Contrasting captains

 

 

Ashes 2013

 

A Tale of Two Captains

 

July 16^th

 

In all the post-mortems about the 1^st Test, there were a couple of details that did not get much mention. All through the winter Australian fans were saying that Alistair Cook was doing fine as captain, but how would he react when put under real pressure? The suggestion was that Australia would have a big advantage having the experienced Clarke against the untried Cook. Well, now we know. In the critical moments Cook kept a cool head. Whereas Clarke used his DRS reviews poorly and has admitted that he was outmanoeuvred, Cook’s reviews were spot on. Cook made just 4 reviews in the Test, 3 of which were successful. In contrast, Clarke made 9 reviews, just 2 of which were successful and, the ICC assessment was that one of those two successful reviews – the Trott lbw – should have been rejected too, giving Clarke just 1 out of 9.

Alistair Cook also took a couple of excellent catches when the pressure was on that final morning. He was calmness personified in the field as Australia threatened to reach their target and showed a ruthless streak by refusing to use Steve Finn because he did not feel confident in his bowling.

Another small detail that was easy to overlook was the pressure that Cook exerted in the field after lunch, as Australia tried to get over the line. Graeme Swann did not have a vintage Test – the wicket did not really suit him and Australia decided back in the last Ashes series not to let him settle and to attack him – but his final over was a good one, including one inside edge that almost got through and another false shot, not giving the batsmen anything to get the scoreboard ticking over again. Similarly, in Jimmy Anderson’s over when the final wicket fell there was two great stops, one by Ian Bell from a shot that looked to be four off the bat and another from Jonny Bairstow where the batsmen thought that they had a comfortable single available and suddenly Haddin found himself scrambling back to avoid a potential runout. The next ball was a dot ball with Haddin defending a little awkwardly. Those balls ratcheted up the pressure on Haddin, who was set up to flash at the next ball to try to relieve the pressure a little. Haddin watches carefully the flight of the ball through to Matt Prior, his neck twisting fast as he feels the nick. Prior reacts quickly and his look of elation as he raises the ball is obvious, with Haddin still watching Prior intently as he rises.

Watching the images again, the change in position of the HotSpot mark on the ball as Haddin plays is quite obvious on the replay – the initial mark, presumably from a slight contact with the pad flap as the bat appears on the HotSpot image, threw the commentators badly; it is the second mark that was caused by the edge. Snicko then shows a classic signal just as the ball passes the edge, with the bat well off the ground and away from the body, to ensure that there was no possible doubt where the sound came from.

As players and fans digest the lessons of the first Test, there are further shock waves from previous events. Mickey Arthur has decided to sue the Australian Cricket Board for $AU 4 million compensation over his sacking and has made a series of revelations and accusations. Apart from pointing out that the David Warner incident might not have come to light without a tip-off from Shane Watson, he revealed that the relationship between Watson and Clarke is very poor. It is hardly the sort of news that Michael Clarke would have asked for between back-to-back Tests. However, 12000 miles and a 10 hour time difference do help insulate the side from new ructions, even if this is yet another unwanted distraction for the players.

One of the more interesting and potentially alarming complaints though, made by Mickey Arthur, is the one that he felt discriminated against for not being Australian; some Australian fans had already remarked on his sacking that he could never be a good coach for Australia because he is not Australian. When there is institutional insularity – no one can teach us anything – it tends to lead to mediocrity. England’s rise from that mediocrity started when Duncan Fletcher was brought in as coach and, after an unsuccessful English interlude under Peter Moores, has continued under another foreign coach in Andy Flower. Similarly, India, although initially struggling with results under Duncan Fletcher are, now, very much on the rise again.

One person who may no longer be on the rise, is David Warner. Sent to South Africa with the “A” squad, he will miss the 2^nd Test and the match v Sussex between the 2^nd and the 3^rd Test. The implication is that unless he makes big runs in South Africa, his chances of a return, which cannot now be before the 4^th Test, are very slim indeed. Warner, his place as an opener gone, will bat at #4 in South Africa, with a view to batting at #6 if he returns to the Test side at some point in the future.

First Test Reflections

 

 

Ashes 2013

 

Concerns for Both Teams

 

July 15^th

 

In the aftermath of five days of intense drama, both sides have a couple of days and only a couple of days to reflect as the 2^nd Test starts at Lords on Thursday. Fans too have launched intense post-mortems on the result, the state of the teams and, in particular, the umpiring and the effect of DRS.

