Ashes 2013
When a gamble goes badly wrong
July 12th
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 116th
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment