West Indies v Australia, 1st Test, Bridgetown, 2nd Day April 8, 2012

Clarke's split slips

ESPNcricinfo staff
ESPNcricinfo presents the Plays of the Day from the second day of the first Test in Barbados
  shares 8

Slip of the Day
Very few edges flew at catchable height through the slips cordon on day one, and the pattern continued on the second morning as Darren Bravo and Shivnarine Chanderpaul benefited from a steady stream of runs to third man. Driven to vary his fields, Michael Clarke split his slips, posting a first, a fourth and a pair of gullies. As so often happens, Peter Siddle then prompted an edge through the gap, his short of a length delivery swished at by Bravo and sailing around head height through the region where a third might have caught it.

Riposte of the Day
Shane Watson worked up a head of steam with the ball, the pitch offering a little more pace than he might have found the day before. Having disposed of Bravo, Watson lowered his sights on Darren Sammy, who had made his presence felt by hitting a faltering Nathan Lyon out of the attack. Watson's fourth ball to the West Indies captain was short and skidding, striking Sammy a fierce blow on the helmet as he ducked. A new helmet was called for, and Watson must have felt himself in control as he ran in to deliver the next ball. But Sammy's riposte, a scorching straight drive to a ball that was in no way asking for such treatment, was compelling. Thus chastened, Watson followed up with another bouncer, this time Sammy ducking safely underneath it and walking down the pitch to meet the bowler's indignant stare.

Referral of the Day
It took until the 136th over of the innings for the DRS to be employed, in an innings that up to that point had witnessed scarcely a single lbw appeal. Lyon had the honour of asking for the review, as Chanderpaul played pad then bat to an offbreak that straightened from around the wicket. Replays confirmed the closeness of the call but Lyon was to miss his first wicket by millimetres. As had happened to Ryan Harris in the first Test against Sri Lanka in Galle last year, Lyon was denied by the vagaries of the review laws, which state that more than half the ball must be striking more than half the off or leg stump to overturn an original not-out verdict.

Catch of the Day
While the fielding coach Steve Rixon is away on IPL duty, Australia's players put down four catches of varying difficulty over the first four sessions of the match. But two balls after Lyon's referral was denied, he drew an outside edge from the bat of Kemar Roach, which flew fine between the wicketkeeper Matthew Wade and Clarke at slip. To snick anywhere in the vicinity of Clarke's left hand is to invite dismissal and sure enough the captain plucked the chance with some nonchalance - and no little irritation at the chances that had been spurned earlier in the innings.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • rustin on April 9, 2012, 18:03 GMT

    @popcorn, due to unavoidable inaccuracy in calculation, when the Hawk-eye technology shows less than half the ball hitting the stumps, it can actually mean that the ball would have missed the stumps. Only when > 50% is hitting the stumps, can you say that the ball would have definitely hit. It is not a random condition made up to support the batsman.

  • shillingsworth on April 9, 2012, 12:03 GMT

    @popcorn - In tennis Hawkeye is showing the actual path of the ball. By definition, this information is unavailable for an lbw decision. You cannot compare the two. There has to be a margin of error for the predicted path used in lbws.

  • Meety on April 9, 2012, 6:51 GMT

    4 dropped catches - not good. Splitting the slip cordon is often an invite for an edge to go thru the regulation slips. I'd rather see a 3rd man in place rather than a boundry rider that is so often in vogue these days.

  • Front-Foot-Lunge on April 9, 2012, 6:50 GMT

    What a pile of rubbish the Australian bowling attack is. Would Randy, Jonesy and ilk care to provide a comparison with England's? Thought not.

  • popcorn on April 9, 2012, 6:38 GMT

    No cricketer will ever accept DRS the way it is structured today. I suggest the ICC follows the undisputed Hawkeye that Tennis follows, and, secondly, the simple philosophy I learnt from Mark Waugh- if the ball is shown by technology to be hitting the stumps, whether half or quarter or three -fouths,it does not matter.It is hitting stumps, and the verdict should be OUT. Shivnarine Chanderpaul was OUT LBW to Nathan Lyon, given not out. Sic.

  • mittheimp on April 9, 2012, 4:07 GMT

    "Lyon was denied by the vagaries of the review laws, which state that more than half the ball must be striking more than half the off or leg stump to overturn an original not-out verdict"

    Wether yopu agree with DRS or not, the more than half the ball rule is a very clear and consistant rule, why have you decribed it using 'vagaries'?

  • Marcio on April 9, 2012, 3:48 GMT

    With the gully/slips thing, a lot of it was just bad luck. They kept hitting and snicking them into the gaps, and it just kept happening for two days. There were long periods where the only boundaries were off edges, with endless dots balls and a few singles in betweeen. Yes, part of the issue is the pitch, and the fact that some edges didn't carry. In Australia or SA the WI would not have made 200, such was the poor footwork, loose shots and the sheer number of uncontrolled snicks through that area which would have carried on a "normal' wicket. But luck comes and goes in bursts. Next innings the opposite might happen, and every edge will go to a fielder.

  • jmcilhinney on April 9, 2012, 1:49 GMT

    "The vagaries of the review laws"? The laws are not vague at all on this point. There is an in-built margin for error in the use of ball-tracking for LBW decisions, and fair enough. Lyon was denied by the on-field umpire's original "not out" decision and the fact that the predicted path of the ball was not close enough for that decision to be overturned under the very clear and specific review laws.

  • rustin on April 9, 2012, 18:03 GMT

    @popcorn, due to unavoidable inaccuracy in calculation, when the Hawk-eye technology shows less than half the ball hitting the stumps, it can actually mean that the ball would have missed the stumps. Only when > 50% is hitting the stumps, can you say that the ball would have definitely hit. It is not a random condition made up to support the batsman.