There was some concern, bordering on horror, that the result was determined based on a DRS overrule. Some fans have suggested that Australia were robbed by a marginal decision, made almost on a whim. Certainly it did not help that there was a faint mark on HotSpot before the ball passed the bat. However, looking carefully at the images (they are freely available on the ECB UTube page) you see various details, some of which were missed at the time:

1.       There was a small, but significant deflection as the ball passed the bat.

2.       Brad Haddin looked back immediately as the ball passed the bat (the “guilty look”)

3.       The HotSpot mark moved quite clearly as the ball passed the bat. It looks as if the bat may have brushed the pad as Haddin played the ball, causing an initial mark by the face of the bat that faded rapidly. The ball then brushed the back edge of the bat, causing a second mark, displaced slightly with respect to the initial mark. The jump in position is quite clear.

4.       There was a strong signal on Snicko as the ball passed the bat.

5.       The TV umpire could hear the edge on the TV feed and confirmed to the on-field umpire that he heard a sound.
 

When you add together all the individual items it really is quite hard to see how anyone could call the decision marginal, except in the sense that it was a very fine edge to an excellent ball that beat Brad Haddin all ends up and that could have gone anywhere for all the batsman knew of the ball.

Just like Stuart Broad on Friday, Brad Haddin must have known that he had hit the ball but, such was the match position, with the last pair getting so close, no batsman in the world would have walked. Haddin hoped against hope that, like Broad, he would get away with it. The difference is that England still had both reviews left (something that Aleem Dar also knew and had the luxury of not having to take a risk on deciding the match with an error if not absolutely certain that Haddin was out), whereas Michael Clarke had burnt both his on poor reviews.

How you read the match depends on your point of view. Australian fans will point out that they showed that they could compete and got very close indeed to a win against the odds. They will also point out that, of the England attack, only Jimmy Anderson troubled them and that the England attack twice struggled to knock over the Australian #11 and that the England top order struggled against their bowlers.

England supporters will point out that however, their own top 6 struggled, the Australians collapsed badly twice and were bailed out by the 10^th wicket in both innings. Consider the score at the fall of the 6^th wicket in each innings:

	1st innings	2nd innings
England	180	218
Australia	113	164

In both innings England obtained a far better return from their batsmen than Australia: 67 in the first innings and 54 in the second innings. That is 121 extra runs that had to be made up by the tail.

Whereas two years ago it was England who were getting large numbers of bonus runs from the tail, now Australia can fairly claim to have the strongest 8, 9, 10, Jack in world cricket. However, at Trent Bridge, even the powerful lower order could not compensate the failure of the specialists. It is likely that, at Lords, England will change a batting rabbit (Steve Finn), for a competent #8 (Tim Bresnan), who could well push Graeme Swann, with his four First Class centuries, down to #10, thus reducing significantly Australia’s advantage in this department.

At the same time, while England will be concerned that they allowed the last wicket to put up partnerships of 164 and 65, Australia should be seriously concerned that their top order batting was so lightweight twice. There is some justification for England, rather less for Australia. In the first innings,  England were seriously handicapped by absence of Stuart Broad suffering the aftereffects of the blow on his shoulder, who could not bowl until the rest of the attack was exhausted. In the second innings England were again reduced to effectively a three-man attack by the poor performance of Steve Finn who, when used briefly, threatened to lose the match in a single spell. At Lords it is essential that England have four effective bowlers who are completely fit because they may not get away with playing a three-man attack again. Similarly, Australia may not get away with relying on tail-end runs if England have what is effectively an extra bowler, allowing them to maintain their threat even when the tail is in.

In 2005, England took strength from having competed hard in the 1^st Test to win, just, in the 2^nd Test at Edgbaston. Will Australia follow a similar course, or will England take the warning and be more clinical?

Again there is a parallel with 2005: had Glenn McGrath not injured himself stepping on a stray ball in the warm-up for the that Edgbaston Test, could England have won? Probably not! Imagine the effect if Jimmy Anderson’s “touch of cramp” on Sunday were actually a muscle pull that rules him out of the 2^nd Test: would England still be favourites to win?

First Blow to England

 

 

Ashes 2013

 

England Ready to Strike the First Blow

 

July 14^th

 

[09:30 CEST] History shows that winning the 1^st Test in an Ashes series does not mean winning the series, but it never hurts and you felt that the 1^st Test was the place for Australia to make a stand. This has been an incredibly hard, combative Test, but it looks like Australia’s best efforts are going to fall just short. This was a feature of England’s play during their best run in recent times in 2003/05: they would have bad session, a bad day, but still more often than not find a way of winning and, just when you thought that the opposition was on top, would stretch away. A feature of that side was that when most needed someone would also make a match-winning, or match-saving contribution.

