A Wonderful Fightback Stained by Another Unnecessary Controversy

 

 

Ashes 2013

 

When a gamble goes badly wrong

 

July 12^th

 

 

Yesterday we had the controversy of the non-dismissal of Agar and the dismissals that may (or may not) have been incorrectly given of Root and, particularly, Trott. Geoff Boycott feels that the Agar dismissal was a clear error by the TV umpire, others are not so sure: if it was an error, it was marginal. The Trott decision has polarised opinion with fans from one side saying that he was clearly out and fans from the other side saying that it was a clear error to overturn the “not out” decision (Curiously, on the audio feed that broadcasters hear – but not the public – Aleem Dar is heard asking the TV umpire if he had not heard the sound of an edge on being told that he had to reverse the decision).

Today though we have had something infinitely worse because later, depending on the final result, it may be seen as a series-changing moment.

England were fighting hard and, every time they got to parity and you felt that they were edging ahead, Australia came back with a wicket. At 121-2 England were clearly getting on top. At 131-4 Australia had seized back the advantage. One more wicket and England were, most likely, doomed to defeat. At 150-4 a small partnership was starting to build; Pattinson hit Jonny Bairstow in front and, when the appeal was turned down, for some reason Michael Clarke gambled his second and final review. The ball was swinging well down leg. The review was, at best, highly speculative, as if Clarke was desperate to make something happen somehow and, suddenly, Australia were reviewless.

At the time, it did not look like an expensive wasted review because Bairstow fell fairly soon afterwards, just after Ian Bell had gained a reprieve with a successful review (he showed Michael Clarke how to use your reviews judiciously). Once again, just as it looked as if England might be fighting their way out of trouble, a wicket fell. At 174-5 England were again on the slide and when Prior fell at 218, even the most optimistic England fans were thinking in terms of setting a target of 160-180 at best.

Had Michael Clarke had a review left, Stuart Broad would, most likely, have been dismissed on 1 and what happened later would not have happened. In fact, England would almost certainly have folded quickly. He did not and Broad started, slowly, to gain confidence and help Bell push up the lead. The lead passed 200 and was beginning to grow alarmingly. Australia were clearly fretting, as England had when Ashton Agar had held them up the previous day. There were several near misses: catches, a run out, a warning to the batsmen for running on the pitch, … Agar bowled the last ball of the 116^th over with Broad on 37 and England 297-6, 232 ahead and nearing a position of real strength. Broad got a thick edge that probably should have been caught by Haddin, but deflected off his leg to Clarke, at slip, who pocketed it gleefully. Broad stood his ground and Aleem Dar shook his head.

Broad was within his rights to stay at the crease and probably could not believe his luck. For Australia it was an unbelievable decision and an incredible frustration but, had Clarke not used his reviews speculatively earlier, it would have been quickly overturned.

Should Broad have walked? Despite the moralist outpourings, very few batsmen, if any, walk if they think that they can get away with it. Why should Broad be different? If Broad is a cheat – as undoubtedly he will be labelled by some disgruntled fans – how does that make him any different to any other batsman who is not a walker and knows that he has nicked it?

The long and the short of it is that the score at the Close is 326-6. The ball is 53 overs old. The bowlers are visible tiring. Bell is 95 and Broad 47 and the lead 261. If the lead reaches 300 it is very hard to see Australia saving the Test.

If England win narrowly, Australia will point, with some justification, to the Broad let-off as having cost them the match.

It is possible, but far from certain, that England could have defended 200. A target of 250 was going to be a tough one and not too many people would back Australia to chase 280 unless someone makes a big score.

Tomorrow, Australia will have to show how much character they have. Can they channel their disappointment and aggression effectively, or will they give away cheap runs the way that England did against Agar?

And Broad and Bell have a real test of character. Both are likely to get a lot of verbals in the morning. If Bell can reach his century and bat on and Broad can get his first fifty for thirteen Tests and keep his concentration, the can bat Australia out of the match. Should a wicket fall quickly, it is vital that Swann, a competent batsman with four First Class centuries to his name, make sure that he does not give his wicket away cheaply.

Australia, in contrast, will want to take these last four wickets for twenty in the morning and get some momentum and, certainly, will not want to see the lead pass 300 at any cost.

Before play started Geoff Boycott said that if England could bat all day, then they would win. It is not that clear, but it is England who are clear favourites now.