England v Australia, 4th NatWest ODI, Cardiff September 14, 2013

Buttler leads England home to level series

  shares 77

England 231 for 7 (Buttler 65*, Carberry 63, Morgan 53, McKay 4-39) beat Australia 227 (Bailey 87, Tredwell 3-53) by three wickets
Scorecard and ball-by-ball details

Jos Buttler added to his burgeoning reputation as the man to close out an innings by ensuring that the NatWest series went to the deciding match, as he guided England to a tense three-wicket victory with three balls to spare in Cardiff. On a surface where free-scoring was a rarity England struggled in their chase of 228, dented early on by Clint McKay's hat-trick, but just when the requirement was getting out of hand Buttler and Ben Stokes produced a strong argument as to why they have packed the batting order.

Buttler had earlier been given out lbw on 8 but was saved by the DRS when it showed the ball sliding down the leg side. When the seventh-wicket pair joined forces England still needed 84 off 68 balls but overs 39 to 43 brought 40 runs as the equation started to favour the home side. Buttler eased the tension further by drilling James Faulkner into the River Taff and then brought up his half-century from 41 balls.

However, when Stokes was bowled by McKay the job was not quite done for England, especially as James Tredwell struggled to get the ball away. Buttler scrambled a single to take the strike for the final over (a direct hit would have found him short) then settled the contest in a grand manner with a huge six over midwicket off Mitchell Johnson, followed, two balls later, by a fierce straight drive.

Although Buttler has shown his class on the international stage before, this is the first time he has completed a run chase for England in his brief career, so it was an important tick for the coach, Ashley Giles.

Stokes, while not as convincing, more than played his role in supporting Buttler as he continued in the No. 8 role earmarked for him since the match against Ireland. However, there were a couple of crucial moments Australia will look back on. When Stokes had 2, Aaron Finch could not hold into a tough chance at third man when he upper cut Johnson then, on 9, he was given not out to a huge appeal for a gloved hook which Hot Spot showed had made contact. Australia had burned their review much earlier against Eoin Morgan, when he was nowhere near edging it. Next ball, Stokes clipped Johnson for a boundary.

After less than three overs of the chase, England had an uphill task to level the series, despite Australia being held to 227. McKay, a key member of Australia's one-day bowling unit but someone who doesn't always get the acclaim, took the fifth hat-trick by an Australian in ODIs and the 33rd overall.

He began by trapping Kevin Pietersen lbw as he aimed to flick through the leg side then Jonathan Trott, who has struggled in the latter half of this season, edged a drive at a wide delivery to collect his second first-ball duck of the series. A similar stroke by Joe Root, although to a delivery closer to off stump, took a thinner edge low to Shane Watson at first slip.

Michael Carberry, whose ODI career has not had an easy start, watched it all from the non-striker's end but was soon in the firing line of Johnson as the left-armer crashed a searing short delivery into his gloves at 93.6mph - the ball looped in the air via the Carberry's shoulder but fell between three fielders. It was hard work for Carberry, as Australia's pacemen all maintained their accuracy but he did not allow the pressure to get to him; the presence of Eoin Morgan at the other end no doubt had a calming influence.

The pair added 104 in 28 overs to haul the innings back on track. Morgan was the more convincing, but Carberry started to branch out as the balls got softer and a couple of rasping square cuts - such a feature in his batting for Hampshire - stood out. He was, in fact, quicker to his fifty than Morgan, 83 deliveries compared to 91, but both departed in the space of four overs to turn the tables again.

Morgan, the ball after reaching his half-century, chopped on against Watson and then Carberry tried to pull a delivery that was too straight, handing Nathan Coulter-Nile his first ODI wicket. When Ravi Bopara, who was dropped on 0, a horrendous fluff by Matthew Wade, was lbw for a scratchy 7 it left Australia favourites but England's batting depth proved decisive.

It made Australia's late collapse even more costly. Their last five wickets fell for 18 after George Bailey had rescued the innings from 57 for 4, following impressive new-ball spells by Steven Finn and Boyd Rankin. Finn struck with the first legitimate ball of the match and Rankin produced his most impressive spell in an England as he worked over Michael Clarke. The Australia captain was rarely convincing although could consider himself unfortunate to be given lbw to Finn, the delivery shown by DRS to be just grazing the bails.

Bailey took advantage of short straight boundaries to attack Tredwell, as had been Australia's game plan at Old Trafford, and 35 runs out of his first 50 came against the offspinner. While he and Wade were adding 85 in 12 overs a total in excess of 250 was in sight but Tredwell recovered from his earlier treatment to take 3 for 5, while Rankin capped a testing 10 overs by finding Bailey's outside edge.

Andrew McGlashan is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • ScottStevo on September 18, 2013, 7:58 GMT

    @Shaggy076, Bailey cops a lot of flack for last season's average of 20 odd in shield. Fair enough too as we're hoping that our test players can muster up at least an average of 40 in domestic stuff. But, we can't be too reliant on stats alone to judge a players worth - and quite frankly, too many Aussies are purely concerned with whomever's stats last season were best & thus should be in the side - which is a ridiculous notion! In Bailey's case I think switching between capt of Aus in T20 and some ODI matches made for a stuttered shield season which obviously didn't help, but you'd still expect better. Nonetheless, he was a pefectly suited choice for this last Ashes. He mightn't be our most talented batsman, but what he's already proved (at int'l level) is that he's resilient, level headed and mature and seems to know his game. Plus being a righty and a middle order bat, I think he'd have brought a solidity to our middle order, even if by only grafting and valuing his wicket.

  • Shaggy076 on September 17, 2013, 11:37 GMT

    H_Z_O; Yes I agree Bailey has hardness but in the end you should always be made to perform at the lower level to get in the team. Shield cricket should be the form guide for test cricket, however you have a point Bailey vs Khawaja both with average records I would pick Bailey over Khawaja because you knowthat Bailey won't be rendered impotent because of the occasion.

  • ScottStevo on September 17, 2013, 9:48 GMT

    @H_Z_O, I disagree. There's only 2 outcomes when a referral is made - and the on field umpire's decision should bear no relevance on any either of them. Once we utilise the techonology, the third umpire uses all evidence to make the correct decision - regarless of the umpire's call - and it's either out or not out. The issue with DRS is consistency, and where the umpire's call comes into play, the consistency of the decisions are lost. The referral system is not, as I'm almost sick to death of hearing, to elimiate 'the howler'. Its one and only purpose is to ensure that a decision is correct.

