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

Watson's reputation grows

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

Daniel Brettig in Bridgetown

April 9, 2012

Comments: 26 | Text size: A | A

Ricky Ponting vents his frustration after being run out, West Indies v Australia, 1st Test, Barbados, 3rd day, April 9, 2012
Shane Watson was involved in another run out © AFP

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

RSS Feeds: Daniel Brettig

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by Aussasinator 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.

Posted by Shantan 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.

Posted by Mad_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.

Posted by Mad_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.

Posted by Kernas 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.

Posted by Snick_To_Backward_Point 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.

Posted by whitesXI 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

Posted by zenboomerang 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...

Posted by blackie 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.

Posted by zenboomerang 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...

Posted by   on (April 10, 2012, 9:22 GMT)

DRS cannot be 100% right all the time, but we are now probably getting more correct decisions than before with the naked eye. Stumpings, run outs and lbw decisions seem to be fine, maybe snicks are a different problem.

Posted by ruester on (April 10, 2012, 7:03 GMT)

Question re DRS; Why was KP given out LBW against Pakistan when only 2mm of the ball was hitting the leg stump? I am totally confused over the rules governing DRS, is anybody out there clear on them? The umpires don't seem to act with any consistency! ICC sort the mess out, I used to think DRS was a good thing, now I would be happy to go back to no technology and have the onfield umpires make the calls wether they are good or bad!

Posted by Eazy_E on (April 10, 2012, 6:58 GMT)

I think that if there is not enough conclusive evidence to overturn that the original decision should stand. I saw the replays an i cant tell that he hit it, i can't tell that he didn't hit it. Nothing else but bat was in the area and if the onfield umpire thought he heard/saw something then it should be out. You dont always see deflections on thin edges. He really took his time before giving it and the appeals were spontaneous.

Posted by jmcilhinney on (April 10, 2012, 5:33 GMT)

@Mad_Hamish, interesting. I do wish I'd seen it first hand. I'm quite sure that the third umpire would use such compound evidence where many viewers would not. Assuming what you say is true, bravo to the third umpire. It's simple logic.

Posted by Meety on (April 10, 2012, 5:32 GMT)

@jmcilhinney - I agree that UDRS should be used with all the technology available. The ICC makes plenty of money, it should subsidise the costs for the less financially sound Boards. As for the Clarke decision, it is not so much about comparing the individual incidences (Clarke v Dilshan), it is more about whether the decision was right. In this instance, the replays IMO suggested he did not hit the ball. In the end unless we have 3rd umpires locked away in the UAE or wherever the ICC calls home & they monitor matches remotely, there will always be more individual interpretation required the less technology is used for a 3rd umpire. I have no worries with "half ball" interpretations, but IMO if it is that close, the side that "loses" in the review process - should not lose a review.

Posted by ReverseSweepIndia on (April 10, 2012, 5:14 GMT)

@jmcilhinney, you have asked a question about the thing which you have answered yourself. DRS is poor. Its not the technology, but its implementation. Quoting you "but the 3rd umpire probably shouldn't have overruled the original decision". Now this PROBABLY is bone of all the issue with this DRS system. How come Dilshan given out while Clark not? Again quoting you "You can't please all of the people all of the time". If there are going to be decisions like this, more people are not going to be happy.

Posted by caughtatcover on (April 10, 2012, 4:24 GMT)

I have admired Watson's talent all throughout his patchy career..however he seems to be very fragile in his mind and its a worrisome pattern which seems to affect his desision making (getting other batsmen run-out) and his own shot selection (getting himself out)..he needs to concentrate harder and try to put his mind over matter if we would like to convert his and his team's starts to something more substantial..

Posted by sanghvir on (April 10, 2012, 3:43 GMT)

How is the DRS use full if there is no snicko or hotspot?? Is it to be used only for LBWs.

Posted by satish619chandar on (April 10, 2012, 3:27 GMT)

DRS.. DRS.. It will always be a talking point unless the third umpires go with the on field decision when no conclusive evidence.. In SL, even when they had decent evidence to overturn for Dilshan, that umpire simply went with Umpire's decision.. Here no clear evidence, but overturned.. Where is the consistency ICC? What are the rules actually and how they are going to be implemented..

