Australia might have taken a narrow first innings lead over England after two days’ play of the fifth Ashes Test – but you wouldn’t know it from the UK press’ reaction.
The condemnation was widespread as the visitors racked up their 295 at just 2.85 runs an over – a far cry from England’s Bazball-fuelled 5.17 per over in scoring 283 on Day 1.
Particular derision was reserved for Usman Khawaja and Marnus Labuschagne’s go-slow to start the day, with Australia managing just 54 runs in Day 2’s first session for the loss of only Labuschagne for a painstaking 82-ball 9.
Writing in The Telegraph, veteran cricket journalist Scyld Berry was scathing, describing the Aussies’ ‘snail-like batting pace’ as simply ‘bad cricket’ and putting the blowtorch on Khawaja and Labuschagne.
“This was not the opposite extreme of Bazball; it was not traditional Test cricket; it was simply bad batting,” Berry wrote.
“Australia’s top order surrendered the initiative to England by ignoring two of the basics: looking for singles and rotating the strike.
“In scoring 283, England were too frenetic; in scoring 295, Australia were too inert. England batted in fifth or sixth gear, while Australia crawled all morning in first, whereas third would have been a happy medium on a pitch that continued to offer seam movement.
“Blocking had worked for him [Khawaja] at Edgbaston but in the course of a five-Test series, especially in this era of analysts, a pony has to acquire more tricks. The near-half-volley from Stuart Broad that exposed the minimalist footwork was never in danger of being driven.
“Marnus Labuschagne had come good during his match-saving century at Old Trafford but he wasted his form on leaving nearly half the balls he faced and denying his gifts.”
Berry also accused the Australian pair of focusing ‘more on survival than singles’, condemning the pair for what he described as a ‘voluntary surrendering of the initiative’.
“It might have appeared that Australia were trying to parody Bazball by going to this opposite extreme, but there was a more obvious explanation for this go-slow,” he continued.
“Throughout this series Khawaja, cocooned in his concentration, has focused more on survival than singles. Earlier in the over that he was out, Labuschagne pushed a ball to wide mid-on, or midwicket really, but his partner was not backing him up in any sense.
“Australia’s top order dug in and dug deep: it will be fascinating to see whether they also dug their own graves.”
Ever wanted to manage your own cricket team? Why not try Wicket Cricket Manager!
For former England captain Michael Vaughan, there was a simple explanation for the slow start – they were scared of getting out.
“They are taking home the urn, but I’ve never seen Australia play with so much fear,” Vaughan told the BBC’s Test Match Special.
“They are usually so aggressive and try to take the game forward.
“They have just sat in to bat a long period of time without remembering you have to put a bit of pressure on the bowlers.
Marnus Labuschagne is closely watched by Mark Wood. (Photo by Mike Egerton/PA Images via Getty Images)
“This morning I thought it was the worst I’ve ever seen Australia bat in my time watching them. They never play like that.”
Debate has also raged over Steve Smith’s controversial run out escape, which proved the catalyst for Australia’s final-session recovery.
Third umpire Nitin Menon ruled that Jonny Bairstow had disturbed one bail with his gloves before gathering the ball, and hadn’t removed the other before Smith had made his ground.
But England supporters and past greats have been quick to dispute the decision; a Sky Cricket poll currently sits at more than 61.6 per cent of responses saying they disagreed with the decision, while commentator and former player Ian Ward referred to an intricate ‘quad-screen’ to try and definitively prove Smith was in fact out.
“There is a stump with no bail anywhere near it – now is that off stump, where we’ve proved that the bail is out of the groove, or middle stump?” Ward asked on Sky.
“Keep your eye on the little green heart that is in the middle stump – the logo for LV. There is no bail anywhere near it. So I think it was out of the groove on the left to start with, then the middle stump left. No bail anywhere near it, so I think it was probably out – just.”
Co-commentator and former Australian captain Mark Taylor jokingly responded that he was ‘happy to give it to [Ward] because 48 minutes later, I’ll look at the papers tomorrow morning and it’ll say he’s not run out’, but Ward’s view was shared across the UK Media, with popular former presenter David ‘Bumble’ Lloyd writing in the Daily Mail that Smith should have been given – though for slightly different reasons.
“The ‘dislodging of the bails’ is a slightly ambiguous term but if you look at this particular incident, the bail was not sufficiently dislodged,” Lloyd wrote.
Bairstow costs England ANOTHER wicket this series, after dislodging the stumps before taking a throw from the outfield.
— Wide World of Sports (@wwos) July 28, 2023#TheAshes 5th Test | LIVE: https://t.co/m4bzLk1bCy #9WWOS #Cricket #Ashes #ENGvsAUS pic.twitter.com/6TVaAUKJaJ
“There was disruption of the bail by Jonny Bairstow but it was not dislodged. It may have been dislodged from a groove, but not from both grooves.
“I would never have liked to make that decision and had the utmost sympathy for Nitin Menon but I do like to keep the game moving!
“Law 29.1 states: ‘The wicket is broken when at least one bail is completely removed from the top of the stumps, or one or more stumps is removed from the ground.’
“Tom Smith’s Cricket Umpiring and Scoring, MCC’s Official Interpretation of the Laws of Cricket, adds: ‘For the purposes of dismissal — a bail has been removed at the moment that both ends of it leave their grooves.’”
Speaking after play, Stuart Broad claimed umpire Kumar Dharmasena had told the England players that Smith would have been given out had ‘Zing’ bails primarily used in limited-overs cricket had been involved – but admitted the correct call was made.
“Kumar said to me that if it was Zing bails, it would be out,” Broad said.
“I don’t really understand the reasoning why? I think there was enough of a grey area to give that not out.
“What are the rules? Was it the right decision? It looked like the benefit of the doubt sort of stuff.”
>Cricket News
%20(3).jpeg)
0 Comments