  • ScottStevo on September 16, 2013, 22:03 GMT

    @H_Z_O, I'm happy to admit that you're completely right in your assessment of the two sides. I'd agree that in test match cricket, England are most definitely the better team, in ODI it's very even and in T20, well, T20 is a bit of a lottery, but I'd fancy that Aus have a few more range hitters at the top of the order and maybe a few bowlers better suited to ltd overs stuff. All that said, it's hard not to be upset as an Australian relating to the state of umpiring this summer and the p poor application of technology, which even the most ardent of English fan must agree, certainly went in their favour. The big problem is it's not worth complaining over a decision here and there, but it feels a lot more like a few decisions in each match up! And the timing of these 'mishaps' have also been crucial - which adds to the unrest. To rub salt into the wounds, the good old English weather hasn't assisted us much either! Aus didnt desere to win the test series (poor batting), but def the ODIs

  • H_Z_O on September 16, 2013, 18:50 GMT

    @JG2704 "The one thing where I think DRS could be tweaked a little is that a bowling side should not be penalised a review for a ball which is clipping but remains umpires call."

    Same here. For me it comes down to a simple equation. When you review, there's 3 possible outcomes:

    1) The original decision is shown by technology to be conclusively correct. 2) The original decision is shown by technology to be conclusively incorrect. 3) The original decision cannot be shown to be 100% correct or incorrect.

    In case 1) the reviewing team is wrong and the umpire is correct, so the reviewing team is penalised by being docked a review. In case 2) the reviewing team is right, while the umpire is wrong, so we overturn the decision. The reviewing team should not be penalised, so they don't lose a review.

    In case 3) however, the reviewing team isn't wrong. The umpire isn't either, that's why we stay with the on-field decision, but why is the reviewing team penalised if they're not wrong either?

  • JG2704 on September 16, 2013, 10:52 GMT

    @BOLAmanBristol on (September 16, 2013, 9:29 GMT) You're right in that it was the correct decision and how is it a bad decision? I didn't think the rule book said that re LBW decisions the ball needed to hit the stmps full on. The one thing where I think DRS could be tweaked a little is that a bowling side should not be penalised a review for a ball which is clipping but remains umpires call. I'm not against it remaining umpire's call or against it being reversed but I am against the team losing a review for such instances. However there wasn't any of that. Clarke's LBW was hitting (albeit clipping) and Buttler's wasn't. Not sure if it's an inability to understand DRS or just sour grapes.

    BTW I'm sure Dicky - even if he would err on giving the benefit to the batsman - would have given lbw decisions where the ball would have been clipping or even missing.It's like the offside rule in football - if a player is inches or yards offside he's still offside

  • BOLAmanBristol on September 16, 2013, 9:29 GMT

    I've just registered so I can post this comment. There has been endless description of Clarke's dismissal on Saturday as 'unlucky to be given out' after the DRS review. He was given out by the umpire and also by the technology - doesn't seem to be that unlucky. The Sky commentators and match report here use the same phraseology. It seems that the umpires can't win even when they get it absolutely right. Dicky Bird wouldn't have given it but wouldn't have been on an elite panel either!

  • H_Z_O on September 15, 2013, 23:08 GMT

    @Shaggy076 on (September 15, 2013, 10:17 GMT)

    I'm with Landl on this (Bailey, I mean). Yeah, his stats in Shield Cricket aren't great but then you've got someone like Phil Hughes averaging 56 in the Shield last year, or Khawaja averaging a shade under 40, and it's hard to argue that Bailey would've done a worse job.

    Bailey looks like a guy with the right temperament for Test cricket. He may only be a short-term stop-gap, but a bit more "toughness" is just what your batting order is crying out for. Sometimes you have to ignore the figures, look past them, and look at the man, the character. Is he the guy you want fighting it out at one end, giving one of your "better" players support and simply refusing to give his wicket away? I think that's exactly the kind of man Bailey is, and exactly the kind of man Australia need right now at 6.

    The example, for me, is Paul Collingwood. A limited player, technically, but the guy was a fighter, and the perfect foil for someone like KP or Bell.

  • H_Z_O on September 15, 2013, 22:46 GMT

    @Mitty2 on (September 15, 2013, 9:34 GMT)

    Come on now. Not all England supporters. It's ironic, in a way, that your comment was followed by up an Aussie fan trying to suggest that Australia have only lost to England this summer because of DRS and poor umpiring.

    Funnily enough, I was talking to someone the other day and it occurred to me that the worst DRS/umpiring issue was probably the Khawaja dismissal at Old Trafford, the Test match Australia came closest to winning. Makes it hard to argue that the umpiring/DRS was decisive, even if it was undoubtedly a big factor.

    Fact is, this isn't England's strongest side, but when the first choice sides did meet in the Champions Trophy, England's margin of victory was slim and that too against an Australian side missing Clarke through injury. I think the two sides are very even across all three formats, with Australia holding an edge in the shorter forms and us in the longer form. Us resting players only increases Australia's edge over us.

  • Shan156 on September 15, 2013, 20:48 GMT

    @SamRoy, every player that you have mentioned will tell you that it is their test achievements that matter more. If 20 over cricket is hit and giggle and not proper cricket, then so is ODI cricket. Almost every Eng. fan would tell you that the Ashes matters most to us than the World Cup. We clearly understand that the Ashes is played between 2 nations while the WC is played between many. But, it doesn't mean that we should attach more importance to that. You are free to like whatever you want and so are we.

  • ScottStevo on September 18, 2013, 7:58 GMT

    @Shaggy076, Bailey cops a lot of flack for last season's average of 20 odd in shield. Fair enough too as we're hoping that our test players can muster up at least an average of 40 in domestic stuff. But, we can't be too reliant on stats alone to judge a players worth - and quite frankly, too many Aussies are purely concerned with whomever's stats last season were best & thus should be in the side - which is a ridiculous notion! In Bailey's case I think switching between capt of Aus in T20 and some ODI matches made for a stuttered shield season which obviously didn't help, but you'd still expect better. Nonetheless, he was a pefectly suited choice for this last Ashes. He mightn't be our most talented batsman, but what he's already proved (at int'l level) is that he's resilient, level headed and mature and seems to know his game. Plus being a righty and a middle order bat, I think he'd have brought a solidity to our middle order, even if by only grafting and valuing his wicket.

  • Shaggy076 on September 17, 2013, 11:37 GMT

    H_Z_O; Yes I agree Bailey has hardness but in the end you should always be made to perform at the lower level to get in the team. Shield cricket should be the form guide for test cricket, however you have a point Bailey vs Khawaja both with average records I would pick Bailey over Khawaja because you knowthat Bailey won't be rendered impotent because of the occasion.

  • ScottStevo on September 17, 2013, 9:48 GMT

    @H_Z_O, I disagree. There's only 2 outcomes when a referral is made - and the on field umpire's decision should bear no relevance on any either of them. Once we utilise the techonology, the third umpire uses all evidence to make the correct decision - regarless of the umpire's call - and it's either out or not out. The issue with DRS is consistency, and where the umpire's call comes into play, the consistency of the decisions are lost. The referral system is not, as I'm almost sick to death of hearing, to elimiate 'the howler'. Its one and only purpose is to ensure that a decision is correct.

