Off to Lords..,

It may be delusional, but Hughesy’s expectation that we’re going to go close to retrieving the urn over the course of the next four Tests is based on an expectation that eventually we’ll work out the best way to use our existing resources, and when that happens Australia will be extremely competitive.

The process of figuring out the best way to use our existing resources is, of course, the tricky bit, and is more than likely the cause of any friction or rifts within the side. Eventually, however, we’ll sort things out to the point where we’re competitive at the very highest level, and when we do the success that should naturally follow will bring its own issues with it.

There’ll inevitably be friction in any collection of humans unless you’ve been lucky enough to assemble a group that’s absolutely committed to a common target with every individual within the group in total agreement about how the target’s supposed to be reached.

There’ll inevitably be members of the Australian side who take, shall we say, exception to the presence of others in the team, and resent the manner in which responsibilities are allocated.

Whether the Scott Muller incident was down to Joe the Cameraman or the formerly chubby Victorian leg spinner, there are always going to be players in the side who aren’t convinced that recent additions are good enough. Don’t just think Warne and Muller, go back to, say Ian Chappell and Graham Yallop and continue from there through the squads selected. You’ll find any number of other examples.

Questions regarding the leadership will invariably generate friction. Expectations and ambitions on one side will be resented, but hopefully grudgingly accepted. We’ve heard recent suggestions that Michael Hussey’s departure was hastened by issues with Michael Clarke’s captaincy, and if you cast your eye back a bit over thirty years you’ll see obvious friction between three West Australians named Kim Hughes, Rod Marsh and Dennis Lillee.

So while these things are, I think, inevitable, at some point someone makes a call and says this is how it is, fellas, and, hopefully, at that point given a decision the protagonists pull their heads in and get on with the game.

Warne may have resented Gilchrist landing the vice-captaincy but he kept on bowling, and did it rather well.

Inevitably, you’ll see examples of people who are used to getting their own way and attempt to influence decisions to make sure the trend continues.

That, of course, brings us to the question of likely changes to the starting eleven this time around as we wait to see the side for Lords. We took our time and dropped a bombshell for Trent Bridge, so while there may or may not be any bombshells for Lords, you can bet your bottom dollar that, ten or so hours out from the start with the side and the management pushing up Zs, we’ll be taking our time.

As far as I can see there are only two spots where changes are likely, and the overnight rumours suggest a Khawaja for Cowan swap is unlikely. If it doesn’t happen, either Cowan does enough to cement a spot this time or he doesn’t.

His spot, however, didn’t necessarily have to be at Three, which is where the Watto conundrum kicks in. Maybe it doesn’t quite constitute whiteanting, may or may not be a cancer on the side, and almost certainly constitutes the actions of a man who’s used to getting what he wants the decisions about where Watson bats and how much he bowls have been heavily influenced by the man and his actions.

Those decisions have, however, been made, the judge’s decision is in, no correspondence will be entered into and the choice is down to Cowan or Khawaja at Three.

The other question’s a bit more tricky, since it involves the composition of the bowling group. Based on Trent Bridge you’d have to say Agar holds his place, batting Eight and doing his share of the bowling. Siddle and Pattinson look safe (barring injury) so the final spot comes down to whether Starc stays and, if he doesn’t, who replaces him.

A bowling Watson would open up a chance for Lyon to return if it looks like the track will turn, but I’m assuming Watson’s role with the ball will constitute cameos rather than donkey work, so it’s either Bird, Faulkner or Harris (as always I try to keep these things alphabetical).

There’s a case for each of the three.

Bird, as our prospective new McGrath, would be an obvious candidate for the work horse role behind Pattinson and attack leader Siddle.

Faulkner can bat, and would be a left arm for left arm replacement, but is probably the least likely of the three prospects with the ball. Of course, having said that, name him in the side and he’ll more than likely deliver.

Harris, who is no good thing to hold down a spot for four games, but will work his guts out while he’s there.

In the end, not having seen any of the three in action on the tour I’m half inclined to go for Harris, but the question mark over the longevity means I’m more inclined to play it safe and opt for Bird.

Who knows? Typing this at ten-thirty-nine on a post-State of Origin morning, I’m more inclined to adopt a wait and see approach, Pressed to make a call. I’d go Khawaja for Cowan and Bird for Starc, but we’ll see...

This is the must win game, and winning is difficult if you’re a bowler short, which explains my preference for Bird over Harris...

