 days

  • Iddo555 on August 1, 2013, 17:02 GMT

    Anderson can't get 5 wickets every time he goes on the field, the pitch is flat, the bounce is true and the ball is not doing much.

    Batsman's day. There's gonna be some rain though so Australia might actually do well and still only come out with a draw

  • on August 1, 2013, 16:58 GMT

    Anderson is quality just think the pitch at old Trafford is horrendous just made for batting. think we should have kept Edgbaston as a ground for the ashes

  • Sarfin on August 1, 2013, 16:52 GMT

    @ThyrSaadam, that's a bit harsh based on one match. I've seen Steyn to create havoc in Nagpur but completely toothless in Kolkata in back to back match. That never means Steyn is depended on condition. Anderson can swing the new ball, can extract reverse when the ball is old... not sounds like a condition depended bowler. I do agree Steyn is a better bowler, but show some respect where it's due..

  • Front-Foot-Lunge on August 1, 2013, 16:48 GMT

    Looking at the recent Old Trafford FC results, I see that 474 Vs 567 was the last game played recently on this pitch, which is a typical mid-summer road. As I said before the match, should be an interesting match on a flat deck. That certainly looks the case. Clarke, still unable to master anything outside the bubble of the middle order and proven useless in any other conditions as we've seen this series, played a good innings that will now draw out Australia's endless slide for at least another year, probably more, before they can start to rebuild. I'm yet to see Rogers's innings but it looks the best of the day, a good initial strike rate was exactly what Aus needed on a sweltering dry day in the middle of a damn fine English summer.

  • thecosmicpuppet on August 1, 2013, 16:47 GMT

    I have to agree with the comments regarding the failure of the umpiring rather than the technology. Technology is just a tool. How it's being used is the real villain in this story. It seems to be arbitrary. I would also agree that the number of bad decisions tends to even out in a match/series, but that doesn't mean the result of a match/series would be the same. You can't tell me that a tail ender getting a reprieve when he should have been out would make up for a higher order batsman in form getting out when he wasn't. If that's a defense for the system then you might as well ditch the whole thing. The number of bad decisions evened out before DRS was introduced. Seriously ICC, fix your protocols and/or rules and/or training! At this point I'd be happy to accept crap decisions if they were at least consistent. Two batsmen in the same situation might as well flip a coin at the moment.

  • ThyrSaadam on August 1, 2013, 16:36 GMT

    This is my genuine gripe about Anderson, if the conditions are slightly off he isnt as big a threat, just have to wait and see if the old ball can reverse for him. Steyn any day over Anderson!

  • paapam on August 1, 2013, 16:33 GMT

    If Australia are looking at 35+ players to strengthen their batting, they could do worse than look at Brad Hodge. If Clarke quits as captain notwithstanding brilliant batting today, Hodge could even captain the team 'a la Simpson'. Australia may be 247-3 as I write this but I have little doubt that they will lose this and the next test. I also expect Clarke's back to pack in. He looks pretty stiff even as he plays one of most resolute innings I have seen

  • farhan.ahmad on August 1, 2013, 16:29 GMT

    Australia is going to win this ashes test and you'll see that Aaron Alancheril

  • Dazako on August 1, 2013, 16:26 GMT

    @USA_res We can complain whole heartedly mostly because Smith would not be out there if not for a howlerfrom the umpire and DRS. Also it would be one match a piece if not for the redonkulous call re Broad vs Agar in the first test if we had any reviews left. So claiming an eye for an eye with Smith due to lack of calls will only be considered fair if he goes on to make 200.

  • on August 1, 2013, 16:22 GMT

    com'on australia..!!! Clarke.. u have it in u to convert this side into a championship winning team..!!!! show them ..!!!

  • xtrafalgarx on August 1, 2013, 16:17 GMT

    Smith decision does not even out the Khawaja decision, Khawaja's decision was an OBVIOUS howler, not so with Smiths. On a side note, COME ON CAP'N CLARKE!!

  • Iddo555 on August 1, 2013, 16:16 GMT

    Smith probably should have been given out 3 times

    nick off from Anderson Lbw to Swann Absolute plumb LBW to Broad, half way up middle stump which would have given Broad 200 wickets

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on August 1, 2013, 16:06 GMT

    At long last! Aus. have realised the Ashes is a test series, as opposed to ODI's/T20's. Clarke deserves his ton here, but kudos to Rogers this morning for setting the scene. England not doing much wrong here - Aus. just finally bedding down for a change and keeping the fielders interested in long, unrewarding chases. Going home to watch the highlights now :-)

  • AussieSam on August 1, 2013, 16:01 GMT

    I'd also add Rogers' lbw dismissal to Swann in the 1st innings at Lords.

  • disco_bob on August 1, 2013, 16:01 GMT

    Posted by brusselslion on (August 1, 2013, 15:28 GMT)"... please tell me its so. It can't get worse, can it?..." A pessimist would say 'no' but I'm an optimist so I know it can.

  • Shan_Karthic on August 1, 2013, 15:59 GMT

    The minute people start talking that a wrong decision would have stood without DRS so it is not a problem to have the wrong decision stand with DRS, DRS has lost its purpose.

    Also, it is specious to state that DRS is not at fault; it is the person or process. DRS is everything together; not just the equipment. If we are going to have problems because of persons or processes, we are still in the same situation with or without DRS.

    DRS is a good idea but BCCI and countless fans are right to question the implementation as it is.

  • Pyketts on August 1, 2013, 15:59 GMT

    Sorry I've just realised my comment about the game seems to have interupted a boring discussion about DRS and umpiring mistakes! Can we just talk about something other than umpires and DRS?!

  • on August 1, 2013, 15:59 GMT

    All the English players are doing good, I don't think that the Aussies will make a come-back

  • on August 1, 2013, 15:49 GMT

    Smith not given out LBW, can square things for Australia BUT never for poor chap Khawaja, he may loose his spot once more due very poor umpiring by two ducks...

  • AussieSam on August 1, 2013, 15:49 GMT

    While i agree that the Smith/Anderson lbw should have been given out after seeing the replay and hawkeye, it wasn't an obvious howler in live play; as the replay showed, the impact was only just in line. However i think Khawaja's dismissal as well as Broad's non-dismissal and to a lesser extent Trott's lbw dismissal in this series have made a good case for putting the DRS solely in the hands of the 3rd umpire and improving their training and guidelines.

  • disco_bob on August 1, 2013, 15:39 GMT

    @USA_Res don't forget though that we are watching Eng vs Aus not Players vs Umpires. It's good if the errors even out but its still not good that the outcome is decided by an umpire

  • on August 1, 2013, 15:29 GMT

    drs have been incompetent to say the least.also aus lose an important review due to drs.hope bcci gets enoygh evidence collected to rule out the drs sustem from all their future series. this is half baked system for princely money. we cricket lovers deserve better.