  • ScottStevo on September 16, 2013, 22:03 GMT

    @H_Z_O, I'm happy to admit that you're completely right in your assessment of the two sides. I'd agree that in test match cricket, England are most definitely the better team, in ODI it's very even and in T20, well, T20 is a bit of a lottery, but I'd fancy that Aus have a few more range hitters at the top of the order and maybe a few bowlers better suited to ltd overs stuff. All that said, it's hard not to be upset as an Australian relating to the state of umpiring this summer and the p poor application of technology, which even the most ardent of English fan must agree, certainly went in their favour. The big problem is it's not worth complaining over a decision here and there, but it feels a lot more like a few decisions in each match up! And the timing of these 'mishaps' have also been crucial - which adds to the unrest. To rub salt into the wounds, the good old English weather hasn't assisted us much either! Aus didnt desere to win the test series (poor batting), but def the ODIs

  • H_Z_O on September 16, 2013, 18:50 GMT

    @JG2704 "The one thing where I think DRS could be tweaked a little is that a bowling side should not be penalised a review for a ball which is clipping but remains umpires call."

    Same here. For me it comes down to a simple equation. When you review, there's 3 possible outcomes:

    1) The original decision is shown by technology to be conclusively correct. 2) The original decision is shown by technology to be conclusively incorrect. 3) The original decision cannot be shown to be 100% correct or incorrect.

    In case 1) the reviewing team is wrong and the umpire is correct, so the reviewing team is penalised by being docked a review. In case 2) the reviewing team is right, while the umpire is wrong, so we overturn the decision. The reviewing team should not be penalised, so they don't lose a review.

    In case 3) however, the reviewing team isn't wrong. The umpire isn't either, that's why we stay with the on-field decision, but why is the reviewing team penalised if they're not wrong either?

  • JG2704 on September 16, 2013, 10:52 GMT

    @BOLAmanBristol on (September 16, 2013, 9:29 GMT) You're right in that it was the correct decision and how is it a bad decision? I didn't think the rule book said that re LBW decisions the ball needed to hit the stmps full on. The one thing where I think DRS could be tweaked a little is that a bowling side should not be penalised a review for a ball which is clipping but remains umpires call. I'm not against it remaining umpire's call or against it being reversed but I am against the team losing a review for such instances. However there wasn't any of that. Clarke's LBW was hitting (albeit clipping) and Buttler's wasn't. Not sure if it's an inability to understand DRS or just sour grapes.

    BTW I'm sure Dicky - even if he would err on giving the benefit to the batsman - would have given lbw decisions where the ball would have been clipping or even missing.It's like the offside rule in football - if a player is inches or yards offside he's still offside

  • BOLAmanBristol on September 16, 2013, 9:29 GMT

    I've just registered so I can post this comment. There has been endless description of Clarke's dismissal on Saturday as 'unlucky to be given out' after the DRS review. He was given out by the umpire and also by the technology - doesn't seem to be that unlucky. The Sky commentators and match report here use the same phraseology. It seems that the umpires can't win even when they get it absolutely right. Dicky Bird wouldn't have given it but wouldn't have been on an elite panel either!

  • H_Z_O on September 15, 2013, 23:08 GMT

    @Shaggy076 on (September 15, 2013, 10:17 GMT)

    I'm with Landl on this (Bailey, I mean). Yeah, his stats in Shield Cricket aren't great but then you've got someone like Phil Hughes averaging 56 in the Shield last year, or Khawaja averaging a shade under 40, and it's hard to argue that Bailey would've done a worse job.

    Bailey looks like a guy with the right temperament for Test cricket. He may only be a short-term stop-gap, but a bit more "toughness" is just what your batting order is crying out for. Sometimes you have to ignore the figures, look past them, and look at the man, the character. Is he the guy you want fighting it out at one end, giving one of your "better" players support and simply refusing to give his wicket away? I think that's exactly the kind of man Bailey is, and exactly the kind of man Australia need right now at 6.

    The example, for me, is Paul Collingwood. A limited player, technically, but the guy was a fighter, and the perfect foil for someone like KP or Bell.

  • H_Z_O on September 15, 2013, 22:46 GMT

    @Mitty2 on (September 15, 2013, 9:34 GMT)

    Come on now. Not all England supporters. It's ironic, in a way, that your comment was followed by up an Aussie fan trying to suggest that Australia have only lost to England this summer because of DRS and poor umpiring.

    Funnily enough, I was talking to someone the other day and it occurred to me that the worst DRS/umpiring issue was probably the Khawaja dismissal at Old Trafford, the Test match Australia came closest to winning. Makes it hard to argue that the umpiring/DRS was decisive, even if it was undoubtedly a big factor.

    Fact is, this isn't England's strongest side, but when the first choice sides did meet in the Champions Trophy, England's margin of victory was slim and that too against an Australian side missing Clarke through injury. I think the two sides are very even across all three formats, with Australia holding an edge in the shorter forms and us in the longer form. Us resting players only increases Australia's edge over us.

  • Shan156 on September 15, 2013, 20:48 GMT

    @SamRoy, every player that you have mentioned will tell you that it is their test achievements that matter more. If 20 over cricket is hit and giggle and not proper cricket, then so is ODI cricket. Almost every Eng. fan would tell you that the Ashes matters most to us than the World Cup. We clearly understand that the Ashes is played between 2 nations while the WC is played between many. But, it doesn't mean that we should attach more importance to that. You are free to like whatever you want and so are we.

  • on September 15, 2013, 20:40 GMT

    England win... Australian fans whinge and claim life is unfair. Normal order is resumed.

  • SamRoy on September 15, 2013, 15:10 GMT

    @RednWhiteArmy That's basically the main reason why England has not a single world cup and has not qualified for the semi-finals since 1992. Every other team treats World Cup with utmost respect except England. Any way, I am a bit old-fashioned and would love one-day cricket to be played with red ball and white-clothing as the red-ball does a bit throughout 50 overs unlike the white ball. White clothing; only because it is easier to sight the red-ball with white clothing. And if you tell Mcgrath, Warne, Muralitharan, Marshall, Akram, Waqar, Donald, Ambrose, Garner and other greats that limited overs cricket (the 50 overs one) not the hit and giggle one is not proper cricket they will simply laugh at you. Yes, test cricket is the best but 50 overs cricket is PROPER CRICKET unlike T20.