And in overnight news...

I was slightly late out of the cot this morning, and a combination of a late rise, bin day and a deposit left by an incontinent cat meant I didn’t manage to get to Cricinfo before it was time to head out on the morning walk.

That’s not a problem, because a glance at the ABC News website and The Australian gave me plenty to ponder on the hour-long lap around the Catalina memorial, the Bowen Jetty and the Yacht Club.

The first of them, unsurprisingly, was the unsurprising news of Mickey Arthur’s unsurprising claim that Michael Clarke believes Shane Watson's faction is a "cancer" within the side (here and here, and undoubtedly in a myriad of other locations). The only thing that was surprising was the suggestion the news was leaked, and it’s a suggestion I’m inclined to give a bit of credence to since it will possibly have a detrimental effect on the sales of Mickey’s autobiography when it eventually appears.

Old news and all that...

What one hopes has happened is that these issues have been raised behind closed doors in the team environment, with the message delivered heavy on the words then, now, continuation and contract terminated.

I’ve no doubt the rift happened, but hopefully the law has been laid down, team procedures and protocols set in place, and anyone not happy with the new regime has been offered an airfare home and N.T.T.A. (Never To Tour Again) status.

Took me all of five minutes to sort that one out, though I did spend a bit more time considering team protocols and such, which was rehashing old ground, since I’ve banged on about the need for a social committee and suggested that there needs to be some sort of sergeant-at-arms fine system put in place.

After the law had been laid down, I’d have liked to see a suggested list of offences and penalties tabled, with suggestions about additions welcomed from the floor. Infringements would involve a certain number of points, with some additional penalty being imposed on whoever’s managed to accumulate the most, and a reduction in your tally if you come up with a really good sledge, chirp or whatever you want to call it.

I’d have Haddin as the sergeant-at-arms, with misdirected throws from the outfield being 10, 20 or 30 point infringements and penalties in place for a variety of serious and non-serious offences, all the way down to dressing room flatulence.

In any case, the Arthur allegations are hardly news.

More interesting, at least from where I’m sitting, is the report (here) that: The International Cricket Council has admitted there were three uncorrected umpiring errors during the Trent Bridge Test but, no doubt to the chagrin of many England commentators, the alleged Ashton Agar "stumping" wasn't one of them.

Two of the three involved Stuart Broad’s innings, and the suggestion that Broad should have been out LBW while not offering a shot underlines the need for us to get our use of the DRS sorted out. The third involved the Trott first ball LBW.

Interestingly, none of those involved our batting, which suggests additional proof the English approach to the DRS while they’re in the field is working.

The most interesting snippet came with Haddin’s suggestion (here) that a war of attrition might be the key to reducing the effectiveness of England's Ashes pace bowling spearhead James Anderson.

Anderson, of course, is their key bowler, and it makes sense to do whatever you can to force Cook to keep turning to him because the rest of the attack is being mauled. He’s the go to man, but if they go to him often enough eventually the wear and tear will wear him down. Stands to reason, doesn’t it?

Actually, the interesting part will come if and when he does break down, because at that point we might have confirmation of the fifty overs in a Test makes you more likely to break down in the next one argument that was used to justify the old rotation policy and the dropping of Pattinson and Siddle in Perth.

The over counts from Trent Bridge make for interesting reading.

Running down the order they bowled Pattinson had 51 overs (5 wickets), Starc 49 (5 wickets), Siddle 47.5 (8 wickets), Agar 42 overs for 2 and Watson 19, wicketless, but at a rather economical rate. On the England side the story is Anderson 55.5 for 10 scalps, Finn 25 overs (2 wickets), Swann 63 overs (4 wickets) and Broad 29.5 for 3. Root also bowled a couple, taking 1 for 6.

On that basis, lining up the attacks, the Australian workload looks to have been shared evenly among the quicks, thoughWatson could have bowled more, while it’s obvious England are going to lean on Anderson and Swan, which doesn’t come as a surprise.

The surprise comes with the suggestion that Swann, tipped to be a major factor on pitches apparently made to order for offies, doesn’t seem to have come through and trouble an Australian lineup that is supposed to be vulnerable to spin. Match figures of 63 overs, 14 maidens, 4 for 164 are reasonably economical, bit that strike rate of a wicket per 94.5 balls suggests that while he might take wickets he may well have to do plenty of bowling to do so.