  • brusselslion on August 1, 2013, 15:28 GMT

    I agree with @jmcilhinney on (August 1, 2013, 15:09 GMT) that the standard of cricket in this match is pretty high (best of the series so far). Unfortunately, the opposite is true of the umpiring which must surely have reached its' nadir .... please tell me its so. It can't get worse, can it?

    Yes, we're all human, have good and bad days, etc... but come on, these guys are meant to be the creme de la creme of their profession.

  • disco_bob on August 1, 2013, 15:21 GMT

    Smith plumb lbw not given no reviews left for England so that evens out the egregious Khawaja decision. Clarke looking good to cash in big time. Lyon will enjoy bowling here.

  • Englishmanabroad on August 1, 2013, 15:17 GMT

    Having just watched Smith survive an absolutely plumb LBW appeal, primarily because England had no reviews remaining, Australia can no longer complain.

  • jmcilhinney on August 1, 2013, 15:09 GMT

    While I'm as happy to debate DRS as the next man, it's a shame that so much attention is focused on it because there's been some really good cricket here today. England have bowled much better than 3 wickets would suggest but Australia have batted very well. Hopefully the rest of the game is of a similar high standard. A few quick wickets could yet turn things in England's favour but Australia definitely have their nose in front at present.

  • jmcilhinney on August 1, 2013, 15:06 GMT

    @IndiaNumeroUno on (August 1, 2013, 14:32 GMT), but Khawaja was given out on the field anyway so he still would have been out with no DRS and there would still be controversy because we would all have seen the replays, etc. that show that he was actually not out. Are you saying that there were no controversial dismissals before DRS? Surely not!

  • jmcilhinney on August 1, 2013, 15:04 GMT

    Interesting incident with Smith and Anderson. I can see - or rather hear - why England were so confident as there was a quite loud noise that sounded very much like an edge. I'm quite surprised that the on-field call was not out to be honest, but it looks like that was actually correct. Snicko confirmed what the slo-mo replays showed, i.e. that noise occurred after the ball had passed the bat. Good call by both the on-field and third umpires. Smith was perhaps a little lucky to still be there as that LBW against Swann could well have been given out by the on-field umpire. Fair enough decision though and Australia were due a bit of luck anyway. I really can't see the justification for not overturning Khawaja's dismissal. I think that no noise as the ball passes the bat and no mark on HotSpot should be considered convincing enough evidence that there was no edge.

  • Pyketts on August 1, 2013, 14:59 GMT

    Is it just me or is this Test match proving that England sometimes need to play more than 4 bowlers?

  • Gareth_Bain on August 1, 2013, 14:49 GMT

    There will still be human error, but human error is much smaller when the human is allowed to see the ball over and over, in slow motion, with a stump mike. So DRS works. The second way to reduce human error is to use humans who make less errors...

  • milepost on August 1, 2013, 14:49 GMT

    The noise in the Smith situation came after the ball passed the bat, that was clear well before they showed snicko! DRS is useless if the umpires use it the way they do. Too much drama outside the actual cricket in this series.

  • pereirapet on August 1, 2013, 14:38 GMT

    Whats going on here? Another example on an extraneous sound after the ball has passed the bat. This time with SSmith Vs Anderson. Previously with the Khawaja dismissal when snicko found a 'snick' after the ball passes his L leg. As Atherton says, whats caused that sound!

  • thebrotherswaugh on August 1, 2013, 14:37 GMT

    Smith continues to ride his luck. Anderson was very unlucky not to have Smith caught behind. It looked out when I viewed it live, all of the ENG cordon were extremely confident, and yet the umpire didn't see enough to give it out, and the technology backed up his decision. I'm still not completely sure that the technology is 100% correct all of the time, because technology can fail or give compromised results - it can be incorrectly set up or not properly maintained. That just looked like a regulation 'feather' through to the WK, and my intuition says that we got away with one there. Decisions tend to even out as the game progresses, and this is already building into an enthralling mach.

  • on August 1, 2013, 14:36 GMT

    ahmed 4 for 80 odd in south africa. with the ball already turning on day 1 in manchester one woukd think he would be a useful inclusion in this test. Hopefully lyon can get a few pommy wickets.

  • Iddo555 on August 1, 2013, 14:35 GMT

    Smith's not a walker then?

  • Iddo555 on August 1, 2013, 14:32 GMT

    Time for England to start moaning a bit here, Smith should have been given to Swann and now a noise when it's clear the bat didn't hit the floor or pad. What else could the noise be but bat?

  • BHAARATVARSH on August 1, 2013, 14:32 GMT

    @H_Z_O: No DRS, No confusion, No controversy. Try as you might, but DRS is still rubbish!

  • BHAARATVARSH on August 1, 2013, 14:31 GMT

    @H_Z_O : Trusting the umpire is the basic foundation of cricket. "Umpire's call is final ", is what every cricketer is taught. There are lessons in philosophy, principle, introspection and character building the sport of cricket gives, which arguably no other sport can claim to do. But now you see these mock versions of "DRS review" being played out in every playground across cricket playing nations by kids in schools, clubs, alleyways etc. What's wrong with trusting the umpire? It's still better than all this false technology and unwanted controversies on/off the field. The makers of the technology themselves conceded that it's not good enough!. Agreed that technology improves many aspects of life, Cricket is not one of them.

  • willu024 on August 1, 2013, 14:26 GMT

    @H_Z_O stop whining about the drs, australia have had their fair share of decisions go their way in the past

  • on August 1, 2013, 14:26 GMT

    DRS was introduced to eliminate human errors on part of umpires..but the human errors continue even with it.And it seems to me that whatever measures are taken some amount amount of human errors will occur.Although I was a staunch supporter of DRS now doubts are creeping in.Perhaps BCCI was not so wrong after all. Why spend so much money if it does not solve the initial problem..namely human error?

  • Riz000 on August 1, 2013, 14:08 GMT

    Being a Pakistani supporter @Those who are saying its Khawaja's last chance its not his fault at all i believe third umpire needs to go to Spec-savers! how many chances had Philip Hughes had?? result was same failing in every innings give khawaja full series before judging him i know khawaja will come good in 2nd innings he was unlucky tdy and 3rd umpire must be replaced ASAP

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on August 1, 2013, 14:03 GMT

    Clarke motoring along here now. The fact that Rogers has seen off the morning session - it shouldn't matter too much Clarke's come in at 4 instead of 5 I guess. Is it maybe time to throw the ball to Root yet?

  • thebrotherswaugh on August 1, 2013, 14:01 GMT

    Things even out, although it's not much consolation to Khawaja. Swanny just bowled a magnificent delivery to Smith, spun sharply and he played back and missed it. Given not out but it looked out to the naked eye. DRS shows it hitting leg stump, but slightly less than half the ball, so the original decision stands. I reckon we got away with one there. Smith can consider himself lucky. At the end of the day, it's not the officials who decide who wins, it's the quality of the players on the field. I doubt that Lyon will bowl with anywhere near the level of accuracy and penetration that Swann has bowled with. It was a great toss to win for Clarke, because OZ definitely wouldn't have wanted to be batting last. I hope Davey Warner does well on his welcome return to the team, but I suspect Swann will prove his undoing. ENG have bowled very well thus far, so I'm quite happy with the OZ batting at this stage.