  • JG2704 on September 15, 2013, 14:08 GMT

    one thing this game proves is that because either side has the other 4 or 5 down for not many it doesnt necessarily mean that the side is booked for a win. Aus were 57-4. and then got it to 209-5 with 8 overs to go at which point they looked like posting a 270+ total. Eng were 8-3 and144-6 and then went on to win the game. So maybe folk should look at what actually has been happening on the field both in the test series and the ODIs before giving the ifs/buts/ands scenarios. Re this series - at one point I wanted Aus to humiliate us because Somerset were denied the services of Jos for an importat semifinal because of this series. I'm vaguely interested in it and may actually watch the final game (which'll prob get rained off anyway) but I don't really think the series is that important regardless of the result and for those who say it's because of this or that - most of the best Aus posters have also ignored the series which says it's not that important to them either

  • JG2704 on September 15, 2013, 13:48 GMT

    @landl47 on (September 15, 2013, 0:35 GMT) Was it also not Bailey who gave Jos out when the technology had it missing? So at least he was consistent with his decisions. TBH , I thought Jos felt he was doomed and it was more a case of gambling as it was just him,Ravi and Stokes left. What I like is that you get folk saying the umpire must be sure. Maybe in the umpire's mind he was sure on both but only just got one wrong and only just got the other right I don't think (as I've said before) Jos does his shots for show. If they are effective way of getting runs in shorter formats when the bowling is hard to get away then I see nothing wrong with the scoops etc

  • JG2704 on September 15, 2013, 13:46 GMT

    @Shan156 - Re Jos - I've always said that I think he's a better batsman than what he's shown for England and have also said that I think he should come in earlier - maybe at 4 or 5 - so he doesn't feel like he's pigeonholed to slog from ball 1. So IMO England losing all those wickets long before the end was maybe a blessing in disguise as it meant Buttler came in earlier and did not have to try and go big too early. Somerset fans have seen this on numerous occasions and I wonder if it's coincidence that Jos's 2 best scores have been when he's had to come in earlier.

    @stickboy - For me Eng's inns mirrored the Aus inns. Both losing early wickets and both having lower middle order rescuing the innings. Just that for England , Buttler for once managed to deliver on his potential in an inns which affected the outcome of a game. I still think England (or should I say Buttler) delivered despite the formula and not because of it.

  • landl47 on September 15, 2013, 13:20 GMT

    Just a few words about Australia. George Bailey, every time I've seen him, has looked a very well-organized player who seems unfazed by pressure or the state of the game. I understand he's not played well in Shield cricket recently, but still it seems surprising that he hasn't got a test cap yet although he's 31. Given what we've seen recently I'd have thought he was a better bet than some who have been given chances.

    Coulter-Nile put to rest the rumour that he's a fast bowler. He's a steady medium-fast, stock ball 84mph, effort ball (at least he's got one, unlike Bird) 86-87mph. He bowled well, but he's very similar to Siddle in pace without the variations Siddle has developed. I don't see him as a test bowler at the moment.

    @Mitty2- I'm afraid it's Walter Mitty talking again. The average age of Aus's top 7 in the tests was higher than Eng's and it was two 22-year olds who won this game- how many 22-year olds in the Aus side? Not much sign of the tables turning yet awhile.

  • shillingsworth on September 15, 2013, 12:32 GMT

    @Mitty2 - Are the quotes from 'England supporters'' all posted by the same people? If so, you have a point. If, as seems more likely, they are not, your point is rather juvenile. England supporters are no different to any other supporters - they are a group of individuals. Projecting the opinion of one onto a whole group is just about the weakest form of argument going.

  • on September 15, 2013, 11:44 GMT

    Lots of excuses made by Australian fans again, unsurprisingly. I was expecting them to coast this series to be honest, but now that this time their batting failed and Johnson was once again terrible, fans have taken to their default position and blame the non-existent Great Umpiring Conspiracy to cover their own shortcomings. And @Mitty2 complaining of England's lack of "sportsmanship" over this tour. What's that? An Aussie complaining of gamesmanship? What? Hilarious. Oh the irony. You'd have thought that big edges from Warwick Armstrong, Don Bradman, Justin Langer, Michael Clarke, and Andrew Symonds followed by them not walking never happened. When an Australian does it, it's "playing the game hard". When Stuart Broad does it, it's "cheating". Quite funny really.

    @popcorn: Actually popcorn, Wade's humiliating drop (he's the worst wicket keeper of all time) might have kept Australia in the game. It merely gave Bopara more deliveries to waste and chew up during the run chase.

  • Shaggy076 on September 15, 2013, 10:17 GMT

    Well done to England on victory, the time of night here I haven't seen the England innings. Bailey was brilliant if hehad a decent shield season last year rather than the below 20 average he put up he might have played test cricket by now. This is not a crack at Des as I think the system worked in this game I prefer to stick with umpires decisions when close but really don't believe the umpire could have been confident on Clarke's LBW. It looked not out Rican umpires view.

  • jmcilhinney on September 15, 2013, 10:01 GMT

    @PureProteas49 on (September 15, 2013, 7:37 GMT), to suggest that Australia threw the game to maintain interest in the series is ridiculous. There's no doubt that Australia would have wanted to remain undefeated in this series if they could. The simple fact is that Morgan and Carberry knuckled down and battled hard to rescue the England innings and Buttler carried them over the line. Australia bowled well, including the rather expensive Johnson, and England fought hard to get the win. Unless you want to blame Johnson for going at over 6 an over, England won it far more than Australia lost it. Wade's drop could have been critical but it was actually advantageous for Australia to have Bopara at the crease the way he was playing. Stokes' life didn't help Australia's cause either, although I wouldn't have bet against Buttler to finish the game himself regardless.

  • RednWhiteArmy on September 15, 2013, 9:59 GMT

    As everyone with a shred of cricketing knowledge knows, limited overs cricket is basically extended baseball & therefor inferior to real cricket, but it sure would be nice to send to aussies packing with nothing more than an ever growing list of excuses.

  • Int.Curator on September 15, 2013, 9:51 GMT

    Well played England although DRS is stealing the headline of a victory away from some good bowling and batting.

    The positive is DRS can be tweaked.

    Regardless of what team you support the present DRS system has shown to be inadequate .

    This whole tour DRS has has been tested and now simple, fair and reasonable changes need to be made.

    Obvious Changes : 1) the path of the review evidence should only lead to one outcome. Not the current 'umpires call' verdict where substantial doubt can result.

    2) teams should not lose a review when 'umpires call' has resulted.

    Simple but fair.

  • ScottStevo on September 15, 2013, 9:42 GMT

    Once again DRS and umpiring to the forefront of another English victory. Typical really for this summer...

  • Mitty2 on September 15, 2013, 9:34 GMT

    Very good game. Extraordinary from Bailey in those very hard conditions, and very well bowled by Rankin (very good prospect). In the second innings it was truly great from Mckay - currently one with one of the best ODI figures of all time - and I went to bed after the hatrick (for obvious reasons) so I didn't see Buttler but from all reports he batted exceptionally.