I have a suspicion that a subpar performance on Indian decks a few months ago might say as much about what was happening in the dressing room and behind the scenes as it does about what was going on in the middle.

See Point 1 above...

After Trent Bridge: The DRS

The drizzle that’s been hanging around for the past couple of days cut the morning walk, which was going to be devoted to deliberations on the Decision Referral System, short, but that doesn’t mean I need more time to sort these things out in my own mind. In fact I had things more or less done and dusted before I turned around at the Sound Shell and headed back into town.

It’s fairly obvious when you take a look at the score card that the runs Broad scored after the incident that had everyone talking were a key component in the final margin, and when you factor in the runs Bell contributed at the other end through that seventh wicket partnership you’d have to say poor management in our approach to the DRS was one of the factors that cost us the game.

Not, by any means, the only factor, but it was a significant one. It’s something that needs to be addressed as a medium to long term issue until the current DRS regime is modified, and once it is we need to make sure we address it again.

Before we go too far with the issue, of course, we need to remind ourselves why it’s there and what we’re looking to do. Those considerations should be part of an overall reassessment of where the Australian team stands as far as umpiring is concerned.

For a start, there’s no point about going on about neutral umpires and repeating the old line about the best umpire in the world being unable to stand in an Ashes Test if he comes from England or Australia. Umpires have egos too, and it doesn’t do any harm to stroke them occasionally. You get more flies with sugar than you do with vinegar.

The other point here is that I suspect referral happy teams get an unconscious bump in the incidence of dodgy decisions because the umpire knows a referral will sort things out if he does make a mistake. That’s an unconscious thing, much like the situation when you have someone with a reputation for walking who stays put after a confident appeal.

I suspect these things end up delivering less rigour to the decision making process.

We know, of course, that the official version of the logic behind the DRS is the desire to eliminate the obvious howler, and we also know that cricket at the top level is a pretty ruthless business, so you can expect players will always be looking for an avenue through which an advantage can be gained.

Let’s stick with the official version, modified to reflect a healthy self-interest.

The DRS is there to avoid obvious howlers that end up costing us games. Obvious, innit?

There are slightly different considerations involved depending on whether you’re batting or bowling, but the key factor in the decision to refer or not to refer should be a definite No referral without consultation.

That, I think is where a fine or some other penalty comes into play. Fail to consult, lose the referral, cop the consequences. Double or triple the consequences for repeat offenders, quadruple it if their surname starts with a W.

When we’re batting there’s only one person the prospective referrer can consult, and that’s the bloke at the other end. It should be a case of batsmen who’ve been given out approach the partner, state their case and if the other bloke agrees you refer it.
So the bloke who may have feathered a snick through to the keeper goes down, reckons he didn’t hit it, the partner says I dunno, I heard something and it’s all over red rover.

If the subsequent forensic evidence suggests it shouldn’t have been referred, a penalty applies to both of them. You don’t necessarily make the penalty a financial one, you make it known that it happens, and you work it from there to ensure that there’s no suggestion that you’re referral happy and will do it at the drop of a hat.

The same basic point applies when we’re bowling, but the consultation should be between captain, keeper and bowler, with the T shape only being made when the consensus is that there’s something there.

If we have penalties for failure to follow the agreed protocol when we’re batting, there should be a reward for the bowler who gets asked about an LBW and responds that it might have been going down the leg side. Particularly when the umpire’s within earshot.

Similarly, if there’s a shout, a Not out, and no referral, a verbal check with the umpire might be interpreted as pocket-pissing, but see the above reference to flies, sugar and vinegar.

The key thing here is that you want, if at all possible, to have at least one referral, and preferably both of the little devils in hand around the eight-for and nine-for mark, at which point you can be a little more relaxed about these things, but I’d still like to see the innings end with at least one referral still in the bag, because that means whatever we’ve referred has been spot on, and we’ve probably ended up with fewer dodgy decisions anyway.

And, particularly when we’re batting, if we’re out of referrals before the eight-for mark it’d be obvious any penalties involved aren’t high enough.

Those penalties, of course, don’t have to be financial. It might be a case of assigning the individuals in question some chore that will induce a degree of banter and hilarity in the team situation.

Offenders become the designated luggage porters for the duration of the match as well as the next one, or until the next offender rolls into view.

That last bit is possibly going to be enough to ensure there isn’t another offender (or pair of ‘em) in a hurry.