  • H_Z_O on August 1, 2013, 13:53 GMT

    @IndiaNumeroUno on (August 1, 2013, 13:26 GMT)

    "Hotspot often shows no mark when there is a faint edge."

    So? On-field umpires go on noise and we know for a fact that sometimes noise can occur without the bat hitting anything, because as the bat and ball pass each other at high speed, in opposite directions, the air between them gets compressed which can lead to a "click".

    "Snicko isn't used as it takes too long to set up and get the sound in sync with the picture."

    So says the ICC/the boards. By the time Dharmasena gave his decision snick-o was actually ready.

    "Ball tracking... less said the better!!"

    Of course "the less said the better". Because the facts don't support your case. The actual margin of error for HawkEye is minuscule, and factored in.

    "so just what is the technology brigade batting for?!"

    Dar missed the Broad one. Tony Hill got this wrong. Umpires get more decisions correct post-DRS than pre-DRS.

    So just what are the "trust the umpires" brigade batting for? ;)

  • H_Z_O on August 1, 2013, 13:41 GMT

    @IndiaNumeroUno there would be no confusion? What confusion? Who exactly was confused here?

    Without DRS Khawaja would have been out. Without DRS we would have still been able to be relatively confident it was the wrong decision. Why? The rear camera. It showed, rather clearly, he didn't hit it.

    We've been seeing footage like that for long before DRS came in. As long as the TV companies cover cricket, we'll always see the umpiring mistakes. In fact, the BCCI's stance that DRS undermines the umpires because it shows their errors should lead to them banning televised cricket. But they don't.

    If, on the other hand, the issue is that they believe the technology to be unreliable we've just seen a perfect case of where the umpiring was unreliable but technology was not.

    As for the policy element of the DRS, the proper protocols, according to those who developed them, were not followed with Khawaja. Or Agar's at Lord's.

    Try as you might, this wasn't a failure of DRS. End of story.

  • on August 1, 2013, 13:38 GMT

    After another disgraceful decidion using DRS maybe the Indian team/board were right not wanting to use DRS as it seems to be the talking point of every Test so far!!

  • Webba84 on August 1, 2013, 13:32 GMT

    3rd Umpire trying to protect the ones on field is ruining the accuracy of DRS therefore regulations need to be changed so referred decisions are made without any reference to the on field umpire. 3rd umpire independently decides if it is out or not with no bias towards or against on field decisions. A regulation to this effect will improve the effectiveness of the system and protect the reputation of the on field umpires.

  • Skott on August 1, 2013, 13:30 GMT

    @AlanHull. The sound and vision was aligned. There was a noise when the bat hit pad, all line up nicely. Plus you could see daylight between bat and ball. It was a terrible decision.

    And @Blade Runner, yes we were expecting the 3rd umpire to say not out. Nothing on hot spot (how do you show no edge? a cold spot?). No noise when ball passed bat. No deviation. How much evidence does he need?

  • Potatis on August 1, 2013, 13:30 GMT

    @AlanHull, it doesn't matter whether snicko is in sync or not when the replay shows a lot of daylight between the bat and ball. Wherever the sound came from, it wasn't bat hitting ball. The 3rd umpire should have considered that instead of any sound. It was a clearly not out, the decision was a howler.

  • BHAARATVARSH on August 1, 2013, 13:26 GMT

    Hotspot often shows no mark when there is a faint edge. Snicko isn't used as it takes too long to set up and get the sound in sync with the picture. Ball tracking... less said the better!!.. so just what is the technology brigade batting for?! :))

  • PACERONE on August 1, 2013, 13:24 GMT

    Decisions like this is not good for the game.With a decision like this one wonders if the umpire has other things going on.Maybe they will have to use two tv replay umpires.Maybe the batsman should be allowed to return after the fall of the next wicket.

  • on August 1, 2013, 13:23 GMT

    It was a bad decision. No doubt about that but... the 3rd umpire can't use snicko so we can't blame him on that part of his decision and also... without DRS the same decision would have resulted.

    So it wasn't DRS at fault. It was the ridiculous decision not to include snicko in the DRS and the stupid wording of the rule saying you need "clear evidence" to overturn but failing to give any idea of what that means. Clear evidence can mean different things to different people.

    Can people please stop blaming DRS for badly written rules, lack of all available data being given to the 3rd umpire and just plain bad umpiring.

    DRS can't make a decision EVER!!! It's the 3rd umpire and the rules that are screwing it up.

    Had any of us been umpiring the same DRS data it would have worked perfectly!!! We would all have reversed. So how can it be the fault of DRS when we would have seen the same DRS as the 3rd umpire and got the decision right?!!!!!

  • H_Z_O on August 1, 2013, 13:21 GMT

    @122notoutWestByfleet1996 I wouldn't go so far as to say Hotspot has to be "god" (it doesn't always pick up faint edges, whereas snick-o and the stump mics do), but I do agree that using Hotspot and Snick-o together would work well, and if neither suggest an edge, I'd say that should be considered conclusive evidence.

    Using stump mics instead of snick-o is problematic because all it tells us is there's a noise. We're then relying on the umpire using the naked eye to determine where the noise happens on the video footage and whether the ball's near the bat. That's hardly much better than the on-field umpire using their own eyes and ears.

    Likewise video footage. I think video footage and stump mics should be used by the 3rd Umpire to determine if the review deserves extra-close attention. But the final decision should be based on strong evidence, like Hotspot and Snick-o.

    What's worse is Australia were punished doubly, by losing a review as well as the wicket. Very harsh.

  • drinks.break on August 1, 2013, 13:20 GMT

    At the very least, surely the match referee can return the Australians' lost review to them during the lunch break. The review was good, yet they've lost it, and will now be very reticent to review even more blatant errors than that one.

  • Oraclebob on August 1, 2013, 13:19 GMT

    DRS works fine. If DRS wasn't in place, the batter still would have been out. For every ONE decision like this, there are 9 that are correct. Ask any player if he'd rather go back to when there was absolutely no technological assistance to the umpires.

  • on August 1, 2013, 13:15 GMT

    Dharmasena... wow. How could you get it so wrong? Found it hilarious listening to Shane Warne's commentary, I think he nearly fell out of his chair when it came back as upheld.

  • syd0660 on August 1, 2013, 13:14 GMT

    All these comments regarding DRS forget one thing - the technology works and is correct and accurate. The problem arises when the third umpire isn't using it properly. How the third umpire could rule that out when the technology showed Khawaja didn't hit the ball. Again, DRS is a benefit when the third umpire is competent.

  • on August 1, 2013, 13:12 GMT

    Now my question is to ICC, what are they going to do about it? They should apology to Khawar, both the on field and TV umpire should be fined and their fee must be deducted, they should also be banned for atlesst one match. ICC should also respond why snicko was not used. It is ICC which is responsible for the mess.

