England v Australia, 4th Investec Test, Durham, 4th day August 12, 2013

How England turned the tables

ESPNcricinfo staff
At 109 for 0 and then 147 for 1, Australia were well in command at Chester-le-Street but Stuart Broad, Tim Bresnan and Graeme Swann had other ideas

Using the ball-by-ball commentary, ESPNcricinfo looks back on how England turned around the fourth day of the Chester-le-Street Test to clinch their third Ashes series in a row

29.2 Swann to Rogers, OUT, and there she comes, the much-desired breakthrough for England, good length now, fuller than the previous ball, angled in too, Rogers opened up, possibly looking leg side again, but this has gripped, straigthened and hurried on to middle, and the thick edge has gone low to slip

39.1 Swann to Khawaja, OUT, forward and given out lbw in front of off stump. The finger goes straight up, he seemed to just miss a straight ball there, hit his pad not the ball, the ball hit the pad in front of off stump and Khawaja has again played a funny little innings without any real substance. Perhaps he just misread the line

43.4 Bresnan to Warner, OUT, oh what a beauty and finally one is nicked behind just a thin one through to the keeper, Warner goes after a fine innings but he's been drawn forward here to one angled across him and gets a very thin nick to Prior. Dar gives it out straight away and Warner walks off

48.1 Broad to Clarke, OUT, Stuart Broad, you indecipherable, incredible, unbelievable beauty, what a first ball after drinks, ripping ripper, Michael Clarke has no answer, probably no one would have had, angling in, belonging to the have-to-play category, then changes direction sharply and hits top of off, Broad goes off on a run, Clarke takes the long walk back, that was appreciable movement, like a quick legbreak

50.3 Broad to Smith, OUT, oh dear, Smith's played on, how unfortunate is that, short delivery, angled in, around chest-high, Smith went for the hook, and the ball took a bottom-edge to fall on the stumps

51.3 Bresnan to Watson, OUT, no, please, this can't be happening again, how many times can this happen to an international batsman of some repute, it is officially time to rechristen the leg-before-wicket to you-know-what, Watson has planted that massive front leg across, you need to miss only one delivery in the time it takes to get your bat across that blockage, Watson has failed to do that yet again to this angled good length ball, Dar has raised his finger immediately, Watson has reviewed it, and Hawk Eye has that clipping leg stump, and the umpire's call stays

52.5 Broad to Haddin, OUT, now Haddin has been given lbw. He's reviewed it, he'd been jumping to play even good length deliveries, is on his toes as he is hit just above the knee roll trying to work it to leg, Hawk Eye has that grazing the outside of the top of leg stump, oh that is marginal, that is even cruel, a batsman will tell you, but the umpire's call was out, and the umpire's call will stand

56.6 Broad to Harris, OUT, that is gone, looks plumb, Harris pinned in the crease, the length ball jags back in at a sharp angle, and Harris misses, hit in front of middle, and HawkEye says that was hitting leg stump close to the top

60.4 Broad to Lyon, OUT, after those short balls, Broad goes full, and picks up his tenth wicket of the match by splattering Lyon's stumps into the ground, Lyon did manage an inside edge, but it didn't save him as the ball swung in

68.3 Broad to Siddle, OUT, full ball on off stump, loose drive into the off side, oh it's straight to mid-off and England have won the Ashes. Broad the man to finish the job with a length ball that Siddle tried to drive, got slightly wrong and chipped an easy catch to Anderson who turned to the stands and threw the ball to the heavens, that's the moment when England won the Ashes

Commentary provided by Alex Winter and Abhishek Purohit

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Michael on August 14, 2013, 11:01 GMT

    I do not know why pundits think that Australia came close to or should have won this. History shows that chasing down 3oo is very hard and a side doing so can get so far,creating the illusion of a chance,but only so far. Australia did the normal thing and just collapsed in a brutal and ignominious heap. Carnage with Broad particularly enjoying the spoils. It is possible they could have won at Old Trafford but a draw was equally likely-one batted for- but here it was fanciful to suggest it. Not that I was above it all while watching. I was as convinced of the very real possibility of defeat as much as the next man, but one has to believe it is all but impossible. The next episode will be interesting.(Act V)

  • Patrick on August 14, 2013, 9:17 GMT

    @sailboatmike, the umpire knows why he gave it out and what decision he is referring, that's what matters not the intent of the appeal. Interesting POV on a game Eng was losing for 4 days, another, accurate way of looking at was that Broad stole the game in a session, nice try at being FFL though...