Which raises an interesting thought. We have a team member designated to lead the victory song. Do we have a sergeant-at-arms, dispensing penalties for assorted offences? And, if not, why not?

Trent Bridge Day 5: The Entrails Part 1

Putting issues like walking and the Decision Review System to one side, if we can get that close playing at those levels I definitely like our chances of heading out of The Oval with the urn in hand, and if we can’t quite manage that I reckon we’re looking good to have the prize reclaimed by the end of the Australian summer.

I’m not in the business of assigning percentages to the opposition, though I’m fairly definite in saying England were playing somewhere beyond 100% back in 2005. That’s an easy call. They were playing out of their skins, far better than they, or anyone else, had a right to expect.

So I’m not sure about the level of performance from this England side in that particular Test, but I’d rate our batting somewhere between 75 and 80% and the bowling somewhere between 85 and 90. There’s room for substantial improvement with the bat and a significant lift with the ball and we still only fell 14 runs short.

Pattinson, Starc, Siddle and Agar may well be our best specialist bowling quartet, but there’s room for improvement in the lines we bowl and the percentage of deliveries we force their batsmen to play at. If Trent Bridge is a sign of the surfaces we’re going to see through the rest of the English summer we’re not going to see anything resembling bowler friendly conditions unless weather and atmospherics intervene so attack off stump, get the length right and we’re going to be a big show.

Looking at the English bowling, this particular quartet is handy, and they under bowled Broad in the first dig after he got collected in the shoulder. There may be room for improvement there, but not having seen enough of them in the past it’d difficult to judge. There’s no doubting Anderson’s class, but I think there’s a fair gap between this group and their 2005 combo, which was boosted by the Flintoff all rounder factor.

If you scratch your head and wonder why we get our knickers in a knot looking for a Botham or Flintoff, take a look at our lineup and ask yourself how good it would look with Watson assuming a fair proportion of the workload. Four overs in the first innings and fifteen in the second when his four colleagues were all in the thirties doesn’t rank as a fair proportion of the workload from where I’m sitting.

At his best he’s not far behind the best of them for pace and aggression, which is why I’ve never been happy about having him open the batting, but that, it seems, is where he’ll be staying for the foreseeable future, so there you go.

The batting is the department where there’s the most room for improvement, and the first thing I’d do is issue an edict that an unsuccessful referral will result in a thousand dollar fine. No, make that ten thousand. Let’s see an end to the speculative or opportunistic referral, and limit them to setting the absolute howlers right rather than allowing a batsman who’s made a mistake the possibility of a lifeline.

At the moment it seems to be a case of maybe I can get away with one here rather than hang on a minute, that decision was wrong.

I suspect a decline in the number of referrals will result in a decrease in the number of referable decisions, and everyone will end up benefiting.

I also believe that taking out the lifeline will make a couple of our batsmen more responsible for technical deficiencies, and in the case of unsuccessful referrals from Watson I’d double the amount of the fine (apply the same figure to Rogers if you think that’s unfair, but Watto seems like the sort of bloke who’d be likely to blow the whole allocation within the first ten overs, which, to me, is another reason I’d prefer to see him down the order.

Having whizzed Warner off to Zimbabwe and South Africa, where he’ll get more time in the middle against better attacks than an English county side resting key players will throw up, and with Khawaja as the other specialist bat in the squad, I’d have him back in the side at three.

That means a batting order that reads Rogers, Watson, Khawaja, Clarke, Smith, Hughes, Haddin, Agar, Pattinson, Siddle, Starc which is, I guess about as good as we can muster at the moment and puts Hughes and Smith under the spotlight with a chance to cement their places over the next two or three Tests, which is fair enough in my book.

Any changes in the bowling lineup would be slotted in after Starc.

That’s my take on what’s gone down at Trent Bridge, and having allowed myself the ineluctable luxury of sleeping in until nine-thirty this morning, it’s one that hasn’t been influenced by at length cogitations on the morning walk or extensive perusals of opinions expressed in the press and over on Cricinfo.

We might be taking a squiz at those tomorrow, and casting an eye forward to Lords on Wednesday and/or Thursday. Stay tuned...

Trent Bridge Day 4

To err, they say, is human. The question is, of course, what you do after the inevitable error has occurred.

Overnight developments have kept the issues relating to umpiring in what was always going to be a fiercely contested Ashes series firmly in the spotlight, and it’s reasonably certain those issues aren’t going to be disappearing any time soon.

I’ve done my share of umpiring over the years, and while I wouldn’t presume to second guess the thought processes of those who do it at the highest level, I think I’ve got a fair handle on what goes through your mind when you realise you might have made a mistake.

That little word might is the key element here. Sometimes, on further reflection, you realise that yes, you did. Other times, as you run back your mind back over it, you conclude no, everything’s cool. What you don’t want to do is dwell on the detail, that way lies madness and the likelihood of further error.

The last thing you want to do is to try to square things up. All that does is open the path to total disaster.

One thing that’s handy is to have some sort of pressure release valve, the sort of thing I used to use when I signalled byes and the batsman, aggrieved that I was doing him out of a run or two, claimed to have hit the ball.

“Fine,” was my standard reply. “If the wicket keeper had caught it I would have given it not out.”

That usually ended the complaints.

Test match umpires, of course, can’t do that sort of thing (or at least they can’t do it while anyone’s watching, and if someone was silly enough to try to do it behind closed doors he’d be asking for trouble).

It’s fair to assume that, having realised the error has been made, the first thing the umpire does is to look at ways of avoiding the possibility of a recurrence. That means (and I’m guessing this is what happened) after you’ve made an obvious mistake with a catch behind when there’s another appeal and you’ve got a distinct impression of a snick but a question mark over whether it has carried you’ll consult with your colleague at square leg who might be able to confirm whether it did.

This appears to have been the case with Clarke’s dismissal, though Pup’s subsequent squandering of the remaining referral will undoubtedly turn around to bite us on the arse some time tomorrow morning.

The umpires, for mine, will do a certain amount of self correcting, and if you leave them alone you’ve got a better chance of that ending up in your favour.

Not that it’s a conscious thing, of course. Umpires don’t (or shouldn’t) go looking for a conscious squaring up, but as the impressions flow though the decision making process I suspect there’s a certain amount of subconscious filtering that amounts to much the same thing.

Beyond that, from my understanding of things, Test match umpires can call on a theoretically infinite number of referrals, though one suspects frequent use of that possibility will raise a number of fresh issues. You want your umpires using that sort of thing as a last resort rather than a crutch.

As far as the teams’ two referrals are concerned, I think you’re actually going to get more dodgy decisions if you’re inclined to refer things at the drop of a hat.

The other issue that seemed to be coming through in the radio commentary was that, due to the situation within the ICC Umpires Panel, we’re probably looking at the two blokes out in the middle (Aleem Dar and HDPK Dharmasena) and Marais Erasmus, who’s looking after the TV side of proceedings, throughout the rest of the series.

On that basis I’m hoping the poison pens of the Pommy press are dumb enough to go on about the standard of the decision making because I suspect we’ve done enough damage to our own cause with our own apparent take on the referral system.

You trap more ants with sugar than you do with vinegar, and we’d probably be better off if we were suggesting they’re doing a fair job and not firing in an opportunistic or speculative referral whenever it seems there’s a sniff of possible advantage to be gained.

Each side has two referrals, and hot headed self preservation is likely to be counterproductive. I suspect a willingness to fire them in makes the umpire less likely to ask the colleague up in the referral centre for clarification.

In any case, the first session tomorrow will, of course, be key, as will the role of the heavy roller before play resumes. It seems the failure of the track to deteriorate as predicted owes a lot to the heavy roller, and if that’s true there’s every possibility things will be done and dusted by the time the roller’s morning ministrations have been negated.

It could, of course, be all over within ten minutes, but the aim should be to go about our business as usual, playing each ball on it merits and seeing how much pressure can be put back on the England XI.

It’s fairly obvious (at least it’s fairly obvious to me) that England aren’t as good as their public thinks they are, and Australia is definitely on the way back. I think the Day Five result will be very close, and with three days before we head into the Lords Test any momentum that’s starting to build should be able to be maintained.

Particularly if Haddin, Agar, Siddle, Pattinson and Starc can cobble together those hundred and thirty-seven runs.

Actually, the best outcome would be for the quintet to cobble them together, head off to Lords one-nil up and watch as the poison pens of the Pommy press set out on an orgy of we was robbed due to lousy umpiring, which would, IMHO, more than likely produce a continuing flow of contentious decisions with the majority of them working in our favour.

But that’ll come after what will hopefully be a very interesting two-plus hours tonight...