Posted by rienzied on (April 10, 2012, 2:49 GMT)

If it is not conclusive , the umpires original verdict should stand. Marais you need to be retrained

Posted by Mad_Hamish on (April 10, 2012, 2:37 GMT)

If you looked at the side on shot of the Clarke review only the very end of the bat was low enough that it could have hit the ball at the time when it went past the bat. The front on view showed that it wasn't near the end of the bat. Then there was a view that seemed to show that the bat came through the ball's path after the ball was already through to the keeper (although it wasn't at a high enough frame rate that it was enough evidence by itself to completely rule out the ball having just tickled the very back of the bat - I'd have said it didn't but by itself not enough to overrule the out decision). With the information that the 3 views provided I think there was enough to overrule

Posted by ZsZs on (April 10, 2012, 2:36 GMT)

Height of ICC Inconsistency - both tests without Hotspot, both on-field umpiring calls OUT - Caught.

SL v ENG test 2 35.1 53.5 mph, Appeal for a catch at slip, given but Dilshan reviews it, turning in from outside off, gets forward and tries to defend, replays are not conclusive, the bat hits the ground and the ball goes off the pads towards slip, there is no definite evidence of an inside edge, Dilshan reviewed it immediately, was there a slight contact with the bat after the ball struck the pad? The replays can't prove anything. There's no Hot Spot. You just can't be definite. England were confident, they went up spontaneously. In the absence of Hot Spot, it's really hard to tell. The third umpire is trying every possible angle. The original decision is upheld. But since the on-field umpire had given it out, the third umpire didn't have conclusive evidence that he didn't hit it! There was no conclusive evidence that he did either! Tricky situation, but a decision's been made and Dilshan has to walk back 104/3

WI v AUS 35.1 Bishoo to Clarke, no run, That's a shooter, Clarke is given out caught at the wicket, and he has reviewed it immediately. This ball is a long hop but hardly leaves the ground. This is pitched off. Clarke goes for the cut, Baugh does really well to catch it. Tony Hill thinks and thinks before raising the finger. Clarke immediately makes the T sign. Replays show no deviation, but is that enough under the DRS? I don't think he has edged it, but I don't see enough conclusive evidence to overturn the call. No Hot Spot or Snicko in place. This is where DRS is a bit impotent. Long discussion on. And they have reversed it. West Indies don't like it. They don't see enough evidence to conclusively say the on-field umpire was wrong

Posted by jmcilhinney on (April 10, 2012, 2:28 GMT)

I don't necessarily agree with Stefan Edwards that DRS should not be used at all without HotSpot, but there certainly needs to be apparent consistency in the use of the tools that are available. I didn't see Clarke's let-off but, from what I've read, it seems like he probably didn't but the 3rd umpire probably shouldn't have overruled the original decision. If there was no clear evidence to overturn the recent decision against Dilshan in SL then it sounds like there was no more clear evidence in this case. It's funny though how some people complain about the deficiencies in the DRS technologies and then as soon as they're not there then (not necessarily those same) people complain about that. You can't please all of the people all of the time. Also, I kind of object to saying that ball-tracking "confirmed" that the ball would have hit the stumps. It's more a case of "suggested" or "indicated", which is exactly why the "half ball, half stump" margin is used.

Posted by Slobberdog on (April 10, 2012, 1:58 GMT)

Graeme Wood's title of Run Out King is under threat here. And once again, Watson makes a start and fails to go on with it. Wild theory, but maybe this guy has a concentration problem.

Posted by   on (April 9, 2012, 22:01 GMT)

I just came from cricket. It was a tight days play. Sammy captained well and the guys have jelled with him. All that is needed is more self belief by all of the players.

Posted by   on (April 9, 2012, 21:52 GMT)

They should not use DRS if there is no hotspot. How do they expect consistency in decision making if part of the requisite technology is missing?

Comments have now been closed for this article

Email Feedback Print
Daniel BrettigClose
Daniel Brettig Assistant editor Daniel Brettig had been a journalist for eight years when he joined ESPNcricinfo, but his fascination with cricket dates back to the early 1990s, when his dad helped him sneak into the family lounge room to watch the end of day-night World Series matches well past bedtime. Unapologetically passionate about indie music and the South Australian Redbacks, Daniel's chief cricketing achievement was to dismiss Wisden Almanack editor Lawrence Booth in the 2010 Ashes press match in Perth - a rare Australian victory that summer.
Tour Results
West Indies v Australia at Roseau - Apr 23-27, 2012
Australia won by 75 runs
West Indies v Australia at Port of Spain - Apr 15-19, 2012
Match drawn
West Indies v Australia at Bridgetown - Apr 7-11, 2012
Australia won by 3 wickets
WICB Pres XI v Australians at Cave Hill - Apr 2-4, 2012
Australians won by 8 wickets
West Indies v Australia at Bridgetown - Mar 30, 2012
West Indies won by 14 runs
More results »
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days