Plenty happening in that day's play, and I was absolutely delighted to see Bell get the hundred he has so deserved this series. He has batted absolutely beautifully, and has been a joy to watch. Cook has just gone on and on, his concentration and hunger for runs has been immense, while Prior gave the innings a further boost by scoring at virtually a run a ball and really helping in taking the game away from Australia, at pace.
It was a good day to bat, the Aussie attack found minimal movement out there, and once again struggled with any consistency and patience. Johnson was generally all over the place, but has picked up three wickets, Hilf was really ineffective again, and for all Siddle's huff and puff, he too was negotiated relatively easily. Beer looks competent, but nothing spectacular, doesn't give it a massive rip, no great drift, changes his pace and effectively, any better than Hauritz ? I'd guess not, and certainly not as an all-round cricketer. Watson was steady enough, and lured a loose one from Cook that he would have had no designs on playing at earlier in his innings.
The controversial moments were interesting. Read Ausage comparing the Hughes alleged catch and Bell's caught behind, while they are completely different things, On reflection with Hughes, perhaps he has got carried away by the appealing of the senior players around him, I think he was pretty sure it didn't carry, and should have had the balls to say so or ask the umpires to review, without throwing the ball up and continuing with the mild celebrations. Hughes said to Cook, presumably after it was referred, he wasn't sure, had Cook begun to walk I'm not so sure he'd have been so forthcoming with his opinion.
As for Bell's dismissal, without Snicko it would be difficult to say without any doubt he's hit it. The on-field umpire had given him out, and the information he should have received from the third umpire was "There's nothing showing up on Hotspot, yet there is a noise, there is no appreciable deflection off the bat, but the noise could not have come from bat on pad, or ball nicking off anything else other than bat. Technology does not strengthen your decision, nor does it necessarily disprove you were right initially". Therefore Dar should have stuck with his decision that he saw from 22 yards, providing he was confident he had it right, which presumably he did.
As for Bell's part, I think it's perfectly plausible he didn't feel anything off the bat, he'll have known there was a noise, hence his uncertainty in referring, he was a key wicket and absolutely should have referred it. Absolutely not cheating in any way, how on earth was he to know HotSpot would show nothing? Further proof it was such a fine nick.
All of that means we are in a position of real strength. Some positivity from the boys with the bat in the morning and hopefully more turn from the pitch later in the day will mean Swann will really be in business.
Only the bowler and 1st slip appealed. Was told later by the keeper what happened. Hadn't got near one all innings, not sure what the umpire was thinking. Needless to say, the 1st slip was a ****.
and we failed to seek a new strategy