Trent Bridge Day 3

When I toddled off cotwards at the tea break last night things were delicately poised with England having moved on from an overnight 2-80 to 6-230, a rather sedate progress, punctuated by the wickets of Pietersen and Cook in reasonably quick succession (end of the 57th and start of the 59th overs), followed by Bairstow (80th) and Prior (93rd).

Interestingly, three of the six wickets that have fallen in the innings have gone on the last ball of the over. That doesn’t actually mean anything, but it’s one of those quirky statistics that Test cricket tends to throw up.

At that point we were, you’d have reckoned, looking reasonably good. Wickets weren’t falling in a hurry, but we were chipping away and with the lead just under two hundred you’d be looking at a reasonably achievable target.

On that basis, given the previously noted tendency for the desired result to come to pass while Hughesy’s pushing up Zs, I was half expecting to wake up to the news that England were all out and we’d set out in pursuit of a target around 250.

Instead, with four wickets still to fall and the lead having crept past 250, you’d have to say things are starting to lean towards the Poms.

On the way, however, there was one of those incidents that produces a degree of controversy, so let’s pause for a moment to consider the fact that we appear to have a fairly obvious umpiring mistake which has a number of observers getting their knickers in a twist.

I’m inclined to shrug my shoulders, point out that no one is perfect, and suggest this is the kind of thing you have to expect if you use up your referrals in speculative or opportunistic ventures rather than saving them up in case you get an obvious howler that needs to be remedied. End of story.

I would, however, take issue with a comment here that suggests the failure of batsmen to walk when they know they’re out is something that has been brought into the game by those nasty Australians.

Here’s the bit that got me:
The unwritten rule in cases like this was made in Australia. Generations of batsmen have argued that they do not walk unless given out by the umpire (and, having been given out, they do not argue). Broad was acting entirely within his rights. You could argue that Australia had been hoist by their own petard.

Piffle. One could, in contradicting the allegation, point out any number of suggestions that the likes of Gilchrist were going to be selective in walking, and, effectively, using a reputation to influence decisions, but I’d be more inclined to cite the example of the great W.G. Grace, arguably the greatest Englishman of his generation.

Grace, as it turns out, was no stranger to sharp practices with bat and ball, to the extent that, having been bowled in a charity game he refused to leave the crease, informing the bowler that the paying public had parted with their dosh to see him bat.

In another instance, having had a ball nick the stumps, he turned around, replaced the dislodged bail, and passed a remark about the strength of the breeze to the umpire at the bowler’s end.
“Yes, Mr Grace,” came the alleged reply. “Make sure it doesn’t blow your cap off on the way back to the pavilion.”

Cast your eye down the comments on the matter here and you’ll see a couple of variations on a common theme, namely that umpires make mistakes, and, in the days of neutral umpires you’d expect those mistakes to even themselves out around the fifty-fifty mark, all other things being equal.

Of course, all other things are rarely equal, so you’re not going to get too many mistakes on an absolute belter where everything’s hitting the middle of the bat. Faced with a raging turner, half a dozen close fielders around the bat and frequent appeals for bat pad catches, you’re probably going to get a number of them, particularly when you’ve got the predictable tendency to ask for anything.

And there’s the rub. Take a look at the range of comments here and you’ll find an interesting one from Peter Siddle, who starts off fairly graciously "You can't do anything about that," but goes on to talk about referrals, suggesting “You use them when you think there's a chance of getting a wicket and that's what they're there for."

Actually, they’re not. The referral system is there to fix the obvious howlers, and if you’re going to venture into opportunism and speculation you’re going to reap what you sow. An opportunistic referral at 12:50 (here) ends up costing a hell of a lot more at 5:27...

In any case, by that point the damage had already been done. Unless there’s a rapid run through the last four wickets you’d have to reckon a target in excess of 320 is likely, and while it doesn’t look like the track has started to turn at right angles (as predicted by Tuffnell back on Day One) yet, and the innings totals have been lifting as the game proceeds (215, 280, 6-326) you wouldn’t expect the tendency to continue.

Well, it won’t, will it?

Regardless of the target set, thanks to that 65 run lead on the first dig, we’re going to be looking at something less than whatever total England eventually posts but I suspect anything beyond 300 will be a tough ask.

Trent Bridge Day 2

One swallow doesn’t make a summer, one innings doesn’t create a career, and one decision doesn’t determine the outcome of a Test match.