    But, hilarious England supporters. Because they'd been smashed so far they ragged on about this is "our B side" and "this series doesn't matter at all" and now in an extremely close game in which they'd had the favourable conditions, "England too strong for Aus again"... But in a tour where they've played negatively, without conviction (and sportsmanship) and played well below their best with a huge benefit of luck... What do you expect? Particularly with age, and the waning form of the old stalwarts, the tables will turn soon.

  • xtrafalgarx on September 15, 2013, 8:22 GMT

    @willyrustynuts, No not really. He should had a wicket but a wasted review earlier cost him. It was not his fault really, the batsman let us down this time. We have to find a way to not lose a wicket in the first over every time. Their bowlers bowled well at the start and it was a long way back for us from there, Bailey was impressive again. A model of consistency ever since he came into the one day set up, he looks like mr. cricket 2.0, hope he can play for a few good years. Also well done to mcckay always there or the abouts for us with the ball.

  • Tlotoxl on September 15, 2013, 8:17 GMT

    England B did a good job taking on the full strength Aus side, despite the hat-trick to come back, hold their nerve and win was exceptional.

  • kevinozzie on September 15, 2013, 8:01 GMT

    One problem now I see with Aussie selectors is that they are too impatient to punish any player without realizing what impact it will be on the rest of the team. And that is why the whole unit is feeling insecurity. After winning the first match with such a big margin why there was a need to drop Fawad and try someone new and again .... There is a need to stick to one winning combination for a series and give boys some confidence that they will have many chances to prove themselves. Any player can have a good and bad day. Ponting, Tandulkar, Afridi ... anyone can score or fail on a day.

  • Front-Foot-Lunge on September 15, 2013, 7:58 GMT

    An Awesome innings from Buttler, the most exciting young batsman in the world at the moment. England too strong for Aus again, this time they're the better side at ODI cricket.

  • PureProteas49 on September 15, 2013, 7:37 GMT

    As my name suggests, I am neither a England or Oz supporter but I love the game so I watch all formats and all teams but how did Oz manage to mess that up, England 3 down before they had 40 on the board and Oz give it away, or was it more about keeping the series alive (Hope not) Anyway it makes for a cracker of a last game

  • milepost on September 15, 2013, 6:51 GMT

    I agree with the sentiment about LBW being a bit of a joke with DRS. Giving the benefit of the doubt to umpires just isn't working out, it doesn't feel right. @landl47, don't be harsh on Jason, it's not your way, your comments are pretty good cricketing comments. Leave that stuff to F-F-L!

  • Pathiyal on September 15, 2013, 6:23 GMT

    WOW! At last we could see a great finisher for England????

  • jmcilhinney on September 15, 2013, 2:00 GMT

    Another excellent innings from Bailey again today and, while they were both a bit scrappy, the innings from Morgan and Carberry were obviously critical for England too. Given the circumstances though, Buttler's was obviously the stand-out performance with the bat today. It's great to see him start to fulfil his obvious promise after providing just a few glimpses previously. It's certainly worth noting that, in both innings this series, he's been able to spend a bit longer at the crease, which lends credence to the assertions by some that he should bat higher up the order. That said, not everyone can bat up the order so he's going to have to find a way to make it work more often in shorter bursts. Hopefully his performance in this series will give him some confidence and some insight into how to do that because he looks like an important cog in the England limited-overs machine. The selectors faith in him looks justified at the moment at least.

  • jmcilhinney on September 15, 2013, 1:49 GMT

    Excellent bowling from McKay today and I'm not even really talking about the hattrick. It was a good ball to get KP but he was a bit lucky to get Trott, of all people, driving at a wide one first ball. There was nothing wrong with the ball that got Root but, realistically, he would safely negotiate that 9 times out of 10 or even more. That hattrick was important for keeping England quiet for a long time because they couldn't afford another wicket but McKay bowled really well apart from that too. He's not quick and he really does look to be lumbering to crease when he bowls and I always half expect him to bend over wheezing after each delivery but he is consistently effective and certainly not a bowler to be taken lightly. I don't think you can criticise Johnson to much but he was expensive today in helpful conditions and that cost Australia today.

  • jmcilhinney on September 15, 2013, 1:41 GMT

    @Jason Armfield on (September 14, 2013, 11:58 GMT), who says that no benefit of the doubt was given to the batsmen? Are you really saying that, with the same level of doubt, the umpires have decided to give Australia batsmen out and not England batsmen? There's no reason to believe that, just as always, the umpires aren't giving the benefit of the doubt to the batsmen. It may well be that, in this age of ball-tracking, umpires have less doubt on close calls than they used to and it's certain that, just as always, where the umpires think the ball is going will often not be exactly where it's actually going. Some calls will be closer than they expect and some will just be plain wrong. That's the way it's always been. In the case of Clarke's LBW, I'm quite sure that the umpire truly believed that the ball was hitting the stumps, just as for Buttler. Have you any reason to doubt that? Also, do you have any actual evidence to back up your 4:1 claim or did you just pull that out of the air?

  • seniorgators on September 15, 2013, 1:36 GMT

    It is amusing at comments that suggest Australia are poor at reviews, This was touted from the First Test when all 6 marginal lbw calls went in England's favour. Of course if you are not getting any of the 50/50's you are more likely to be reviewing as you don't have to review if the calls are all going your way! Funny how in the second Test when England did not get the benefit of ALL the calls ,Gook suddenly was not so smart. Recognising also is you may blow your reviews by having Umpires calls go against you but you still should expect the umpires to get the subsequent obvious ones out. eg Chris Broad! Once again OZ has been dudded in this game. Funny how if Hot Spot shows a mark its out, but if it doesn't you are still out if there is a noise and you are an OZ batsmen. There was a noise with Morgan and clearly he did not hit it but OZ has had 3 decisions in recent matches go against them with no Hot Spot, no deflection & only a noise. Only a noise should not be enough to overturn!

  • jmcilhinney on September 15, 2013, 1:33 GMT

    @R_U_4_REAL_NICK on (September 14, 2013, 10:49 GMT), obviously the idea was to bowl Australia out so that there would be no death overs. Maybe not from you but if Cook had been captain and not gone for the kill he would have been criticised for being too defensive and if Clarke had done what Morgan did he would have been hailed as a genius for his attacking captaincy. As it happened, Australia were bowled out before their overs were up, although not the way Morgan had intended. Regardless, I have no issue with the tactic under the circumstances.

  • jmcilhinney on September 15, 2013, 1:27 GMT

    I'm in Australia and hadn't planned on staying up late enough to see the whole game but it ended up being too close and exciting for me to be able to go to bed and sleep. As an England fan, it's good to come away with the win but I would have liked to see a slightly bigger margin. It was never going to be an easy chase with some life in the pitch but McKay's hat trick meant that England were behind the 8-ball for most of their innings. Obviously England had a bit of luck with Stokes near the end although, the way he was playing, Buttler may well have steered them home anyway. We could have found out for sure if Australia didn't yet again waste their last review on a call that wasn't even close. This result certainly increases the interest in the last game though.