  • BHAARATVARSH on August 1, 2013, 13:10 GMT

    @Greatest_Game : BCCI's stance is correct because had there been no DRS then there would be no confusion. Currently what we have is a half baked system. Note that DRS is not just the technology (which has its own, well documented, flaws) but ALSO the policy element governing the 3rd umpires. The current state is not fit for purpose as rightly claimed by BCCI.

  • H_Z_O on August 1, 2013, 13:10 GMT

    @Surajrises if we got rid of DRS and went back to human umpiring alone we would be in a worse position. Tony Hill gave it out. The third umpire interpreted evidence that clearly showed Khawaja didn't hit it as if he did. And that's with all the time in the world to make his decision. They get even less time out in the middle.

    The issue isn't DRS. For it to be mentioned in the headline is sensationalist, playing to the fact certain sets of fans don't like the DRS and are looking for any reason to criticise it.

    Without the DRS Khawaja would have been given out. With it, he should have been reprieved. The issue is that the umpires seem to be making it up as they go along.

    What is "conclusive evidence"? The was no hotspot, the rear camera was clear and any noise was explained by the hotspot on the back pad as the bat hit it. What else do you need?

    Technology isn't the problem. Technology is what proved Khawaja didn't hit it. But if umpires ignore that proof, the fault lies with them.

  • A.Sarkar17 on August 1, 2013, 13:09 GMT

    I you make a mess of running your business you cannot blame the management software, you have to improve yourself. All the contentious DRS decisions have been pieces of bad umpiring. I think there is a case for the 3rd umpire getting live audio feeds from commentators to see what some of the games's greats feel about a particular replay so that he can correct any potential mistakes.

  • Barnesy4444 on August 1, 2013, 13:09 GMT

    Yes the DRS decision was wrong in so many ways. But Rogers batted beautifully.

    Watson looked terrible. If he fails again in the second innings then Hughes should open in the 4th test. I'm tired of Hughes being stuffed around and batting out of position, he is an opener and averaging over 60 this tour.

  • Blade-Runner on August 1, 2013, 13:07 GMT

    I think that some people are going overboard here regarding Kawaja's decision. Umpire Dharmasena did nothing wrong. He just followed the protocol. It was clearly on-field umpire's call n Mr. Dharmasena didn't find any evidence to overturn it. So Mr. Dharmasena eventually let Mr. Hill go ahead with his decision. What were you people expecting 3rd umpire to do ? Say "not out" ?? :))

  • AlanHull on August 1, 2013, 13:06 GMT

    The decision wasn't that bad. Contrary to what Botham and Warne said there WAS a noise as the ball passed the bat but it seems like the sound might have been out of sync with the pictures as snicko showed no noise. DRS is only supposed to overrule a decision if there is clear evidence to the contrary which there wasn't as like Dharmesena said he heard a noise. Hotspot often shows no mark when there is a faint edge. Snicko isn't used as it takes too long to set up and get the sound in sync with the picture.

  • on August 1, 2013, 13:05 GMT

    Kumar is a poor umpire in general - he needs to be sent back to the umpiring school

  • thebrotherswaugh on August 1, 2013, 13:03 GMT

    Geez, Swann is a good bowler. He comes on and puts the ball in the right areas from ball one. Looking very dangerous at the moment, and Warner will definitely struggle against him later in this innings (much later, I hope). I know it's early days, but he may well prove the difference between the two sides. The OZ batting looks more determined this time - hopefully Clarke and Rogers will both get big scores and build a solid partnership for the 3rd wicket. As long as we show some fight and improvement in the batting, I'll be happy. Let's make the Pommies work hard for their wins. Bresnan was the pick of the medium/fast bowlers during the 1st session. Khawaja was desperately unlucky, and it's funny how bad luck tends to follow you when you're fighting to retain your place.

  • CrICkeeet on August 1, 2013, 13:00 GMT

    DRS is nt d prblm here.. Rather DRS showed, how poor d decision was!

  • keptalittlelow on August 1, 2013, 12:58 GMT

    You cant blame DRS for the mistake made by the 3rd Umpire Dharmasena. Tony Hill made the mistake, DRS gave the correct verdict, Dharmasena turned it down You cant blame DRS.

  • Stats1210 on August 1, 2013, 12:58 GMT

    3rd umpires should be suspended for this type of error. DRS is getting the blame and it had no fault at all!

  • on August 1, 2013, 12:57 GMT

    Brought up as I have been for the past fifty or more years on a bountiful diet of Ashes cricket, I am totally floored, bothered and bewildered by the decisions in this series thus far - I cannot see it getting any worse and my sympathies lie with the cricketers who have fallen prey to these horrendous errors....

  • thebrotherswaugh on August 1, 2013, 12:54 GMT

    Nothing has changed - there was always controversy regarding decisions. There have always been howlers. DRS was supposedly introduced to get rid of the absolute howlers - it has failed fairly miserably. With a limited number of referrals, it's amazing how often a howlers occurs after both referrals have been 'wasted'. I'd be just as happy to leave it with the guys in the middle. Sure, they'll get the odd decision wrong, but it usually evens out over the course of a match (or series). That won't happen, but I can fully understand why IND refuse to use DRS in its current format, because it's just as 'hit & miss' as the traditional method. OZ have now wasted one referral that was clearly a bad-call from the officials. What's the bet that will come back and haunt them - fairly short odds, I reckon.

  • Cricket_Master_Mind on August 1, 2013, 12:53 GMT

    Its Not a DRS that Failed Its Dharmasena who made WRONG decision. They was no snick when ball was passing a bat. Than how could Dharmasena give that Batsman OUT. It's simply Bad Umpiring from both on Field and 3rd Umpire. Dharmasena should be sorry with Khawaja for that Decision. If there was a doubt it should have been gone in favor of batsman. It hurts the spirit of Cricket!

  • on August 1, 2013, 12:51 GMT

    absolutely disgusting decision. what is the point of having drs if it is not used properly

  • on August 1, 2013, 12:49 GMT

    DRS is working perfectly (the combined set of tools showed no edge) but either the protocols which determine its use are wrong-headed or the umpires are simply interpreting the evidence incorrectly.

  • on August 1, 2013, 12:49 GMT

    DRS is a waste of time and money so many errors that's make the great game into a lottery. a batsman should be only given out. if all three shows that he was out. hotspot, snicko, and Hawkeye. also if more than half the ball is missing the stumps it should be notout.

  • on August 1, 2013, 12:49 GMT

    The decision should have been over turned on one video replay. Even on the small TV I am watching you could see clear daylight between bat and ball. Why did we then have 40 replays which all showed daylight / no hotspot / absolutely nothing. The on-field umpire made a mistake. It happens, but DRS is there to over turn the howlers. Not for the 3rd umpire to protect his mates by confirming them with another howler. Makes 2 umpires look incompetent. Certainly do not agree that BCCI have made the right decision in not adopting DRS. I have seen more errors in the DRS in this series than the last 2 summers in Australia.

