It will require the services of a cricket historian to determine when Australia last batted as woefully as this. Many Australian supporters will neither know nor care. It will be enough merely to condemn the sheer awfulness of their batting performance in the second Investec Test.
England were serviceable in the field, Australia were simply dreadful with the bat. This was an opportunity to bat themselves into a winning position, the occasional sign of sharp turn for Graeme Swann notwithstanding. Instead, they floundered, dismissed in only 53.3 overs. Nothing in their three innings defeats against England in 2010-11 felt as bad as this.
Just as bafflingly, England then tossed away three wickets of their own, all three to Peter Siddle with the new ball. This pitch is dryer than normally seen at Lord's but in the first two days it has essentially been a batsman's surface. But in 20 overs to the close, Alastair Cook and Jonathan Trott both dragged on and Kevin Pietersen gifted a catch to point. England lead by 264.
Australia's dismissals variously revealed frailties of temperament, technique and team ethic. Swann was the chief beneficiary with five wickets and, as ably as he bowled, if he claims he worked hard for it, he will be playing it for laughs. As for Darren Lehmann, Australia's new coach, he now knows the size of the job.
Australia 128 53.3 overs
England 361 (Bell 109, Bairstow 67, Trott 58, Harris 5-72) lead Australia 128 (Swann 5-44) by 233 runs
It will require the services of a cricket historian to determine when Australia last batted as woefully as this. Many Australian supporters will neither know nor care. It will be enough merely to condemn the sheer awfulness of their batting performance in the second Investec Test.
England were serviceable, Australia were simply dreadful. This was an opportunity to bat themselves into a winning position on a flat pitch, the occasional sign of sharp turn for Graeme Swann notwithstanding. Instead, they were simply dreadful. In their run of five successive Test defeats, they have surely never produced anything remotely as bad as this.
Australia were dismissed in only 53.3 overs, their dismissals variously revealing frailties of temperament, technique and team ethic. Swann was the chief beneficiary with five wickets, and as ably as he bowled, if he claims he worked hard for it, he will be playing it for laughs. If Darren Lehmann, Australia's new coach, did not realise it before, he now knows the size of the job.
Ryan Harris, the last man out, must have been beside himself with fury. He had bowled with huge skill and resolve to give Australia the chance to take control of the Lord's Test and then witnessed a shambolic batting performance which handed control back to England with staggering carelessness.
Ryan Harris, hidden from view in Australia's dressing room, must have been beside himself with fury. He had bowled with huge skill and resolve to give Australia the chance to take control of the Lord's Test and then witnessed a shambolic batting performance which handed control back to England with staggering carelessness
Harris put himself on the honours board before lunch with his return of 5 for 72, but Australia's top order undermined his efforts with their own list of shame. Harris had reduced England to 28 for 3 on the first morning with the attributes developed over a decade as he defied a broken body time and again; Australia stumbled in return to 96 for 7 primarily because of their own negligence.
This was an opportunity for Australia to bat themselves into a winning position on a flat pitch, signs of sharp turn for Graeme Swann notwithstanding. Instead, they were simply dreadful. In their run of five successive Test defeats, they surely never produced anything as bad as this. In fact, it will take cricket historians to find anything worse.
It would be easy for Australia to hide behind another resentful discussion about the Decision Review System and to theorise about its imperfections. It is little more than scapegoating. But if Australia did not make things any easier with their irrational use of DRS, the dominant story should be one of batting incompetence.
Shane Watson's decision to review his plumb lbw decision against Tim Bresnan will rightly leave him open to accusations that he put his ego ahead of team needs, but the cricketing accent should also be on his desire to plant his front pad and work Bresnan through the leg side in the final over before lunch.
In a moment, Australia's self-possession in an opening stand of 42 fell apart. The psychological fallout from his twin error was astonishing.
Chris Rogers will understandable gain sympathy for his dismissal: firstly for a dreadful lbw decision by Marais Erasmus, who was as caught unawares as the batsman when the ball slipped out of Swann's hands and arrived as a loopy, groin-high full toss; secondly because Watson's selfishness left a good team man reluctant to risk Australia's final review.
But that should not preclude an examination of why a such a wise old hand, just the sort of sound accumulator Australia's top order needs, a batsman who must have seen everything over a long career, failed to survive the shock of receiving such a stray delivery.
Phillip Hughes walked off shaking his head, contending that he had not edged Bresnan to the wicketkeeper. Hot Spot was not clear, leaving the TV umpire Tony Hill with no evidence to overturn umpire Kumar Dharmasena's decision; Snicko - unofficial but revealing - more strongly suggested there was a nick and Hughes was just posturing. But that was not rally the point. The emphasis should have been on why Hughes was hacking so wildly at a wide one.
Then fell Usman Khawaja, the replacement for Ed Cowan and a batsman held to be ready for Australia's No. 3 spot by his captain, Michael Clarke. The assertion that he can replace Ricky Ponting might well have put him under extra pressure, and he had already been badly dropped by Jonathan Trott at first slip when he pushed defensively forward to a routine offbreak.
But if he had decided that he must be more assertive, that does not formulate a case for why he lofted Swann so weakly down the ground - not much more than a badly-timed push shot - to be caught out of the sun by Kevin Pietersen, pedalling back from mid-off.
At least Australia's last two batsmen to fall before tea were dismissed in a more approved fashion. Steve Smith was caught off the glove at short leg - Ian Bell having just been moved forward of square by Swann for that very eventuality. There was a bit of extra bounce; a valid explanation. Clarke, a captain who repeatedly finds himself lacking support, pulled Stuart Broad dismissively, but fell lbw in the same over to a near yorker.
There had to be a run out. There were enough indications at Trent Bridge that Brad Haddin and Ashton Agar have no understanding between the wickets. They do not seem to have a different approach as much as a generational divide.
Agar dashed for a single from the non-striker's end when the ball bobbled into the leg-side off Haddin's body, Haddin did not respond to his call, and Matt Prior retrieved quickly and returned the ball to the bowler's end. And this was a subdued Agar, hindered by a hip injury.
All this mayhem on the wicket where Harris had bowled so gamely. England, 289 for 7 overnight, were grateful for an ebullient last-wicket stand of 48 from 40 balls between Broad and Swann, a stand which illustrated both the quality of the pitch and the potential of their late-order hitting.
The perception remained that England were still nearly 100 runs below par - that sums up how bad was the subsequent Australian batting - but the Nottinghamshire pair lifted England's mood.
The chemistry when Broad and Swann bat together can result in rapid run-scoring. A disrespectful shot from one encourages a yet more outrageous shot from the other. It was never more apparent than when they put on 108 in less than 13 overs at Headingley to delay defeat against Australia four years ago.
James Pattinson, so out of sorts that he bowled his 20 overs in nine spells, finally put an end to it when Broad nicked to the keeper. Broad naturally reviewed it and by the time Hot Spot revealed an edge, Australia, to a man, were stood by the Pavilion gate, having had quite enough for one series of watching Broad remain at the crease under false pretences.
"The morning session will be crucial," Harris had growled. And, having growled his warning, he took it upon himself to deal with the matter himself.
His injury-chequered career might suggest he would want time to ease into a spell. Not a bit of it. The new ball was only two overs old and he did not intend to waste it. His first ball left Tim Bresnan off the pitch and Haddin held his first catch of the morning. The nightwatchman, James Anderson, followed.
Anderson's appearance as a nightwatchman for Broad, a No. 9 batsman, had taken the tactic to its extreme. There were logical reasons to try to protect Broad and Swann from the new ball because both are vulnerable batsmen with a sketchy defence but capable nevertheless of bouts of destruction which can shift the momentum of a match.