  • on September 15, 2013, 0:54 GMT

    Aussie players who are backing Mitchell Johnson for an ashes comeback needs to stop this backing immediately. His bowling was once again horrible and conceding 64 runs of the 230 runs scored by England does not make Johnson a better bowler. He ruined the match and also Watson's bowling was awkward towards the end. This was a match which Aussies could have easily won but just threw away. England needs to drop Bopara he is not a performed at international level just see how his record is - very poor.

  • landl47 on September 15, 2013, 0:47 GMT

    Well, England made it, so my estimate of a winning score was a few runs out. Good effort, especially after losing 3 wickets for 8. I was very pleased to see Jos. Buttler playing like a proper batsmen instead of a performer in the Cirque Du Soleil. No scoops, hits to leg from 3 feet outside offstump, not even reverse sweeps, just good shots taking what the bowler gave him. A very mature performance. Stokes wasn't quite as good (and was lucky to get away with a faint glove behind), but it was very encouraging to see two 22-year olds taking England to victory.

    Pietersen, Trott and Root look as though they've played too much cricket and need a rest. They all got out to tired shots. Congratulations to McKay, though- a hattrick is one of the most exciting occurrences in cricket.

    Now it's all down to the deciding match on Monday, on the road which they call a wicket in Hampshire. Let's hope it's a good game.

  • landl47 on September 15, 2013, 0:35 GMT

    @whofriggincares: As it happens, I agree with you on the original umpire's decision. I think the call was too marginal to give out. The fact that the DRS confirmed it by the narrowest possible margin was more by luck than the umpire's judgment. However, my point was it's no good crying into your handkerchief, wiping your nose on your sleeve and saying how unfair it is as Jason Armfield and TheBigBoodha (as usual) are doing.

    You haven't seen me in these forums moaning about poor England being hard-done by. Good sides make their own luck and most of the time don't need it. It's easy to find excuses for losing. To his credit, Michael Clarke hasn't gone that route and neither should the fans of either side.

  • OneEyedAussie on September 15, 2013, 0:29 GMT

    I didn't see the last quarter of the game but from the scorecard it looks like Buttler played a fine innings to get England over the line - fair play to him.

    Australia really needed to bat well in order to negate the advantage England gained from winning the toss. I think at 209-5 with 9 overs remaining they really should have got to 260 - they didn't and consequently lost the game. Bailey and McKay provided something to write home about.

    As for the Clarke dismissal - well, you win some and you lose some. That's cricket. Personally, I wouldn't give a batsman out when he's hit over the knee-roll while on his toes to a bowler like Finn, but I'm not an umpire.

  • popcorn on September 14, 2013, 23:44 GMT

    Mathew Wade is a very poor wicket keeper. They must be better keepers in the State Sides. He dropped a regulation catch off Bopara,that could have been crucial in our loss. I recall he was responsible for us not winning the Test against South Africa because he missed an easy stumping chance to put out Faf Du Pleissis, who went on to save the match.

  • Front-Foot-Lunge on September 14, 2013, 23:37 GMT

    An Awesome innings from Buttler, the most exciting young batsman in the world at the moment. England too strong for Aus again, this time they're the better side at ODI cricket.

  • H_Z_O on September 14, 2013, 23:34 GMT

    I have to put my hands and up and say well done to Michael Carberry. After the 2nd ODI I said I'd have had Hales ahead of Carberry in the pecking order because Hales had proven he could score runs against international attacks and Carberry hadn't.

    Well, now he has. It's one innings, and I'm not getting carried away, but certainly it would be churlish to make that comment and then not praise him when he does the job. He looked good while making the runs too, so there's some positive signs.

    Jos, on the other hand, was one that I've backed throughout, and I felt that his problem was born out of England's muddled tactics. He seemed to feel as though he had to hit a six off every ball, and while you can put that down to inexperience, the fact it continued suggested it was more than that, that he was simply performing the role that his captain and coach had asked him to.

    It's been noticeable in these two innings that he's played himself in more and given himself a chance. Good to see.

  • stickboy on September 14, 2013, 23:09 GMT

    Obviously a frustrating game from an Aussie perspective, especially since we had it in the bag for most of the match. Definitely some poor captaincy decisions in the field, including the bad review of Morgan, and bringing in McKay randomly in the middle of the England innings. Buttler did well though and England seem to know how to fight a lot better than Australia does and we need to learn from how they play in desperate situations. Also very frustrating umpiring decisions. Should have won but didn't, I think due to the lack of killer instinct and Buttler not giving up.

  • Jamie-1212 on September 14, 2013, 22:27 GMT

    So glad to see Jos do well, absolutetly incredible talent this guy has. His strike rate is second to none.

    I hope England stick with him through thick and thin, because he has the talent to be massive part of England's future.

  • scarab666 on September 14, 2013, 22:11 GMT

    Apart from everyone's issues with the DRS system, which in my opinion should only be used to verify catches...nothing else, this game was lost by the Aussies on the back of Mitchell Johnsons bowling again . This bloke has cost Australia more games than ever won for them......he truly has no concept of bowling line and length.

  • on September 14, 2013, 22:06 GMT

    As usual with the clarke dismissal, England get given the benefit of the doubt on most occasions.

  • JG2704 on September 14, 2013, 21:12 GMT

    @whofriggincares on (September 14, 2013, 13:29 GMT) I think you have the most inapt user name I've seen on these boards

  • JG2704 on September 14, 2013, 21:09 GMT

    Looking forward to seeing what our number 1 critic has to say about not fielding our test side. If you look at our batsmen our 3 test players scored 5 runs between them and a shorter formats specialist rescued the side

  • JG2704 on September 14, 2013, 21:02 GMT

    13 comments so far and 3 whinges already about 2 perfectly transparrent decisions - one not reversed because the ball was shown by DRS to be clipping and one shown by DRS to be missing. Have to be honest , most Aus regulars have been reasonable but we've had a few predictable sourpusses rearing their predictable sour grapes comments. As for the game - there are positives and negatives for England and I hate to say it but I think there are as many negatives as positives. You could say that Carberry and Morgan rescued the inns but they still left Eng 4/5 down with 2 new batsmen needing to score at over a run a ball from a starting required rate of less than 4.5. For me the positives were our bowling in general - even Tredwell coming back at the end. At 200+ for 5 it was looking likely with the impressive Bailey at the crease that Australia may well get around 270-280 or even 300. Stokes for me is showing positive signs and Jos did what all Somerset fans know he can do

  • Indianpunjabi on September 14, 2013, 20:05 GMT

    England 2nd XI beaten Australia comprehensively in style

  • 2.14istherunrate on September 14, 2013, 20:04 GMT

    That was some game overall;highly entertaining. I think that happens on wickkets offering a bit. At least it became clear why Stokes was used as 3rd seamer when he batted. Buttler and he looked really like they were enjoying it together. Anyway we have a sense of our future there-not bad at all. Great knocks from Captain Morgan and Carbs, who must have been a happy man tonight. Rankin played well too. For Aus Bailey was outstanding along with McKay and Johnson as well as debutant C-Nile.