Let’s turn our attention to that last point while everybody’s rhapsodising over Ashton Agar’s rather remarkable debut innings, shall we?

Umpiring decisions determine the direction in which things will develop, and while English supporters can complain all they like about the third umpire’s decision that allowed Agar’s innings to continue, I’ll respond with inconclusive and benefit of the doubt. The English commentators on the radio were quite outspoken about on the line being out, but I reckon there was a smidgen of doubt and the batsman’s entitled to it.

Maybe that one balanced up the Rogers LBW, which was one of the things that had landed us in that little nine-for predicament.

Predictably, there’s a degree of controversy about the Trott LBW, and rightly so, because it’s something that’s happening off the field affecting what goes down on it, but TV broadcasters have been fiddling with things to suit themselves for yonks, Hot Spot is their technology, anyway, and something like this was always likely to happen, so Murphy’s Law kicks in about here.

You know Murphy’s Law: Whatever can go wrong will go wrong, and when it does go wrong it will go wrong at the worst possible moment.

And if anyone’s going to argue about that one, I’ll have a go at the rather remarkable passage of play about half an hour into the day when the ball, which had been going gun barrel straight, started reversing.

Now, I’m not going to use the word cheating here, and I’m not necessarily suggesting the dark art of bringing reverse swing into play equates to ball tampering, but there’s something very sus about this from where I’m sitting.

Yes, Anderson and company are very good at getting the ball into the state where it will reverse, and it’s quite possible the means through which this is achieved is totally legitimate. The interesting thing, at least as far as I can see, is that this ability to reverse is a temporary thing, and it seems to be something that can be countered by affecting the state of the ball through the agencies of willow and concrete.

With Australia having lost 5 for 9 in about half an hour, the reverse seemed to remove itself from the equation. Strange.

But all that, of course, is secondary to the big issue here, and that’s the fact that Agar’s 98 and the 163 run tenth wicket partnership have set things up for an interesting Day Three.

Exactly where that goes is anyone’s guess, but I suspect that, on this track at least, chasing anything much over 150 batting last is going to be difficult. Given the current situation, where England are, effectively, 2 for 15 that would involve taking 8 for 135 in the first two sessions tonight, and if we can do that, with our batting surrounded by rather severe question marks, maybe a target of 150 will turn out to be just a tad too high.

Time will tell, as it will with young Mr Agar, who displayed a remarkable maturity in a tricky situation. He certainly doesn’t appear to have the same technical issues some of the other bats have, and for the moment I reckon he can expect an extended run batting Eight from here on.

He’ll need to deliver with the ball as well, but there’s definitely a possibility of a spin bowling all-rounder, which raises some interesting possibilities if he can show form with the ball and continue to post significant scores with the bat.

Possibly he could step up a place or two in the order, but I wouldn’t be looking any higher than Seven, possibly with Haddin at Six, in a situation where you wanted to play an extra spinner and still have three quicks because Watto doesn’t bowl much any more.

Or maybe because Watto hasn’t been able to deliver the runs consistently enough to hold his place.

Interestingly, and I’m not suggesting we’re looking at another Sobers, Imran or Hadlee, most of the great all-rounders have started as specialist bowlers whose batting has moved them up into the middle order.

Without getting ahead of ourselves, let’s wait and see how things pan out. You can predict the inevitable slump in performances as the bowling fraternity work him out and identify weaknesses and technical points that can be attacked, but he looks like someone who’ll add a welcome degree of flexibility.

As far as the rest of the day’s play goes Hughes showed a commendable degree of grit and stickability, while Smith and Haddin both had me scratching my head at the apparent abandonment of the old conventional wisdom involving the placement of the front foot and the subsequent position of the head.

That, I would suggest, m’lud, is a key issue in dealing with the ball when it’s reversing since it’ll probably close the gate between bat and pad (and quite possibly allow the adjustment that’ll get the ball hitting the middle rather than snicking the inside or outside edge).

As far as Day Three and the eventual outcome is concerned, the big question is going to involve the size of the target, and whether we can somehow cobble together more than a hundred out of the combination of Rogers (who I see as the key), Watson and Cowan, both of whom need to deliver big time in the not too distant future.

Chasing more than 150 looks to be rather tricky for this side in these conditions, but if One, Two and Three can get the total past the ton, and my suspicions about the ephemeral nature of the reverse elements is correct, anything less than, maybe, 250 may well be doable.

And, as noted yesterday, time will tell.