Lunch Australia 42 for 1 trail England 361 (Bell 109, Bairstow 67, Harris 5-72) by 319 runs
Ryan Harris found his way on to the Lord's honours board as a five-wicket haul pressed home Australia's advantage on the second morning of the second Investec Test. England, 289 for 7 overnight, will have been grateful nevertheless for an additional 72 runs on a pitch that, initially at least, played a little quicker than it had on the opening day.
An ebullient last-wicket stand of 48 from 40 balls between Stuart Broad and Graeme Swann illustrated both the quality of the pitch and the potential of their late-order hitting. England were arguably still nearly 100 runs below par but the Nottinghamshire pair had lifted their mood and kept them in touch in the game.
Australia's chance to go into lunch with a feeling of utter contentment vanished, however, when Shane Watson was trapped lbw by Tim Bresnan, playing across a planted front pad. If Watson's dismissal was disappointing, the waste of a review for such a clear-cut decision bordered on the unprofessional. Australia's approach to DRS continues to be undermined by egotism and a lack of rational analysis.
Things happen when Broad and Swann bat together, a chemistry that can result in rapid run-scoring. A disrespectful shot from one encourages a yet more outrageous shot from the other. It was never more apparent than when they put on 108 in less than 13 overs at Headingley to delay defeat against Australia four years ago.
James Pattinson finally put an end to it when Broad nicked to the keeper. Broad, encouraged by his partner, naturally reviewed it and by the time Hot Spot revealed an edge, Australia, to a man, were stood by the Pavilion gate, having had quite enough for one series of watching Broad remain at the crease under false pretences.
"The morning session will be crucial," Harris had growled at the end of a first day in which his exertions had done so much to give Australia the edge. And, having growled his warning, he took it upon himself to deal with the matter.
One ball was all it took for him to get England's innings moving in the downward direction he had demanded. His injury-chequered career might suggest he would want time to ease into a spell. Not a bit of it. The new ball was only two overs old and he did not intend to waste it. His first ball left Tim Bresnan off the pitch and Brad Haddin held his first catch of the morning.
James Andersons appearance as a nightwatchman for Stuart Broad, a No. 9 batsman, had taken the tactic to its extreme. There were logical reasons to try to protect Broad and Swann from the new ball because both are vulnerable batsmen with a sketchy defence but capable nevertheless of bouts of destruction which can shift the momentum of a match.
Anderson, who survived 4.3 overs on the first evening, much of it no doubt to the sound of muttering from unconvinced onlookers, resisted for a further 4.3 on the resumption before the Harris-Haddin combination again did its worst.
James Pattinson has had problems settling to his first experience of Lord's. He began with a wayward no-ball which trundled through to the keeper and, once again, his captain Michael Clarke withdrew him after two overs. Nine spells to bowl 20 overs was ample illustration of his unease.
The worst dismissal in history?
Worst ball ever of the day
Chris Rogers' ludicrous dismissal has a case for being the worst wicket in Test history. Usually a wicket comes from a combination of excellence and error. Here as many as five people were at fault, and none in credit. Graeme Swann bowled a high full toss; Rogers missed it; Marais Erasmus gave him out even though the ball was missing leg; Rogers then decided not to review after a discussion with Usman Khawaja; he surely would have gone upstairs but for Shane Watson's indulgent waste of Australia's first review before lunch. It was a five-piece farce, but only England were laughing.
You need a lot of confidence in your ability to make it as a professional sportsman. Watson certainly has that. What he doesn't always have is an awareness of the world around him. There were people on double-decker buses on Wellington Road that saw Shane Watson was plumb, but the man himself didn't see it that way. He decided to review the decision. Shockingly to no one at all, it remained out.
Bonnie Tyler wasn't at Lord's, but when Ashton Agar walked out every Australia fan was whispering "I need a hero". Agar's groin and finger injuries so far this series have limited his effectiveness as a bowler, but as a batsman, well, you know. In collapses, kids who didn't take things too seriously and haven't been beaten down by life can often stand up and do well. Instead Brad Haddin refused to run on Agar's call, and Agar almost completed two runs. Australia lost their magical No. 8 for only 2.
