Root plays adagio with the bat
Malcom Knox praises Joe Root for his technically adept innings in the Sydney Morning Herald, while John Townsend defends Ian Bell's decision to stand his ground in the Independent
ESPNcricinfo staff
21-Jul-2013
With a near unassailable lead of 566 runs, England have nearly shut Australia out of the Lord's Test. The highlight of their performance on the third day was Joe Root's maiden Test hundred as an opener. In his column for the Sydney Morning Herald, Malcolm Knox praises Root for his technically adept innings.
His century was a lesson in the tempo of Test match batting, much like Murali Vijay's had been in India. Admired, yes. Heeded? We'll see. The Australians would prefer other teachers.
John Townsend, in the Independent defends Ian Bell, who chose to stand his ground after Steve Smith claimed a catch off Ryan Harris' bowling. Townsend says Bell's actions are similar to what most Australian batsmen would have done in the same situation.
Former Australia coach John Buchanan made it a team rule some years ago that no batsman should walk on a low catch, even an obvious one, because the likelihood of the video confirming the capture was virtually non-existent. Some players were uncomfortable with the policy but none doubted its rationale. Bell has adopted the Australian way, just as he took to sledging when he first played in Australia a decade ago.
On the topic of Bell's review, Mike Selvey in the Guardian says that players and umpires are now increasingly reluctant to trust their instincts, given the presence of technology.
The flaw in the system is in the technology, which, in two dimensions, almost unfailingly suggests that any catch taken low to the ground has been grassed: this to the extent that batsmen have been known to stand their ground even for what should have been a non-debatable low catch, forcing umpires to check the replay and getting the predictable inconclusive result.
In the Courier Mail, Malcom Conn ponders on Australia's batting failure in the first innings and wonders if this is the lost batting generation.
It is almost two years since the Argus report turned Australian cricket on its head following the last Ashes debacle in Australia. The detailed report made all manner of structural changes and attempted to create an incentive based payment system but it could do absolutely nothing about the country's dearth of batting talent. It brings to mind an analogy about deckchairs and the Titanic.
Ed Smith, writing for New Statesman, talks about how the topsy-turvy nature of the first Investec Test reignited his love for the game, especially after he recently retired as a county professional. The ebb and flow highlighted the beauty of Test cricket, and how he now perceives the game.
A few years ago, I took part in a BBC Radio 3 debate called "Sport v the Arts". With a foot in both camps, I intended to avoid predictable advocacy. I was dragged off the fence when the classical scholar Edith Hall said, "There are only two narratives in sport: win or lose. How boring." Compare this to how we felt after Trent Bridge. Elation, certainly, but leavened by relief. A hint of regret, too, that we got the ending we wanted at the expense of a story that would have been rarer and more memorable. Sympathy for the players, who can give so much and still end up "losers", if that is the right term. Thankfulness for the depth of their investment in the occasion. Above all, anticipation, the prospect of the future adding to the intoxication of the present.