  • IndianEagle on August 1, 2013, 12:49 GMT

    This what i have been saying since the DRS controversy arises. In the name of 'There is no enough evidence to overturn on field decision' clear not out decisions are given out (some wickets are given Not-out). Now a days, benefit of doubt goes against batsmen to upheld the onfield umpire decision. (What would be the result, if on field umpires had ruled that as not out?). I am 100 percent sure since his bat hits pad, he took few seconds to review the decision (may be he felt, at the time bat hits pad, he might had edged) so, he took seconds to review. This delay caused his wicket. Once again human error.

  • xtrafalgarx on August 1, 2013, 12:48 GMT

    Sick to death of imcompetant Umpiring. It's time to get rid of neutral umpires, Australian and English umpires are amongst the best of them so why not use them?

  • yorkslanka on August 1, 2013, 12:47 GMT

    Nothing wrong with DRS, it's the USE of it buy the third umpire that was at fault!what was Dharmasena doing?feel for Khawaja and also Aus lost an appeal for nothing...

  • BHAARATVARSH on August 1, 2013, 12:46 GMT

    @Forsäken Rightēous: DRS is in the spotlight because DRS is a complete system with rules governing the decisions of the 3rd umpire. It's something within those rules that Dharmasena was obliged to follow and come up with his decision. So yes, it is a DRS issue. People always think DRS is JUST the technology. That's wrong. DRS is multiple moving parts - and as we have seen many times - one or more of it fail more often than not, ultimately reducing the quality of entertainment of the game. It's a half baked system which offers considerably less than the traditional system of "Umpire's call is final".

  • IPSY on August 1, 2013, 12:43 GMT

    I think the first part of the headline for this article, "DRS In Spotlight" should instead be: "Chronic Umpiring Incompetence Continues to Plague Cricket"! It's clear that we have been blaming the DRS unfairly for too long; when everyone sees that it is 'chronic umpiring incompetence' that is the problem in DRS assisted decision making! The Khawaja howler this morning is clear evidence of what I've been shouting about on Cricinfo, since cricket has been plagued so badly by these problems. Is it because these umpires are not technology saavy enough that they contiue to make these glaring mistakes? Or is it because they are not properly trained? Whatever the answer, I think we can't have professionals making mistakes so frequently as they do their jobs. Lots of people would prefer to see the technology scrapped, but any intelligent person would understand that the problems we are having are not the fault of the technology. It is rather a case of BLATANT INCOMPETENCE! DRS is here to stay!

  • Basingrad on August 1, 2013, 12:43 GMT

    It's not the concept of DRS it's the execution by this particular set of hapless umpires. There was clear daylight between bat and ball. How is that, along with the timing of the sound on slo-mo and the lack of hotspot, not enough to overturn it. Farcical from Dharmasena.

    It's nearly as maddening as Anderson and Cook's utterly stupid policy of bowling round the wicket to Rogers and the former's insistence on bowling outswingers to lefties and never threatening the stumps. Total waste of the new ball from him today and played right into Rogers's hands.

  • bhasker.pakhrin on August 1, 2013, 12:42 GMT

    I think England should appeal in every occasion when the ball passes wide of the edge. They will give out 2 of 3. I wonder how he gave him out. Some mysteries are never solved indeed.

    There should also be a system where the details of "out/not out" decisions given by using DRS should be publically announced by the umpires/ICC at the end of each day (match for shorter formats).

  • dmat on August 1, 2013, 12:41 GMT

    Does Dharmasena lose his match fee for this?

  • 122notoutWestByfleet1996 on August 1, 2013, 12:39 GMT

    I echo all the thoughts re how bad a decision this was.

    If we use hot spot then it has to be god - if there is a mark its out, it there isnt, it's not.

    Also, does anyone know why Snicko is not used? in some of the controversial decisions we have seen (eg Haddin 2nd inns dismissal in first test) it has been the one piece of technology that has been able to give a conclusive view on whether it was out or not. but only the tv commentators have snicko, the umpires dont. seems very odd to me. a combo of hawkeye, snicko and hotspot would appear to be the best for making consistent correct decisions.

    of course, if umpires continue to ignore evidence of the technology then mistakes will still happen.

  • on August 1, 2013, 12:38 GMT

    Where are we going with DRS. So many bad decision. I had my respect for Kumar Dharmasena but not now. One could clearly see that there was not hot spot and noise. What was Kumar thinking? Eventually even sticko proved it. I wonder whether we should have 3rd umpire. If yes then someone who know the job well.

  • SirViv1973 on August 1, 2013, 12:38 GMT

    It seems like the umpires just can't win here. Dharmesena could find no conclusive evidence to overturn the decison so it has stayed with the umpires call. Erasmus was lambested for going against the umpires call without conclusive evidence earlier in the series! As for the the match situation it's probably about even. At 1 point Aus looked like they were getting off to a flyer so Eng will be quite happy to have taken 2 wickets & kept Aus below 100. On the otherhand Aus have got runs on the board and are in a position wher they can build and post a good 1st inns total. You feel this partneship with Rogers & Clarke may well end up being key. Rogers is playing well & is well set & Clarke himself may well be due a big score, so Aus need these 2 to go on and form a big stand. If Eng can grab a couple of quick wickets after lunch then once again Aus will be up against it.

  • David_Boon on August 1, 2013, 12:37 GMT

    The camera view from behind is a classic. Shows the balls about 6 inches from the bat. Time to follow the Indians' lead and dump DRS once and for all.

  • Greatest_Game on August 1, 2013, 12:37 GMT

    @ Surajrises, @ Nitin Khanna. Umpires make mistakes, with and without technology. With or without DRS Khawaja was given out. If DRS was used, or was not used, the decision remained the same. Please explain how this means we should not use technology, and why the BCCI's stance is correct?

    Khawaja's dismissal only shows us that umpires, whether on the field or reviewing a decision, are fallible. All we have seen is that the technology tells us he should not have been dismissed, but the umpires did dismiss him. The technology informs our decision that the umpires were wrong. How is this then the fault of the technology??? Why is the BCCI correct in deciding that umpires should be able to make mistakes without being challenged?

    Your posts seem more of an indictment of DRS & a defense of the BCCI than a discussion of THIS decision. The decision to dismiss Khawaja clearly establishes that technology is able to accurately identify errors, and this was an error.

  • Chris_Howard on August 1, 2013, 12:36 GMT

    I can forgive the onfield umpire for getting Khawaja's dismissal wrong, but the third umpire failed his job to ensure the correct decision is made when the evidence is sufficient.

    This series has killed off any support I had for the DRS. And it's not the technology that has failed, it is the guys who are meant to know the most about what's out and what's not.

    And to think, the BCCI was against DRS because they considered the technology unreliable. LOL!

  • jmcilhinney on August 1, 2013, 12:36 GMT

    Excellent innings from Rogers. Showing exactly why he was selected in the first place. Made the England bowlers come to him and then picked off the few bad balls and plenty of the not-so-bad ones too.

