West Indies v Australia, 1st Test, Bridgetown, 3rd day April 9, 2012

Watson's reputation grows

ESPNcricinfo presents the Plays of the Day from the third day of the first Test in Barbados

Run-out of the day

Having watched David Warner succumb to Sammy in similar fashion to Ed Cowan, Shane Watson now played an unfortunate part in the exit of Ricky Ponting. Watson played Fidel Edwards behind square leg and set off for what he thought would be two. Ponting thought differently and quickly came to a halt as Kraigg Brathwaite's athletic chase reached the ball faster than Watson expected. Seemingly oblivious to Ponting's passivity at the other end, Watson hared down the pitch, leaving both batsmen at more or less the same end as Brathwaite returned over the stumps and Baugh broke them, Ponting having wandered disconsolately out of his ground. Watson has now been involved in eight of the 21 Australian run-outs that have taken place in his 33 Tests.

Lbw of the day

Watson walked out at No. 3 at the fall of Cowan's wicket and straight into the midst of an enthralling spell of medium pace by Darren Sammy. On a surface that offered precious little to the pacemen, Sammy used the crease and varied his line of attack subtly, so much so that Australia's batsmen appeared to be facing up to a ball that was moving around. So it was that Watson padded up to a delivery from Sammy that was whirring in towards off stump, the bowler's appeal being so celebratory that he was clapping his hands in anticipation of Ian Gould's raised finger. But Gould decided the ball had not done enough, forcing Sammy to refer the decision. Replays and Hawk-Eye confirmed the ball was hitting off stump but not enough of it to overturn Gould's original call - although having not played a shot, Watson was highly fortunate to still be there in any case.

Reprieve of the day

Michael Clarke had arrived at the crease earlier than he might have wanted to, and before the morning was out he went within an ace of departing. Devendra Bishoo delivered a ball wide of the stumps that was shortish but skidded through low. Clarke, attempting to cut, swished over the ball, and Carlton Baugh made a decent take before he and Bishoo appealed for a catch at the wicket. Tony Hill gave Clarke out but the batsman made the "T" sign instantly, leaving the the umpire Marais Erasmus with a dicey call. In the absence of Hot Spot or the Snickometer, he had no sure way of determining whether or not there was a sound or indicator of contact as the ball passed Clarke's bat. But equally he had no solid evidence on which to overrule Hill's call. When his not-out verdict was relayed to the middle, the West Indians were puzzled, and Clarke relieved.

Flight of the day

Toiling away across the afternoon and flinging his legbreaks into the footmarks left on an increasingly scuffed Kensington Oval pitch, Bishoo earned the admiration of most observers who had not previously seen him ply his trade in the flesh. His reward for nagging accuracy and varying degrees of flight and turn would be handsome - the wicket of Clarke. After a 40-minute rain delay had taken some of the rhythm out of Clarke's stand with Michael Hussey, Australia's captain advanced in an attempt to hit Bishoo down the ground. But the most nimble feet in the game were unable to cover the drop and spin imparted by Bishoo, and Clarke was only able to sky the ball from the outer half of his bat to Narsingh Deonarine at long off.

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

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Subba on April 10, 2012, 17:21 GMT

    Watson's reputation grows? I dont think so. he's not a big score player. He's there because he's better than Ponting now and just because Shaun marsh and usman Khwaja have their confidences destroyed by Ponting's continuous breathing down their necks. Overall this oz team cannot win abroad and beat only wimpish teams like India and that too when they play in Australia.

  • Shantan Kumar on April 10, 2012, 16:50 GMT

    @ruester, I think if the umpire gave it out and batsman reviewed, even if its just hitting the outer half of the stump, it's out. If the bowler reviewed a not out decision by the field umpire and it's hitting the outer half of the stump, then it's not out. It may have been done to make the field umpire look good. In both cases, his decision stands.

  • Hamish on April 10, 2012, 14:40 GMT

    I don't really see a comparison with Dilshan's dismissal vs England as useful. Firstly the replay on Dilshan seemed to show a mark appearing on his bat (although it's possible that it was just a shadow effect) Secondly at most the ball was mm away from Dilshan's bat right in near the pad so very few angles would give any real information there. I don't think there was anything on the replays that can really be argued to bring in any real doubt. The Clarke one was well away from his body and multiple views could provide real information. IMO the combination of views provided enough evidence that he hadn't hit it to justify an overrule.

  • Hamish on April 10, 2012, 14:29 GMT

    @ruester the basic rule on DRS is that the umpire's decision stands unless it's proven to be wrong. On the Pietersen decision the umpire had given him out so the projection having ball clipping the stumps is enough to maintain the original decision.

  • Andrew on April 10, 2012, 13:05 GMT

    I doubt that the good parts of Watson's game outweigh the negatives of having him in the middle and in the dressing room.

  • A on April 10, 2012, 12:46 GMT

    ruester - all comes down to the original umpire decision. When a decision is reviewed the default position is with the ON FIELD UMPIRE CALL. So, if umpire considers an LBW is out, for example, and DRS shows that ANY PART of the ball is going on to hit the stumps - even if it shaves the stumps, then the original out decision stands. If the umpire gave the original decision as NOT OUT then if DRS shows LESS THAN 50% of the ball going on to hit the stumps the original decision stands. For DRS to overturn an on field umpire call, the DRS evidence has to be conclusive. In the case of LBW more than 50% of the ball has to hit the stumps. For something like a slip catch to be over turned there has to be a clear and obvious snick off the bat. I dont see what the fuss about DRS is about really. Before DRS umpires made a decision and it stood. Now, umpire makes a decision and if one team doesnt like it they have a chance to challenge. All DRS does is increase the chance of eliminating a mistake.

  • Alex on April 10, 2012, 12:32 GMT

    The rules of DRS state that the umpire making the decision on the field should give benefit of the doubt or leniency to the batsmen and the 3rd umpire gives benefit to the umpires call. It should not be up to the 3rd umpire to overrule an original decision unless he can find conclusive proof that the original decision was definitely wrong, which is why 4 LBW you have to have more than half the ball be hitting the stumps to give a batsmen out when the original call was not-out, but need the ball to miss completely to overturn an out decision. The problem I have with UDRS is that it was introduced to remove the shocking decision not determine the 50-50 calls which is how it seems to be used currently. bottom line - DRS is intended to favour the original umpires

  • Roo on April 10, 2012, 11:20 GMT

    @Daniel Brettig :- "Watson's reputation grows"... lol... As what?... You didn't answer your statement, unless you mean his ability to run out good batsmen on his team or his inability to make big scores... His value in the slips must be nearing zero as he drops yet another easy catch in that position... I really hope he has a form reversal as he is holding back this current Oz team that is looking to improve its overall performances...

  • Alex on April 10, 2012, 11:12 GMT

    It should be noted that Ricky Ponting has been run out 15 times in Tests. This is a record for any Test batsman. This suggests that he too should pay some attention to his running between wickets.

  • Roo on April 10, 2012, 9:31 GMT

    @ruester... If the umpire gives the batsman out & the batsman appeals, then the replay must show part of the ball hitting the stumps for the umpires decision to be up held... If the bowler appeals against an umpires 'not out' decision, then half the ball needs to be hitting the stumps to overturn the decision... Basically it favours the umpires original decision, which is the fairest way to have the balance... Maybe not perfect, but its what we've got...

  • No featured comments at the moment.