Durham Day 2

If you’re inclined to question Hughesy’s suggestion that, by and large, you can only bat as well as you’re allowed to I’d point you straight towards Day Two at Chester-le-Street, where, for a while, it looked like the wheels had fallen off again.

At 2-12 and 3-49, with the three being Warner, Khawaja and Clarke there was a fair chance the total would struggle to get much past the hundred mark, and without Chris Rogers that may well have been the case. The Australian batting lineup has demonstrated extreme fragility for a while, and a repeat performance certainly looked to be on the cards this time around on a deck that seems to have form when it comes to low totals and conditions that definitely suited the bowlers.

They were the sort of conditions where it was a matter of getting the head down and grafting, and with years of experience in English conditions Rogers was the man to do the grafting, which is why he was included in the side in the first place. Sixty first class centuries, with the majority of them scored in England and all that.

We’re not suggesting for a moment that he’s a long term solution at the top of the order. Thirty-six year olds have a limited shelf life but he’ll do for the rest of the tour and if his form holds in the early part of the Australian summer he should hold his place.

We’re not suggesting there wasn’t a fair dose of luck involved with the Rogers ton either. Luck’s a fickle thing, and in those conditions you’re going to need a healthy dose of it. 

The biggest talking point to come out of the day was, to me, the Decision Referral System (again), but this time I think they’ve got it wrong. Or, rather, Hughesy’s bush lawyer instincts suggest they’re about to get it severely wrong.

Unless they’ve changed the law, an appeal for a wicket covers all avenues of dismissal, and fair enough. Most of the time there’s only one called into question, and the decision is given on what the umpire considered to be the most likely form of dismissal.

Go up for a catch behind and the umpire will adjudicate on that. If you don’t like the decision and the facility to refer the decision is available, fair enough, refer it. 

But if you do, you’re referring that particular decision. England referred an LBW shout, Rogers hit a four and then got given out caught behind. He refers it. Fair enough. The third umpire picks up the forensic hot spot on the pad, referral upheld, end of story. Rogers had asked the umpire to confirm the decision was for a catch behind. Everyone knew what was under scrutiny.

If England wanted to question the possibility of LBW that was the time to do it. Once the referral process kicks in everyone gets a look and it’s a bit rich to start bringing in other possibilities you’ve just noticed after the process is under way.

More...

© Ian L Hughes 2021