  • Sarfin on August 1, 2013, 12:36 GMT

    I said it before. We need specialized 3rd umpires. At the present situation 3rd umpiring gets lesser priority. I have great respect for umpires. But it's time to recognize the importance of 3rd umpires. You can't do this job with makeshift tech users. If these 'evidences' are going to be used against DRS, it'd be more like incompetency wining the battle.

  • jmcilhinney on August 1, 2013, 12:35 GMT

    It's a real shame that this Test has been marred by a DRS blunder right from the first session. People will once again say that this vindicates the BCCI's stance but once again it does not. The BCCI had an issue with the technology but the technology performed perfectly on this occasion, as it has on almost all occasions. Once again, this was a case of the third umpire seemingly ignoring the evidence. Given the fact that this is a must-win game for Australia and Khawaja is under pressure to cement his place, that's a doubly rough call. I rather hope that an Australian batsman gets away with one to somewhat even things up but then that would only cause more controversy.

  • funkybluesman on August 1, 2013, 12:34 GMT

    Everyone who's saying this is a reason to argue against DRS remember he was incorrectly given out by the onfield umpire too. So getting rid of DRS wouldn't have made the decision any more correct.

    The person who is third umpire here should be immediately fired, never to be the third umpire ever again, and some common sense around these.

    David Warner had the exact same thing happen to him last Australian summer. Given out when he didn't hit it, referred to the third umpire, and despite no evidence of an edge being found they upheld the onfield decision.

    They just need to tell the third umpire that in that situation, if he can't find some definite evidence of an edge the batsman has to be given not out.

  • Samychennai on August 1, 2013, 12:33 GMT

    When India was insisting the DRS system isn't complete one and not accepting current form, the whole world was mocking India. One Australian was given out wrong and the whole world is saying the system is wrong. What a kind of funny world this is?

  • nzcricket174 on August 1, 2013, 12:33 GMT

    Disgraceful umpiring...Dharmasena should be dropped from the rest of the series.

  • brusselslion on August 1, 2013, 12:31 GMT

    I suppose that, just as playing standards vary between generations so do umpiring. Suffice to say, this isn't exactly a golden age for either.

  • funkybluesman on August 1, 2013, 12:30 GMT

    Can't blame DRS or technology for this one. Just the use of it.

    We've kept hearing in this series when it goes to the third umpire that they have to see positive definite evidence to overturn the on field decision. So if the batsman is given not-out, they need to see some evidence of an edge. But then they are trying to find something that shows a non-edge, which of course doesn't exist.

    For this situation they need to throw out the whole "find evidence to overturn" mentality, and basically say they have to find definite evidence of an edge to uphold the decision. Otherwise it has to be overturned as this one had to be.

  • Anwar-Lara on August 1, 2013, 12:30 GMT

    Umpiring in spotlight , not the DRS, upholding a wrong call from an on field umpire will not help the game.

  • AussieSam on August 1, 2013, 12:29 GMT

    Once again some great cricket has been spoiled by an awful umpiring decision. Obviously as an Aussie fan, and with the side batting as bad as they have been lately, it's harder to take, but I doubt any true cricket fans who support England would be okay with this either. Yes, there's always going to be bad decisions by umpires and yes it's a difficult job but this really is starting to get ridiculous. Yes, the Aussie batsmen have let the team and the fans down on their own, and I don't think England needed this many bad decisions to come out on top, but geez they've had a few go their way now. As an Aussie fan I'm gutted but mostly as a cricket fan who was really enjoying seeing some absorbing cricket in this session (there's been some wonderful batting and bowling,) I just wish I could appreciate it instead of having the entire session spoiled by that absolute howler. And it was a howler from the moment the England side appealed. Just unbelievable.

  • drssucks on August 1, 2013, 12:29 GMT

    I just can't understand the third umps decision, it was so clearly not out and an easy one to overturn, maybe the fact that the bat missed the ball by an inch should have been a clue for him. Need specialist 3rd umps who know how to use the technology, ridiculous

  • Gurudumu on August 1, 2013, 12:28 GMT

    Another DRS shocker ? I think not, clearly even Botham and Warne who were commentating at the time looked in disbelief! My take is that with T Hill and Erasmus as the standing umpires, there will be more clambers to come.

  • Andross on August 1, 2013, 12:26 GMT

    I think the worst thing about the decision, wasn't that there was nothing on HotSpot, or sniko or anything else... it was that you could see clear daylight between bat and ball until after it had passed the stumps! That is what gets me, not that there was no evidence to support the decision, but there was clear evidence NOT to give it out! I consider myself a fair competitor, I sat in my living room and gave Trott not out in the first test, and I sat in my living room absolutely floored that this one was given out. Dreadful, dreadful decision.

  • karnivool on August 1, 2013, 12:26 GMT

    Down with DRS I say, it doesn't make the game any fairer.

  • Camberwellcarrot1979 on August 1, 2013, 12:26 GMT

    As an England fan and more importantly a cricket fan, I am amazed and disappointed by that Khawaja dismissal. The tv umpire should never be allowed to officiate again. When you are down, you get poor decisions on the field I suppose but there are no excuses for that. Appalling.

  • on August 1, 2013, 12:25 GMT

    DRS is useless in the current form . When BCCI opposed it , everybody slammed BCCI . Now DRS errors are showing , why BCCI was right after all . Any technology must be viable and full proof , without those 2 parameter . It is pointless to use DRS for a sake of it .

  • mulleegrubber on August 1, 2013, 12:25 GMT

    If there was any justice, the powers-that-be would be having a quiet word with the Third Umpire during this lunch interval. They would be advising him in the strongest possible terms to immediately announce that he had unfortunately made a mistake and that, with the match referee's approval, he intended reversing his decision and recalling Khawaja to the wicket.

  • on August 1, 2013, 12:24 GMT

    absolutely disgusting decision. what is the point of having drs if it is not used properly. The k-man did well not to lose it and get himself a huge fine.

  • PrasPunter on August 1, 2013, 12:24 GMT

    is there any further doubt that Watson should not be in the test team ? Good innings from Buck so far - and to K Dharmasena, with those visuals, even I can get it better than you !! Think he has been caught napping !! Disgraceful application of technology !!! Can't we get better umpires than KD, Erasmus and Tony Hill ?

  • irfi4040 on August 1, 2013, 12:21 GMT

    well, well, well. just watched 2 bizarre third umpire decisions within a space of 15 minutes. first was a clear front foot no ball by sunil narine during a CPL match not given by the 3rd umpire after watching it for at least 15 times(whereas it was pretty clear from the outset) and secondly the dismissal of Usman Khwaja which was also upheld by the 3rd umpire after wasting so much of time. I fail to understand that what has gone wrong to the umpires these days,( especially the 3rd umpires) that they have started upholding the on field umpire's decision despite clear evidence through technology. I ask ICC that if both i.e naked eye as well as technology end up on such unfair and ridiculous decisions, then please stop using the 3rd umpire/technology in order to avoid further embarassement to the game of cricket.