  • willsrustynuts on September 14, 2013, 19:55 GMT

    Did Johnson throw any left and right? Figures looked more like the standard we have come to expect.

  • whatawicket on September 14, 2013, 19:04 GMT

    not sure why aussie skippers decision has caused a ruck. it was hitting the top of leg stump full on, the benefit of the doubt if in the opinion of the umpire there was one which there was not hes out. with the Buttler decision in the 1st place was wrong with the appeal showing that.

  • Fluffykins on September 14, 2013, 18:30 GMT

    I think that had The Ravster not got out we would have lost that game, he was taking the it away from England with his pedestrian batting. I will be at the Bowl on Monday so glad it won't be a dead rubber.I only ask for one thing can we have the old Trotty back please?

  • eggyroe on September 14, 2013, 17:59 GMT

    With regard to Jason Armfield's comment about there being no benefit of the doubt given to the batsmen, can he quote which law of cricket gives the benefit of the doubt to any batsman.In real life the bails do come off with a lot less than half a ball hitting the stumps,also stumps have been hit and the bails have remained in place.The sooner D.R.S. is thrown out and we return to the old ways the better.Batsman will be given out wrongly no doubt but it is like Swings and Roundabouts, but umpires are human after all so the batsmen will no doubt get decisions going their way as well.

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on September 14, 2013, 17:42 GMT

    Well congratulations England; particularly nice to see Carberry and Buttler finally amongst the runs, and Finn and Rankin bowled really well in their opening spells. At 57 for 4 I would have expected England to keep Australia's score down more, but when you're a bowler short...

    Australia bowled really well once again. If the right Mitchell Johnson had shown up (i.e. the one that bowled in the previous games!) this would have been an easy victory for Australia. As it is, England have just scraped a victory. It's all to play for in the final game, and I suspect there will be a few posters that will 'coincidentally' go missing now until the result of that final game (or perhaps even beyond). Got to love cricket...

  • Shan156 on September 14, 2013, 17:34 GMT

    Good to see England win even with an experimental side. I was one of the few that this Eng. side could actually pull off a surprise although I didn't, and still don't, support the idea of playing only 3 regular bowlers. Nice to see the faith on Buttler being repaid. We all know what Buttler is capable of but in the past he has struggled to string together a few good scores mostly because he came in at the fag end of the innings. However, he has proved in the last few matches what he can do after getting some time in the middle. Carberry played well too and played according to the situation. We need to see how he does when England bat first.

    KP is KP but Trott looks totally out of form and confidence. He needs to work hard as we need him more than ever in Aus. In one way it is good that he is having his bad form now than later in Aus. He is a fighter and I am sure he will come good this winter. Not worried about Root at all.

  • Happy_hamster on September 14, 2013, 17:26 GMT

    England only won because the umpires give them all the decisions, would be 5-1 down if it wasn't for rain, DRS is to blame..... I remember when Aussie was arrogant BUT always good losers it seems they have more excuses and conspiracy theories than the Indian fans these days.

  • on September 14, 2013, 17:21 GMT

    On a more sombre note: My heartfelt apologies to Jos Buttler. Top job today, well done. Those are the sort of figures we expect to see from Mitchell Johnson.

    Phew, is all I can say after that England victory. They make hard work of it, don't they? Oh, for a first World Cup win. Probably won't happen in my lifetime.

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on September 14, 2013, 17:07 GMT

    McKay once again showing why he's the best bowler Australia have. England once again showing how to make a mess out of a game.

  • on September 14, 2013, 17:06 GMT

    Decent effort by Stokes but still an unconvincing innings. England now need luck to get these last 9 runs with just one batsman - Buttler - left.

    Mitchell Johnson has had a poor game. Wade is awful. Clint McKay is their one-day day star with the ball, without a doubt.

  • on September 14, 2013, 16:55 GMT

    @Jason Armfield: Buttler was given out when it was missing, not clipping. So your claim of unfairness to Australia falls apart. Buttler simply had the wherewithal to review the decision.

  • on September 14, 2013, 16:32 GMT

    Right, that's it. I've had enough. I've defended Ravi Bopara in ODIs before but that pathetic innings is the last straw. Not only has he just proved himself to be one of the laziest and most dopey runners between the wickets in international history, he spent most of that torture giving catching practice to the distastrous wicket keeper Matthew Wade. Can someone please tell Bopara that he isn't Ian Bell? He cannot play the guide down to third man. He just cannot do it. Nasser Hussain had it exactly right: "This is abysmal batting by Bopara". He just wasted deliveries and put pressure on Carberry and Buttler.

    And he keeps getting out the same way as he always has done. Big papier-mache pads planted in front of the stumps, feet rooted to the crease, ball smacks them head on, lbw. Horrid stuff. We must get rid of him now. The fact that he has never scored Test runs against quality opposition should tell us something about his temperament.

  • Jaffa79 on September 14, 2013, 16:10 GMT

    Good to see that TheBigBoodha is still one of the most delusional one eyed fans out there. Everything and everybody is against Aus aren't they champ? That is why you have experienced one of the worst years in your cricketing history. There can't be any other reason surely?

    I would also like to say that Matthew Wade is by far, the worst wicket keeper I have ever seen. I challenge anyone out there to name a worse one...

  • Jaffa79 on September 14, 2013, 15:41 GMT

    I have been an outspoken critic of the Aussie batting order (with due reason) but I have to say that George Bailey has impressed me today and not for the first time. I am not sure what his recent shield record is like but he looks a well organised batsman with a decent temperament. He looks about 100 times more of a Test match bat than Hughes, Warner or Cowan.

    On another note, what has happened to Trott? The Aussies have bowled well to him but that happened to the unflappable run machine that has played for England since '09? That shovel shot to leg is ridiculous as he either nicks it or spoons it up and he might want to not walk at the quicks! His balance is all over the shop. Get on it Goochy!

  • TheBigBoodha on September 14, 2013, 14:11 GMT

    I have to agree Clarke should never have been given out. It was always uncertain, and if anything the DRS only confirmed it. I agree with another poster that these calls have been going England's way all summer. Still, 227 is a fair score, even though batting conditions have improved vastly since the first 15 overs. England will never get a better chance to win a game than this. Everything has gone England's way. It seems that as soon as Australia wins a toss and gets the better of conditions rain wipes the game out. When England win the the toss the clouds part and a result beckons. God must be an Englishman.

    Basically the only way England is going to win games with this side is if they get conditions like today, and their three bowlers can get the Aus top order out early. It almost happened here.

  • whofriggincares on September 14, 2013, 13:29 GMT

    @landl47 I usually enjoy reading your insights into the game you have a great understanding of our great game, however your comments regarding the LBW today I have to disagree with very strongly. As an umpire a coach and a player for the last 30 years (still playing ,coaching and umpiring the occasional final that my club is not involved in) I just want to stress the last line of the LBW law " the most important factor in any LBW decision is that the umpire must be CERTAIN that the ball is travelling on to hit the stumps" the most respected and best umpire I have been involved with has stressed to me that this line is designed to protect the batsmen from line ball calls. I mean get a bowler to bowl a good length without a batsmen and see how often the ball hits the stumps nowhere near as often as you would think! The umps these days seem to have forgotten the spirit of the rule particularly ones involving height and demonstrated movement towards leg stump.

  • spindizzy on September 14, 2013, 13:22 GMT

    DRS should just discard the umprie's initial decision - not protect it as it currently does. It makes a mockery of the system that you can get totally different results with exactly the same evidence.

    Only a cricket administrator could mistake this for a fair system.

  • testcric4ever on September 14, 2013, 13:20 GMT

    It's an old cliche, but you have to wait and see how well the other team bats on the same pitch. @landl47 - agree there's no point whinging about umpire decisions. Especially when you could be whinging about the number of times rain has stopped play when the Aussies were in a good position - two tests included.

  • landl47 on September 14, 2013, 13:06 GMT

    Writing at the innings break, England seem quite simply to have got it wrong here. If this was a bowl-first pitch, they needed an extra seamer. I thought after the first few overs that 220 would be a winning score. Aus were 57-4 and struggling to score, but without the extra seamer Eng couldn't keep the pressure on and Australia, courtesy of George Bailey who played an excellent innings, reached 227. I hope I'm wrong, but I think that will be enough. Rankin bowled very well, though- Clarke was all at sea against him.

    @Jason Armfield: Another whingeing Aussie. The umpire gave him out, the DRS confirmed the decision and you're still crying about how unfair it is. Grow a spine.

  • on September 14, 2013, 11:58 GMT

    How many wickets has Australia lost now to umpiring decisions where the ball was only just clipping the stumps yet there was no benefit of the doubt given to the batsmen? You couldn't count them on all your fingers and toes so far in this tour of England. And the ratio must be 4:1 to Australia. It's not just that they're not getting the rub of the green, they've had the green removed and given to the English team. Makes it hard to win games.

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on September 14, 2013, 10:49 GMT

    What on Earth is Morgan doing out there? Two new batsmen out and, O.K. he's using up the overs from Stokes, but why waste overs from Rankin and Finn? Where is Tredwell? Where are the death overs going to come from - Bopara?

  • on September 14, 2013, 9:44 GMT

    Nathan deserves his debut a very promising Cricketer ...

  • xtrafalgarx on September 14, 2013, 9:19 GMT

    Seems who ever takes the strike in the first over loses his wicket.

  • AUSinCH on September 14, 2013, 9:13 GMT

    Eoin Morgan keeping wicket for England, along with Jos Buttler? Will they take turns each over?

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • AUSinCH on September 14, 2013, 9:13 GMT

    Eoin Morgan keeping wicket for England, along with Jos Buttler? Will they take turns each over?

  • xtrafalgarx on September 14, 2013, 9:19 GMT

    Seems who ever takes the strike in the first over loses his wicket.

  • on September 14, 2013, 9:44 GMT

    Nathan deserves his debut a very promising Cricketer ...

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on September 14, 2013, 10:49 GMT

    What on Earth is Morgan doing out there? Two new batsmen out and, O.K. he's using up the overs from Stokes, but why waste overs from Rankin and Finn? Where is Tredwell? Where are the death overs going to come from - Bopara?

  • on September 14, 2013, 11:58 GMT

    How many wickets has Australia lost now to umpiring decisions where the ball was only just clipping the stumps yet there was no benefit of the doubt given to the batsmen? You couldn't count them on all your fingers and toes so far in this tour of England. And the ratio must be 4:1 to Australia. It's not just that they're not getting the rub of the green, they've had the green removed and given to the English team. Makes it hard to win games.

  • landl47 on September 14, 2013, 13:06 GMT

    Writing at the innings break, England seem quite simply to have got it wrong here. If this was a bowl-first pitch, they needed an extra seamer. I thought after the first few overs that 220 would be a winning score. Aus were 57-4 and struggling to score, but without the extra seamer Eng couldn't keep the pressure on and Australia, courtesy of George Bailey who played an excellent innings, reached 227. I hope I'm wrong, but I think that will be enough. Rankin bowled very well, though- Clarke was all at sea against him.

    @Jason Armfield: Another whingeing Aussie. The umpire gave him out, the DRS confirmed the decision and you're still crying about how unfair it is. Grow a spine.

  • testcric4ever on September 14, 2013, 13:20 GMT

    It's an old cliche, but you have to wait and see how well the other team bats on the same pitch. @landl47 - agree there's no point whinging about umpire decisions. Especially when you could be whinging about the number of times rain has stopped play when the Aussies were in a good position - two tests included.

  • spindizzy on September 14, 2013, 13:22 GMT

    DRS should just discard the umprie's initial decision - not protect it as it currently does. It makes a mockery of the system that you can get totally different results with exactly the same evidence.

    Only a cricket administrator could mistake this for a fair system.

  • whofriggincares on September 14, 2013, 13:29 GMT

    @landl47 I usually enjoy reading your insights into the game you have a great understanding of our great game, however your comments regarding the LBW today I have to disagree with very strongly. As an umpire a coach and a player for the last 30 years (still playing ,coaching and umpiring the occasional final that my club is not involved in) I just want to stress the last line of the LBW law " the most important factor in any LBW decision is that the umpire must be CERTAIN that the ball is travelling on to hit the stumps" the most respected and best umpire I have been involved with has stressed to me that this line is designed to protect the batsmen from line ball calls. I mean get a bowler to bowl a good length without a batsmen and see how often the ball hits the stumps nowhere near as often as you would think! The umps these days seem to have forgotten the spirit of the rule particularly ones involving height and demonstrated movement towards leg stump.

  • TheBigBoodha on September 14, 2013, 14:11 GMT

    I have to agree Clarke should never have been given out. It was always uncertain, and if anything the DRS only confirmed it. I agree with another poster that these calls have been going England's way all summer. Still, 227 is a fair score, even though batting conditions have improved vastly since the first 15 overs. England will never get a better chance to win a game than this. Everything has gone England's way. It seems that as soon as Australia wins a toss and gets the better of conditions rain wipes the game out. When England win the the toss the clouds part and a result beckons. God must be an Englishman.

    Basically the only way England is going to win games with this side is if they get conditions like today, and their three bowlers can get the Aus top order out early. It almost happened here.