We saw that again last night. Australia were close to closing with just three down and going into the final morning strong favourites. Graeme Swann, who has still not had much bowling this summer after his winter operation, his activity limited by injuries, had not been allowed to settle and had looked ineffective, took advantage of the opening created by Stuart Broad and landed two hammer blows.

Haddin and Agar are capable of getting Australia across the line on their own but, surely, Agar cannot repeat his first innings heroics. However, after bowling well and only just missing his century, he must believe that he can walk on water. Agar is the thirteenth spinner to be tried since Shane Warne retired – yes, that is 13 – it could be lucky 13 for Australia.

[10:50 CEST] Just over an hour to go. Michael Clarke thinks that Australia could win this by 4 wickets just after lunch. It is cloudy and seriously humid and the new ball is just 9 overs away, with the prospect of big swing available. You have to think that, if England do not strike in the first hour, Australia will be favourites and, if the match goes beyond lunch, Australia will win.

There are a lot of comparisons with Edgbaston 2005, when Australia went into the last day needing 107 to win, but with only two wickets left. They only lost that match by 2 runs and to a catch that many Australian fans still dispute as being a glaring mistake by the umpire. Here, Australia’s position is clearly better than in that match, which is still known as the best ever Test.

[11:55 CEST] Jerusalem live, although the version seems a little wimpy. I like to hear Jerusalem sung in a more full-blooded way. Agar survives the first over. Here we go.

[13:35 CEST] Lunch. What was that about Edgbaston 2005? Australia are inching their way to victory with an amazing last wicket partnership. 20 needed. 60 put on already. Surely Australia cannot do it?

[15:23 CEST] 15 to win. Anderson bowls. Haddin flashes. Nervous look behind. Appeal. NOT OUT! Review! Tiny mark on HotSpot. Marais Eramus says “there’s HotSpot”. Then “there’s audio” (Jonathon Agnew relaying the conversation). Then he tells Aleem Dar to lift the finger. ENGLAND WIN BY 14! Then, shortly afterwards, Snicko confirms that there was a sound as the ball passed the bat. Good decision.

Who said “remember Edgbaston 2005”?

I suspect that that may have been Australia’s best chance of catching England cold. Without doubt Steve Finn will be replaced for the 2^nd Test and there will be fewer cheap runs available for Australia.

Unexpected Hero

 

 

Ashes 2013

 

The Australians Learn to Respect Ian Bell

 

July 13^th

 

[10:15 CEST] It is not easy for an Australian to respect Ian Bell as a batsman. In fact, it is not easy for an Englishman to respect him as a batsman. When England lose, you can guarantee that if it is not KP’s fault, it will be Ian Bell’s. Australian images of him are marked by the 2005 series when, despite two brave 50s in the Third Test he looked out of his depth. It was not until his 18^th Test v Australia that he finally scored a century, despite having reached 50 nineteen times against them. “If he is batting at #5, just label it #4a on the scorecard because he won’t be around long enough to bother us” is a standard Australian way of looking at him.

Yesterday England desperately needed a century from someone. Even a pair of 80s were not going to be enough you thought.  It was a situation ready made for Alistair Cook, or for Joe Root to make himself a legend, or Jonathon Trott, or Kevin Pietersen, or for Matt Prior to show why sides fear him. But, as the wickets tumbled, it was Ian Bell, probably the last person who most fans would consider for the role of hero who held firm, who made the smart choices with reviews with others squandered them foolishly and who was still there at the Close, just short of only his second Test century against Australia. Bell’s last century against Australia was in the Final Test in 2010/11 at Sydney. Right now, his run is 7x50 and 1x100 in his last ten Tests against Australia; if that overnight 95* becomes 130*, surely England will win.

Yesterday there was a lot of speculation what score Australia thought that they could chase successfully. There was a feeling that they hoped to keep the target below 200: that though is long gone and to limit it to 250 would require a massive England collapse. Most people seem to think that 280 is about the limit and, should England push past a 300 lead, then the game is up.

We will know soon…

 

[1200 CEST] How will Australia react? Mitchel Starc starts with a beamer that has Michael Clarke diving for cover at first slip and went away for 5 No Balls, followed by a full toss that Bell hammered for 4 to go to 99*. It was a dreadful start. Nine off the first two legitimate deliveries of the day. Pattinson opened with a very wide second ball that Broad carved through the slips for a boundary to reach his 50 when he would, most times, have been caught.
 