  • CharonTFm on August 1, 2013, 12:20 GMT

    Umpires should get penalties for making wrong decisions. It's a tough gig but if there's no evidence of bat hitting ball then the benefit of doubt goes to batter like it always has been.

  • on August 1, 2013, 12:20 GMT

    The front page reads - "DRS in spotlight as Khawaja falls".

    How's DRS under spotlight? It's the umpires that failed miserably to interpret the DRS. One could see clear daylight between the bat and the ball even without the DRS. The hotspot showed absolutely nothing. It was a shocking decision from the third umpire. The technology is there to prevent this types of things from happening.

  • whoster on August 1, 2013, 12:20 GMT

    Nothing wrong with DRS, it's the third umpire yet again not interpreting the system correctly. This has happened too often in this series - against both sides. No hotspot, no sound, and one of the angles showed clear daylight between bat and ball. Ridiculous decision - what is the 'reasonable proof' needed to overturn a decision? Great for us England fans, but very unfair against Khawaja and the Aussies. DRS is there to help the umpires - but when they turn down the help given, the persons responsible for these decisions has to be held accountable.

  • on August 1, 2013, 12:19 GMT

    DRS is an unmitigated disaster. It was brought in to remove blatantly incorrect decisions. Throughout this series it has consistently failed to do so, it needs to be scrapped immediately. Kudos to India for refusing to have anything to do with it from the outset.

  • on August 1, 2013, 12:17 GMT

    well that was shocking from the 3rd umpire,plenty of reasons to reverse the on-field call and he chose to stick with it Assies have every right to be angered by that decision

  • ODI_BestFormOfCricket on August 1, 2013, 12:16 GMT

    every passing day, my faith on (making drs foolproof) DRS is vanishing. I think, now a days umpire taking decisions by analysing immediate reaction of the batsman after ball passed the bat. I felt, BCCI took right decision. What is a need of umpire? What actually dharmasena and erasmus doing? What kind of explanation richardsen have for khawaja's case.

  • krishay on August 1, 2013, 12:14 GMT

    This decision is mindboggling!! Everything was used and showed the batsman did not touch the ball, so what did he used to support the decision? Maybe ICC needs to review these cases!!!

  • tick on August 1, 2013, 12:14 GMT

    disgraceful decision.. shocker shocker shocker..

  • on August 1, 2013, 12:13 GMT

    It's time to let the on field umpires call the game and live with the good and bad decisions. If baseball can have umpires calling strikes and balls and not being second guessed then so should cricket. It's part of the game, blown calls that is. In the long run it evens out. This is making a mockery of on field umpires. Why have them at all?

  • DirkWobbles on August 1, 2013, 12:12 GMT

    Can anyone honestly say they're surprised that khawaja and Watson failed again? Should be the last test ever for Watson, and back to the shield for Usman. Hughes has to be recalled, and Nic Maddison needs to be blooded. They are our immediate future.

    Otherwise it's back to Cowan and we all know how that ends.

  • Iddo555 on August 1, 2013, 12:11 GMT

    He looked like a walking wicket to Swann, The 3rd umpire probably thought he would end it quickly and save the pain

  • Kumar_101 on August 1, 2013, 12:10 GMT

    I am not a big fan of Australia but still I do enjoy their play today. Very unfortunate to Loose Khawaja in this manner (after a good start) :-( It would be good if someone interview the third umpire sometime later :-( Just for the cricket sake :-( grr!!

  • Hoff90 on August 1, 2013, 12:10 GMT

    That is embarrassing umpiring... No evidence to support decision, and still give it out. Whats the point in being able to review it then. That is going to shape this test match into another Aus loss

  • Jason83 on August 1, 2013, 12:09 GMT

    That 3rd umpire should NEVER EVER do that job again. Seriously, i dont understand how hard it is to make a decision when there is no hotspot, no sniko and you can clearly see daylight between bat and pad. Disgrace....shameful DRS.....

  • sama74 on August 1, 2013, 12:07 GMT

    How can that happen? Disgraceful? I have to laugh its that ludicrous.

  • Dannynz on August 1, 2013, 12:05 GMT

    That was simply an appalling decision on Khuwaja, 3rd umpire starts the game with an absolute shocker.

  • Mitty2 on August 1, 2013, 12:04 GMT

    Great commetn @grande-zaza, he has the highest average on tour as well as the most amount of runs. As mentioned, since Watson is an inherent spud, and because Hughes can't start against spin (he's actually much better if he faces spin after the pace bowlers) but he definitely has improved his technique against the pacemen and he is our future... Hughes should be opening and Watson out forever. How he goes from that many positions is abysmal... Especially when Watson gets a free ride.

  • Surajrises on August 1, 2013, 12:04 GMT

    Oh I hate DRS. Why aren't the Umpires learning from each others mistakes when it comes to DRS! The same mistake is being repeated again and again and again. We really need to get rid of DRS and make Cricket a game that is run by human beings and not by TECHNOLOGY...

  • on August 1, 2013, 12:04 GMT

    As we have more and more debates/ discussions , it proves bcci is right to reject technology at this juncture

  • cricket-freak on August 1, 2013, 12:03 GMT

    Usman Khwaja was not out,the evidence said it,all commentators said it but still he was given out!What is happening?Have the umpires forgotten their basics.Shane warne himself said that'' its a shocker that he is given out after all the evidences were in his favour and its the most ridiculous decision'' Extremely unfair.

  • on August 1, 2013, 12:02 GMT

    its Michael Clarke toughest time ad well cricket austerlian

  • on August 1, 2013, 12:01 GMT

    I would like to know how the tv umpire gave Khawaja out. There was no hotspot and no sninko.

  • Scheduler on August 1, 2013, 12:00 GMT

    WHAT A HORROR !!!!!!!!!it is clear .technology is absolutely spot on .Its the umpires who need to be educated on how to use it.U cant blame the system when the people using it are unaware about how to use it. ICC together with the DRS inventors should do a classroom training for the umpires

  • on August 1, 2013, 12:00 GMT

    another shocking DRS decision, Khawaja clearly missed the ball, nothing on hotspot, no sound or deviation and absolutely nothing on snicko. how the hell can the 3rd umpire look at that and still give him out...

  • on August 1, 2013, 11:59 GMT

    Another poor umpiring decision in this series - why don't the umpires know how to interpret the technology? Khawaja clearly missed it and yet was given caught at the wicket...

  • on August 1, 2013, 11:57 GMT

    Once again a shocking DRS decision. This is getting very stupid. The technology is not the problem, it is the people using it who are failing. If there is nothing on hot spot, it cannot be out. I dont understand how that is so hard to comprehend.

  • Ozzbozz on August 1, 2013, 11:53 GMT

    Aw my god what a horrendous decision, everything suggested to overturn, yet the umpires didn't. Absolutely diabolical. The technology was not at fault just the umpires.

  • Shaggy076 on August 1, 2013, 11:53 GMT

    As much as Khawaja played an aweful shot, I thought DRS was brought in to reverse the wrong decisions. Clearly there was evidence there to overturn it. There was a clear space between bad and pad. Once again the system in place has failed.

