A good day, DRS and Swann

Day 2 at Old Trafford was, for the Aussies, a good day that they would have liked to be better.  For the first time in a while, the Aussies passed 500.  They managed to bat five session, and may have batted longer if they wished (after all the key 10th wicket partnership never got to bat).  Five of the eight batsmen got passed fifty.  The area that the Aussies need to improve is the fact that only one went onto a hundred.  Admittedly, both Haddin and Starc were batting well enough to get there given more time.  But then again, Rogers and Smith looked that good in the 60s too.  Clarke has now scored two of the three centuries the Aussies have managed this year.  The other was Wade's hundred against Sri Lanka.  

The bowlers did well at the end of the day, snaring a couple of wickets and almost having one or two more.  If Clarke had been able to readjust after being wrong footed, and get to Cook's edge, the day would have been even better.  However, there was a bit of luck with Bresnan's dismissal.  Cook did not let Bresnan review even though it was fairly clear he did not hit it.  

England's use of the DRS in this game has put Australia's use of it in the first two tests into perspective.

Lessons from Trent Bridge

England won a tight test.  It should have been an easy win, especially with Australia at 9 down and about 100 behind in the first innings.  However they made it closer than it needed to be.  There is much that Australia can learn from this match:

1. Swann can be played.  Twice Swann looked dangerous, once in each innings but he never ran through the Aussies even though the match, weather and pitch all seemed to be conspiring to make him the person to win the test.  As it was Anderson had to do the work.

2. England are reliant on Anderson.  He is by far their best bowler, especially with Swann underperforming.  Finn and Broad are dangerous but inconsistent.  When the Aussies put the pressure on it is Anderson that Cook relies on to change the game.  It was also instructive that he struggled with cramp yesterday.  If we can force Cook to use Anderson for 50+ overs a match, he may not last the distance, or at least drop in effectiveness.

Broad the Fraud?

I awoke this morning to read several outraged comments from Aussies about the fact that Stuart Broad failed to walk when given not out even though he obviously edged a catch to Clarke at first slip.  The general consensus seemed to be that Broad was (is) a cheat.

Anyone who knows me knows that I am not an English fan, and Broad is in a battle with KP and Swann as my least favourite English player.  However, I find myself in the awkward position of defending him.  Broad is not the first, nor will he be the last player who let the umpire decide whether or not he was out.  In fact most players do.  Even Australia's captain has been known to do this.  Yes some players will walk on fairly obvious dismissals (Bairstow earlier).  A few rare players will walk even when they could have gotten away with it: Gilchrist comes to mind.  But some may remember, there was almost as much controversy over Gilchrist walking as there has been over Broad refusing to.  Perhaps Broad would be more respected by the Aussie fans had he overridden the umpire, but he is not really the problem.  The problem consists of three parts: firstly the umpire, secondly DRS and finally the Aussie tactics.