Stuart Broad snicked James Pattinson behind to present Haddin with his fifth catch and end the England innings. But the hosts had a review left, and Broad would not have been sufficiently fulfilling his role as Australia's chief agitator if he had not called for it. So the third umpire was summoned, and the replays were forensically examined. Broad stood and waited, as did the umpires. But the Australians were in no mood to continue the charade, and bounded off the field, not waiting for Tony Hill's verdict to be relayed. They seemed in a hurry to start batting, and were equally enthusiastic about ignoring Broad.
Khawaja never once looked comfortable against the spin of Swann, and it was not much of a surprise when on 7 he prodded at an offbreak and snicked straight into the hands of Jonathan Trott at slip. More startling was that, having been offered such a friendly chance, Trott spurned it, the ball slipping to the turf. It was the kind of missed opportunity that good players make a fielding side pay for but, on this day, Khawaja would not prove himself up the task. A mere seven runs later, he advanced with neither conviction nor precision to loft Swann, and succeeded only in popping a skier to mid-off.
The worst dismissal in history?
Worst ball ever of the day
Chris Rogers' ludicrous dismissal has a case for being the worst wicket in Test history. Usually a wicket comes from a combination of excellence and error. Here as many as five people were at fault, and none in credit. Graeme Swann bowled a high full toss; Rogers missed it; Marais Erasmus gave him out even though the ball was missing leg; Rogers then decided not to review after a discussion with Usman Khawaja; he surely would have gone upstairs but for Shane Watson's indulgent waste of Australia's first review before lunch. It was a five-piece farce, but only England were laughing.
Review of the day
You need a lot of confidence in your ability to make it as a professional sportsman. Watson certainly has that. What he doesn't always have is an awareness of the world around him. There were people on double-decker buses on Wellington Road that saw Shane Watson was plumb, but the man himself didn't see it that way. He decided to review the decision. Shockingly to no one at all, it remained out.
Lost savior of the day
Bonnie Tyler wasn't at Lord's, but when Ashton Agar walked out every Australia fan was whispering "I need a hero". Agar's groin and finger injuries so far this series have limited his effectiveness as a bowler, but as a batsman, well, you know. In collapses, kids who didn't take things too seriously and haven't been beaten down by life can often stand up and do well. Instead Brad Haddin refused to run on Agar's call, and Agar almost completed two runs. Australia lost their magical No. 8 for only 2.
Walk of the day
Stuart Broad snicked James Pattinson behind to present Haddin with his fifth catch and end the England innings. But the hosts had a review left, and Broad would not have been sufficiently fulfilling his role as Australia's chief agitator if he had not called for it. So the third umpire was summoned, and the replays were forensically examined. Broad stood and waited, as did the umpires. But the Australians were in no mood to continue the charade, and bounded off the field, not waiting for Tony Hill's verdict to be relayed. They seemed in a hurry to start batting, and were equally enthusiastic about ignoring Broad.
Drop of the day
Khawaja never once looked comfortable against the spin of Swann, and it was not much of a surprise when on 7 he prodded at an offbreak and snicked straight into the hands of Jonathan Trott at slip. More startling was that, having been offered such a friendly chance, Trott spurned it, the ball slipping to the turf. It was the kind of missed opportunity that good players make a fielding side pay for but, on this day, Khawaja would not prove himself up the task. A mere seven runs later, he advanced with neither conviction nor precision to loft Swann, and succeeded only in popping a skier to mid-off.
Watson's a myth as he never learns
Shane Watson's innings was so predictable as to be sad; flattering to deceive then an lbw that was nothing but out yet he still reviewed it
Shane Watson's ESPNcricinfo profile is smiling at me. It shouldn't be. It should be looking sheepish. It should be apologising. It should be trying to show me that he's changed, that he's learnt and that in the future things will get better.
I don't know how you convey that in a picture, but Shane Watson needs to learn it. But Shane Watson doesn't learn, does he.