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on August 1, 2013, 11:52 GMT

    Thank goodness Aus. kept Rogers in at least. I was worried they would cut him out for Warner! Khawaja unlucky there me thinks...

  • Mitty2 on August 1, 2013, 11:45 GMT

    On the match situation, Cook (as usual) has already got the deep point out and Rogers is looking comfortable on a good pitch in good conditions. We HAVE to capitalise. We need to win this through batters, not bowlers. Set a precedent, boys. Get some confidence for the remaining games and the return leg. If the batters don;t get some confidence here they might not ever get as good a position to do so. We saw what NZ did to Eng bowlers in NZ with some patience - the Eng bowlers looked listless. And this was exasperated with Cook's tactics; both Fulton's innings the fields were set to his strengths and ignoring his obvious off side weakness. If they get in, it will get easy, just don't waste starts.

    Clarke better not bat at 4 as well..

  • on August 1, 2013, 11:45 GMT

    Australia alway start great and after 1 fell every wicket is gone, just need more confident and need to build a big partnership. And then they can hope

  • on August 1, 2013, 11:44 GMT

    Dream, dream, dream- its FREE to dream Aussies!

  • TheWatcher on August 1, 2013, 11:41 GMT

    No Jackson Bird? Selectors need to get past this left arm infatuation and go for someone who can put a ball on the spot.

  • grande-zaza on August 1, 2013, 11:40 GMT

    For mine Hughes is the unlucky one... batted from 1 to 6 so far this tour, is the highest scoring player and played a fantastic first innings in the first test and he is dropped again. He has scored a mountain of runs as an opener and should be batting as one. Give the guy the series at a settled position and then if he doesn't perform flick him. I would be batting watto down the order and getting more overs out of him and I agree with the others; where is Bird? Starc again? And to be honest I am till a little mystified by Smith's continued selection. Hopefully I am wrong but...

  • Mitty2 on August 1, 2013, 11:40 GMT

    To reiterate my point on watson, he averages 12 in the Shield as an opener and didn't even get to open in his county stints. His test opening average is now below 30. It is clearly not positional, it's clearly his average technique and terrible temperament.

    Also, I think 'Landl47' made the point about Bird not being picked because of his long term back injury. Whereas Starc has had a period of two years without injury barring the 'spurs'. To top it off, we supposedly shouldn't have Harris and another injury prone quick in the same line up. Is that really the way we want to go? Picking players because their left handed instead of performance? Even when we're two down and on the brink of another Ashes defeat, and we want to go with a proven failure rather than our best performed Shield bowler for over two years? How Bird wasn't in the team in the first test was abysmal, but how he won't play until at best, the fourth test, is bordering on the dual selection of Maxwell and Doherty.

  • PTtheAxis on August 1, 2013, 11:34 GMT

    so another opener comes in as middle order enforcer ... aus has some real brains out there in dressing room and selection these days.

  • SirViv1973 on August 1, 2013, 11:19 GMT

    Aus will be delighted with this start. I guess there is some added significance for some of the senior players in this match like Rogers Watson & Haddin who may well all be playing for their futures in the team. You would have to think that if Aus loose this game & therefore the series the selectors may feel they need to give preference to younger players who are likley to be part of Aus long term future.

  • on August 1, 2013, 11:05 GMT

    Warner is a good inclusion and also starc but not sure why Lyon came in for agar

  • on August 1, 2013, 11:04 GMT

    @Simoc and @Potatis, I'm just as stunned. I can't believe they keep choosing to ignore him. I really do want to know who keeps pursuing these bizarre selection policies. Is it Howard pulling the strings and whispering in the ears of the selectors? Or Inverarity/Bichel/Marsh just doing a poor job? It's always the same arguments too: "we want a left armed for variety/to make footmarks", "pietersen falls to left arm spin", "Watson is best as an opener". Can we not just pick THE BEST 11 and use them as a team? I of course as an Aussie want Australia to win but another small part of me doesn't so that they're forced to reevaluate their methods and perhaps make some changes.

    Anyway, back to the main point, Bird can feel hard done by. Perhaps they thought someone who can spray it across the right handers is more likely to take wickets than someone who can bowl the same ball 6 times an over like a machine.

  • on August 1, 2013, 10:59 GMT

    go australia go and win all the best wishes with the aussies

  • Simoc on August 1, 2013, 10:11 GMT

    Still no Jackson Bird. Oz still not keen on winning.

  • on August 1, 2013, 10:09 GMT

    looking forward to warner root contest

  • on August 1, 2013, 10:04 GMT

    can't wait to see Warner century. come on aussie , let's win remaining 3 matches

  • Potatis on August 1, 2013, 10:04 GMT

    What does Bird have to do to get a game?

  • on August 1, 2013, 10:02 GMT

    here comes 3 - 0; go England go! Watch out Lehmann - don't let the CA administrators get too close behind your back

  • on August 1, 2013, 10:02 GMT

    here comes 3 - 0; go England go! Watch out Lehmann - don't let the CA administrators get too close behind your back

  • Potatis on August 1, 2013, 10:04 GMT

    What does Bird have to do to get a game?

  • on August 1, 2013, 10:04 GMT

    can't wait to see Warner century. come on aussie , let's win remaining 3 matches

  • on August 1, 2013, 10:09 GMT

    looking forward to warner root contest

  • Simoc on August 1, 2013, 10:11 GMT

    Still no Jackson Bird. Oz still not keen on winning.

  • on August 1, 2013, 10:59 GMT

    go australia go and win all the best wishes with the aussies

  • on August 1, 2013, 11:04 GMT

    @Simoc and @Potatis, I'm just as stunned. I can't believe they keep choosing to ignore him. I really do want to know who keeps pursuing these bizarre selection policies. Is it Howard pulling the strings and whispering in the ears of the selectors? Or Inverarity/Bichel/Marsh just doing a poor job? It's always the same arguments too: "we want a left armed for variety/to make footmarks", "pietersen falls to left arm spin", "Watson is best as an opener". Can we not just pick THE BEST 11 and use them as a team? I of course as an Aussie want Australia to win but another small part of me doesn't so that they're forced to reevaluate their methods and perhaps make some changes.

    Anyway, back to the main point, Bird can feel hard done by. Perhaps they thought someone who can spray it across the right handers is more likely to take wickets than someone who can bowl the same ball 6 times an over like a machine.

  • on August 1, 2013, 11:05 GMT

    Warner is a good inclusion and also starc but not sure why Lyon came in for agar

  • SirViv1973 on August 1, 2013, 11:19 GMT

    Aus will be delighted with this start. I guess there is some added significance for some of the senior players in this match like Rogers Watson & Haddin who may well all be playing for their futures in the team. You would have to think that if Aus loose this game & therefore the series the selectors may feel they need to give preference to younger players who are likley to be part of Aus long term future.

  • PTtheAxis on August 1, 2013, 11:34 GMT

    so another opener comes in as middle order enforcer ... aus has some real brains out there in dressing room and selection these days.