  • Mike on August 13, 2013, 21:47 GMT

    It seems that the Aussie tail is great when they are not under pressure, turn up the screws and they tumble like a deck of cards.

    If not for Rogers lucky Century in the first inning the match would of been a total route, I thought an appeal covered all ways of dismissal and the umpire gave it out, then on review he didnt hit it but he was LBW, so the original decision of OUT should of stood no matter the manner of dismissal.

    The question is how does the umpire know the bowler wasnt appealing for LBW?

  • G on August 13, 2013, 12:53 GMT

    test class batsmen do not appear overnight. It will take a few years, but Australia need to find some horses to back and stick with them

  • Hugh on August 13, 2013, 12:39 GMT

    Pankaj Joshi- a boring series???? Do you watch test cricket? Aside from Lords' the other three games could have gone either way. One Test won 14 runs and another from 160-2 chasing 299. If that's not exciting I'd stick to Twenty/20 if I were you

  • Dummy4 on August 13, 2013, 12:23 GMT

    To an extent, Broad & Bresnan reminded me of how Pakistan's fast bowlers like Wasim, Waqar and Shoaib used to get teams out in single sessions. Although those bowlers were a class apart.

  • Patrick on August 13, 2013, 12:04 GMT

    Great efforts from Broad & Harris, Bell & Rogers. From groundhog day long arm wrestles to a match swinging back and forth in mins. Bresnan got an irresistible umpires call his way and made some handy runs, Watson & Haddin sent packing on less compelling appeals no more or less out on the gadgets. No disrespect to Eng intended it was a 5 day match I'm addressing the fair weather Aussie fans or OTT critics. The 'worst Aussie team' to hit Eng shores came very near to stealing 3 tests playing an at times calamitous but generally entertaining brand of cricket keeping all bar Ian Bell at bay. No signs at all we can't pick ourselves up in time to win them back on the second leg.

  • Scott on August 13, 2013, 11:26 GMT

    The tables were turned long before the Aus 2nd innings collapse. Aus gave away the easy win on the 3rd morning by losing our 2 big wickets rather tamely in the first 20 minutes before the new ball arrived. Aus bat for the morning session with 5 wickets in hand and add an average amount of 120 for those 5 wickets and this whole match would've been different. Even still, when England were effectively 3 for not many in their second innings we had a chance to get through; and let off both Pieterson and Bell. Then some poor captaincy of bowling selections with the new ball on day 4 morning we allowed the English tail to put on something like 80 runs. Either way we were chasing something like 80-120 more runs than we should've had to until the all too inevitable collapse.

  • Scott on August 13, 2013, 11:18 GMT

    @foursandsixes, a. because Australia always tour poorly in India b. England aren't as good in home conditions as India in their home conditions c. England aren't anywhere near as good as they think they are. @landl47, and neither of those were anyhere near as bad as Bresnan not offering a shot, then the umpire not giving it and escaping on the referral. 9999 times out of 10000 that would be given out. I'm not saying Watson and Hadin's weren't woeful and correctly given out, just saying that it's harsh when Bresnan doesn't even offer a shot and isn't given and the referral clears him even when it was hitting (more so than Haddin's or Watson's) How costly was that decision in the end? Well, I don't think it ever mattered as once the score was 250 Aus were always going to crash out as it has (to my physical health's detriment) become the norm. Not sure there's a team out there that can make 250, bowl a side out for 98, score 47 and lose a test match other than us right now...

  • Dummy4 on August 13, 2013, 10:46 GMT

    In England's second innings, once the first ball lost its shine Oz seemed to be waiting for the new one at 80 overs before trying to take wickets. In theirs, we took nine wickets from when the ball was (as close as makes no difference) half way through its life.

    That is what made the difference in this match. The new ball is obviously an important phase for the bowling side but that doesn't mean you stop trying once it gets a bit older.