If he was a learner, he might not put his front foot in the exact same place every single delivery. If he was a learner, he might not continually fail to turn starts into bigger scores. If he was a learner, he would not decide to review decisions based on no actual evidence.
There is no current player in world cricket who should understand the Laws of lbw more than Shane Watson. Shane Watson is a walking lbw against seam bowling. That massive trunk he calls a leg slams down in front of off stump and dares bowlers to hit it. And they do. Even in a game where he goes out in another way, or dominates the attack, they hit his pad repeatedly.
He should know the Laws inside and out. He should, just by feel of where the ball hits him, now know whether he is out or not. I mean his leg never moves, so he's more reliable than the blue stripe on the pitch or any weapon technology that a TV company can pay for. He is the constant.
And yet, he never seems to believe it is even possible for him to be out lbw. This was his sixth review of such a dismissal. That is six times Shane Watson has believed he will overturn the umpire's decision on a form of dismissal that he is out to almost 30% of the time. Does he think his pad is being picked on, or does he really just not understand the Laws of the game?
Or is it the playing conditions of the game?
Thanks to Charlotte Edwards, even the Queen now understands DRS. Yet it seems that to Shane Watson it is a mystery. To get a decision overturned on an lbw, the ball needs to be missing the stumps completely, hitting 100% outside the line of off stump or to have pitched outside leg stump.
Being that Watson's kind of lbws never really include the leg side, he has picked the two 100% rules of the DRS to overcome. That is stupid. And to do it more than once, twice or even thrice, is unprofessional and egotistical. We've all seen the Hawk Eye, it's like that digital ball always nicks the stumps, no matter what the situation. So taking that on seems joyless.
And as for being outside the line of off stump, Watson should know that the chances are if you put your foot in the same place every single time, your leg isn't about to be outside off stump that one time. Watson could even just look at the hole on the pitch he has made from the repetitive footprints to double check.
If you've never seen a batsman use a review based purely on his own ego, you've not watched modern cricket. But to do it so often and recklessly with so little chance of redemption in a team with more managers and staff than a Tina Turner gig is nowhere near good enough.
When you have a weak batting side, you need to use your reviews smartly. Overturning lbws that you haven't smashed onto your pads is not smart. The follow on effect from a shockingly idiotic review is that the next person doesn't want to use the review for fear of using both of them. So Chris Rogers, who could have gone about his quiet quirky accumulation on his home pitch, was instead sent off the field confused having missed one of the worst balls to get a wicket in Test cricket history.
All the reviews were gone by the time Michael Clarke came in.
This pitiful batting performance reminds us again just how ordinary Australia's batting line-up is. It doesn't need a batsman using a review based on the fact that he simply cannot believe he might be out lbw.
That was the review of a petulant child not a 32-year-old veteran of world cricket.
Some ex players leapt to his defence when Pat Howard said: "I know Shane reasonably well - I think he acts in the best interests of the team - sometimes." Those same players would find it hard to defend Watson on grounds he was acting in the best interests of the team. He was hit plumb in front of the stumps. Rogers seemed to tell him not to refer it. The English players openly laughed at him as he referred it. Yet, Watson still did.
This is a man who has dominated world tournaments. Who can bowl immaculate dry spells. Who has a safe pair of hands. Who can change the shape of a match in so many ways.
But Shane Watson is a Test opener with an average of 35. He regularly gets out in the same way. He has tried to retire from bowling a few times. He was suspended while vice-captain. He has issues with his captain. He bowled in the IPL after stating he wouldn't bowl in Tests. And he uses reviews in a way that does not help his side.
It's hard to be on his side.
Shane Watson may have the natural skills and confidence to win Australia Test matches, but he has the behaviour and results of a man who virtually never has.
Since I first heard his name, I've wanted to believe in Shane Watson. But in Test cricket he's a myth. And he can review my findings if he wants, but right at this moment, I'm pretty sure the evidence backs me up.
No comments:
Post a Comment