Are those Australian nerves completely fried? Looks like it. It seems that they are still fighting but, inside, they know that it is probably in vain.

Telling stat for TMS’s Malcolm Ashton:

“In all Test history, teams have successfully chased 300 26 times in Tests out of the 554 times that a target of 300 or more has been set (4.7%). Teams chasing more than 300 have lost 336, drawn 191 and tied once.”

In other words, chasing 300 to win in the fourth innings, of 554 attempts:

• 4.7% of sides have won
• 34.5% of sides have drawn
• 60.6% of sides have lost

Even though England collapsed horribly from 356-6 to 375, Australia have been set a massive task.

[00:35CEST] A late clatter of wickets has revived England when the match seemed to be slipping away from them. At 161-3 the bookies had Australia favourites for the first time and England needed a wicket before the Close to stay in with a chance. That three wickets fell for three runs was bounty indeed. At 174-6 Australia need 137 more and, with Haddin and the wunderkind Agar at the crease, have two batsmen who can make them but, if England take a wicket in the first half hour you would have to think that it is finally curtains for Australia barring a spectacular final twist.

There was even a weird DRS drama where Michael Clarke edged through to the ‘keeper, did not walk (why should he?) and then referred the decision. HotSpot sent him on his way but, some people have speculated that his may have been a sporting gesture to deflect criticism from Stuart Broad. If it was, it was unusually generous because Australia are, once again, without reviews, while England retain both theirs: if the situation gets tight in the morning, judicious use of reviews may be the difference between defeat and victory.

Whatever happens now, this Test has had enough twists and turns for an entire series and it is just the first of ten Tests between these oldest of rivals. Maybe we will be tired of them in six months time but, right now, they are providing stupendous entertainment.

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.

Fouling Up Technology... again!

 

 

Ashes 2013

 

Using Technology Badly… Again!

 

July 12^th

 

[08:45 CEST] What is needed today is a day of sensible batting. Nothing more, nothing less. Yesterday, the majority opinion seems to be that England lost their heads under pressure. In similar circumstances most sides would have struggled to cope, particularly a side that had only two seamers available (remember Australia at Headingley in 1981?) However, with parity established and two increasingly well-set batsmen at the crease, it is quite reasonable to expect them to dig in for a large partnership. Certainly, were Cook and Pietersen still together at lunch, the pressure would be very much on the Australians.

Yesterday the headlines were for with Ashton Agar’s astonishing performance. He looked so promising in India that you wondered if he might not get a game with the series lost. Certainly he has made one of the more remarkable debuts in recent Test history. Poor Nathan Lyon! Having seen off the challenge of Fawad Ahmed he must have expected a free run this summer with only a nineteen year old as a rival; now he must be wondering if he will play at all in this series. However, as Agar so far has managed 16-4-53-0 in his day job against a side perceived to be vulnerable to left arm bowling, the Lyon may yet obtain a reprieve.

On a less welcome note, the fact that DRS – or rather, poor use of DRS – has been in the spotlight again has soured things a little. To have two very marginal decisions in consecutive balls was unfortunate. On another day, both might have gone in favour of the batsman. Yesterday, both went to the bowler. Add to it that these came after a very tight stumping appeal went against England that would have given them a lead of around 80 just added to the frustration. To have the side-on hotspot view not available because the frame was being held-over from the previous ball, which Root had not reviewed (had he done so the decision might well have been reversed), meant that the TV umpire was being asked to overturn a decision without being able to review all the evidence. DRS is not supposed to be used to judge highly marginal decisions where the human factor is far more important than the technology because it is a human who is deciding what constitutes proof.

The way that the question is phrased also tends to be critical. Take the Ashton Agar stumping early in his innings:

1.       Was there any evidence that any part of Ashton Agar’s foot was behind the line in the stumping appeal when he was on 6? Answer: No. He was out!

2.       Was there enough evidence that Ashton Agar was out of his ground to be able to give him out? Answer: No. He was not out!

Question 1 is being used by England fans to say that an injustice was done and that he should have been given out. Question 2 is being used by the Australian fans to say that the decision was correct.

If, with the available technology, you simply cannot tell clearly, then there should be only one decision: Not Out!

Line decisions were not designed to be decided with millimetres in mind. Thirty years ago players were  satisfied that if there were six inches (15 centimetres) either way, that was reasonable doubt to the naked eye. Now though we are getting to levels of application of line decisions where the thickness of the chalk line and the way that it is marked and any irregularities in the marking are now the difference between a batsman being in or out or a wicket being legitimate or being ruled not out because of a no ball.