  • shillingsworth on April 9, 2012, 12:03 GMT

    @popcorn - In tennis Hawkeye is showing the actual path of the ball. By definition, this information is unavailable for an lbw decision. You cannot compare the two. There has to be a margin of error for the predicted path used in lbws.

  • Meety on April 9, 2012, 6:51 GMT

    4 dropped catches - not good. Splitting the slip cordon is often an invite for an edge to go thru the regulation slips. I'd rather see a 3rd man in place rather than a boundry rider that is so often in vogue these days.

  • Front-Foot-Lunge on April 9, 2012, 6:50 GMT

    What a pile of rubbish the Australian bowling attack is. Would Randy, Jonesy and ilk care to provide a comparison with England's? Thought not.

  • popcorn on April 9, 2012, 6:38 GMT

    No cricketer will ever accept DRS the way it is structured today. I suggest the ICC follows the undisputed Hawkeye that Tennis follows, and, secondly, the simple philosophy I learnt from Mark Waugh- if the ball is shown by technology to be hitting the stumps, whether half or quarter or three -fouths,it does not matter.It is hitting stumps, and the verdict should be OUT. Shivnarine Chanderpaul was OUT LBW to Nathan Lyon, given not out. Sic.

  • mittheimp on April 9, 2012, 4:07 GMT

    "Lyon was denied by the vagaries of the review laws, which state that more than half the ball must be striking more than half the off or leg stump to overturn an original not-out verdict"

    Wether yopu agree with DRS or not, the more than half the ball rule is a very clear and consistant rule, why have you decribed it using 'vagaries'?

  • Marcio on April 9, 2012, 3:48 GMT

    With the gully/slips thing, a lot of it was just bad luck. They kept hitting and snicking them into the gaps, and it just kept happening for two days. There were long periods where the only boundaries were off edges, with endless dots balls and a few singles in betweeen. Yes, part of the issue is the pitch, and the fact that some edges didn't carry. In Australia or SA the WI would not have made 200, such was the poor footwork, loose shots and the sheer number of uncontrolled snicks through that area which would have carried on a "normal' wicket. But luck comes and goes in bursts. Next innings the opposite might happen, and every edge will go to a fielder.

  • jmcilhinney on April 9, 2012, 1:49 GMT

    "The vagaries of the review laws"? The laws are not vague at all on this point. There is an in-built margin for error in the use of ball-tracking for LBW decisions, and fair enough. Lyon was denied by the on-field umpire's original "not out" decision and the fact that the predicted path of the ball was not close enough for that decision to be overturned under the very clear and specific review laws.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • jmcilhinney on April 9, 2012, 1:49 GMT

    "The vagaries of the review laws"? The laws are not vague at all on this point. There is an in-built margin for error in the use of ball-tracking for LBW decisions, and fair enough. Lyon was denied by the on-field umpire's original "not out" decision and the fact that the predicted path of the ball was not close enough for that decision to be overturned under the very clear and specific review laws.

  • Marcio on April 9, 2012, 3:48 GMT

    With the gully/slips thing, a lot of it was just bad luck. They kept hitting and snicking them into the gaps, and it just kept happening for two days. There were long periods where the only boundaries were off edges, with endless dots balls and a few singles in betweeen. Yes, part of the issue is the pitch, and the fact that some edges didn't carry. In Australia or SA the WI would not have made 200, such was the poor footwork, loose shots and the sheer number of uncontrolled snicks through that area which would have carried on a "normal' wicket. But luck comes and goes in bursts. Next innings the opposite might happen, and every edge will go to a fielder.

  • mittheimp on April 9, 2012, 4:07 GMT

    "Lyon was denied by the vagaries of the review laws, which state that more than half the ball must be striking more than half the off or leg stump to overturn an original not-out verdict"

    Wether yopu agree with DRS or not, the more than half the ball rule is a very clear and consistant rule, why have you decribed it using 'vagaries'?

  • popcorn on April 9, 2012, 6:38 GMT

    No cricketer will ever accept DRS the way it is structured today. I suggest the ICC follows the undisputed Hawkeye that Tennis follows, and, secondly, the simple philosophy I learnt from Mark Waugh- if the ball is shown by technology to be hitting the stumps, whether half or quarter or three -fouths,it does not matter.It is hitting stumps, and the verdict should be OUT. Shivnarine Chanderpaul was OUT LBW to Nathan Lyon, given not out. Sic.

  • Front-Foot-Lunge on April 9, 2012, 6:50 GMT

    What a pile of rubbish the Australian bowling attack is. Would Randy, Jonesy and ilk care to provide a comparison with England's? Thought not.

  • Meety on April 9, 2012, 6:51 GMT

    4 dropped catches - not good. Splitting the slip cordon is often an invite for an edge to go thru the regulation slips. I'd rather see a 3rd man in place rather than a boundry rider that is so often in vogue these days.

  • shillingsworth on April 9, 2012, 12:03 GMT

    @popcorn - In tennis Hawkeye is showing the actual path of the ball. By definition, this information is unavailable for an lbw decision. You cannot compare the two. There has to be a margin of error for the predicted path used in lbws.

  • rustin on April 9, 2012, 18:03 GMT

    @popcorn, due to unavoidable inaccuracy in calculation, when the Hawk-eye technology shows less than half the ball hitting the stumps, it can actually mean that the ball would have missed the stumps. Only when > 50% is hitting the stumps, can you say that the ball would have definitely hit. It is not a random condition made up to support the batsman.