In the Trott decision, the umpire believed that there was an inside edge. The decision was overturned because the TV umpire could see no proof of one. However, there was also no proof that there was no edge (no side-on Hotspot available) so he should have applied the same criterion: in the absence of proof that the batsman was out, it should have been not out.

Since that decision was made I have seen both claims that it was definitely an error (Trott hit the ball, there was a big deflection, end of story) and that the decision was correct (no evidence of an edge from snicko, or from TV replays). That is what happens when human judgement gets involved.

All that DRS needs is some common sense in its application. It makes no sense at all to use technology and then apply it in such a way that it re-introduces the factor of human error. If there is significant doubt, the batsman should benefit… the problem is that it is a human that has to decide what constitutes “significant doubt”.

Of course, the fact that there has been a subsequent ICC apology for Marais Erasmus not following procedure correctly in overturning the Trott dismissal has done nothing to make things better.

A mad mad mad mad day

 

 

Ashes 2013

 

Crazy Cricket

 

July 11^th

 

If you have predicted today’s action you deserve to be locked up as a sorcerer. The day started even, with England knowing that a quick breakthrough could see their disappointing innings of 215 turned into an unexpected 1^st innings lead. They did not get one, they took five wickets for nine runs after Australia had negotiated the first seven overs of the day and passed one hundred, seemingly climbing towards a position of solidity, if not superiority. At 117-9 England were surely thinking of a lead close to one hundred, but with Stuart Broad so impeded in his movement after the blow from James Pattison yesterday that he was not risked, the Australian last wicket pair first wore down the attack and then started to dismember it. Finally, it was Stuart Broad who finally removed the #11, but only after a healthy lead of 65 had been established; by that time people were wondering if, after Lunch was delayed half an hour as nine wickets were down, Tea would be similarly delayed.

Even many England fans would not have begrudged Ashton Agar the extra two runs that he needed to become the first centurion at #11. Thrilling stuff, scored at almost a run a ball and with genuine strokeplay. There were multiple “what ifs”: what if Alistair Cook had set more attacking fields (at least one edge went straight to the inexistent second slip)? What if England had had Stuart Broad fit to spell Finn and Anderson earlier? What if Steve Finn had pitched the ball up a bit instead of trying to bounce out the debutant? What if Marais Erasmus had given Agar out, stumped, on 6 to leave Australia 131 all out?

Australian fans will – and have – pointed out that England have conceded two record scores to #11 bats in little more than a year, which puts their much-vaunted attack in context. However, this begs the question of how it is that Australia came to depend on a #11 to bail them out and top score in the first place: the Australian top four contributed just 29 runs between them. The truth is that neither side can be too satisfied with events.

England had even less cause to be satisfied when, having got themselves into a mess, they suffered one of those accidents that always seem to happen to sides that have got themselves into a mess. After Joe Root got a fine deflection behind – would Nick Compton have managed more than his 30 and 5 as an opener? – Jonathon Trott was given out LBW first ball, after a review, when the umpire and batsman were convinced that there had been a large inside edge and the TV images showed a big deflection. However, in yet another episode that will (unfairly) give DRS a bad name, the side on HotSpot had no image because Sky had held over the image of the previous ball of Root’s dismissal. Having given Agar the benefit of the doubt – no one can have any real complaints because it was so close that there was doubt – Erasmus overruled Aleem Dar’s not-out decision when one could easily argue that there was as much doubt as in the Agar decision. Aleem Dar’s reaction was eloquent – he could not believe the overrule – but England should know by now that when it is not your day, rough decisions can and will happen; they should never have allowed Australia to get to 150, let alone to 280 and left themselves exposed to such a risk.

Incidents like this make people state, totally incorrectly, that they show how unreliable DRS is. It is a specious argument. DRS is far more reliable than any human umpire and far less susceptible to influence, but it needs to be used properly: unfortunately, often it is not. It is supposed to correct serious errors, not to scrutinise marginal decisions.

However, Alistair Cook and Kevin Pietersen have held firm up to the Close from a decidedly unpleasant 11-2 and, at 80-2, England are effectively 15-2 and know that if this partnership can prosper in the morning, they could turn the screw against tiring bowlers. Although the runrate was low, it was to a large degree determined by the fact that a lot of the bowling was very wide and could be left with impunity. With Graeme Swann managing big turn with the ball that bowled Haddin and Australia full of left-handers, a chase of 250 may turn into an extremely tough ask on a pitch that is beginning to deteriorate. They also know that despite the last wicket partnership, their top seven hardly filled themselves with glory in the 1^st innings.

Australia’s day, but by a very odd route.