Line and Length - Times Online - WBLG

The replay's the thing

A couple of weeks ago I spent a day at Wimbledon and got to see the Hawk-Eye TV referral system in action for the first time. Players may challenge a decision of the umpire or line judges three times per set and a replay is shown instantly on the big screen. It holds up play for maybe 15 seconds and, I felt, adds to the spectators' enjoyment of the game. The players feel that they get a fairer game and the officials, by and large, are proved right far more often than they are shown to be wrong.

Cricket has tried to introduce a player referral system for a few years but the present Test series between Sri Lanka and India is the first time it has been used at the highest level. Anil Kumble became the first captain to try his luck today, when he questioned a decision to turn down an appeal by Harbhajan Singh for leg-before. The replay showed that the umpire was absolutely right; the ball was missing leg. Tillekeratne Dilshan later became the first man to be reprieved by a replay - he appealed against a decision for caught behind off Zaheer Khan and the TV umpire decided it was not conclusive whether he had hit the ball.

It is often said that the proliferation of TV cameras at cricket matches undermines the umpires. We all make mistakes (players certainly do and even journalists boob occasionally) but in the main umpires do a fine job. By picking apart the odd poor decision, we ignore the dozens of right calls they make. Some feel that allowing players on the field to call for a TV replay themselves further undermines the authority of umpires (although it is surely preferable to players watching TV in the Pavilion and baying for a replay, as happened in last week's Test).

My view is that if suitable technology is available, we should use it but it should not interrupt the flow of the game. Umpires in the middle have to make a decision instantly, and occasionally that means they get it wrong, but I don't think that TV umpires should be allowed to take more than 30 seconds, say, in deciding whether someone is out or not. It worsens the already lagging over-rates for a start.

If a TV umpire cannot decide within two or three replays whether the decision was accurate, then they should back the man on the field. This particularly applies in line calls, where we have got used to delays of two or three minutes or more as the image of a bat or foot on the line or rope is slid backwards and forwards inconclusively. And why not show the replay on the big screen as it is being deliberated? It would allow the fans to make up their own minds. Or are they worried that there will be a pitch invasion if the spectators feel a local hero has got rough justice?

The Line & Length Monday XI - answers

Morning all. Here are the answers to this week's quiz. Click link after the questions.

Question 1 James Anderson has been dismissed in the Test after doing a manful job as nightwatchman for England, literally laying his body on the line in the face of some aggressive South Africa bowling to keep his wicket intact for more than an hour and three quarters. He also made his highest score in Test cricket (34) in the process. What was his previous best? A: 17; B: 23; C: 28

Question 2 Anderson never seemed to get out in the early days of his Test career, meaning that his average kept on growing despite scoring few runs. At its peak, what was his batting average for England? A: 35; B: 43; C: 48

Question 3 If England are to save this match, they will probably have to bat for more than 150 overs. When was the last time they did that in their second innings? A: 1998; B: 2002; C: 2004

Question 4 In 1939, a timeless Test, England made 654 for five against South Africa in Durban in their second innings before the match was finally abandoned as a draw. How many balls did they face? A: 1,578; B: 1,744; C: 1,801

Question 5 Darren Pattinson was one of the more left-field England selections of recent years, with only 40 first-class wickets to his name in 11 matches. How many of those were of former or present Test cricketers? A: three; B: ten; C: eighteen

Question 6 After being overlooked for the Headingley Test, Matthew Hoggard fears that his England career may be over, leaving him on 248 Test wickets. How many Englishmen have taken more? A: Five; B: Seven; C: Nine

Question 7 Sri Lanka and India are about to begin a three-Test series. In their 26 previous Tests, how many have Sri Lanka won? A: three; B: seven; C: ten

Question 8 Who is the leading run-scorer in Tests between Sri Lanka and India? A: Sachin Tendulkar; B: Aravinda de Silva; C: Mohammad Azharuddin

Question 9 And who is the leading wicket-taker? A: Anil Kumble; B: Muttiah Muralitharan; C: Kapil Dev

Question 10 Matt Prior put further pressure on Tim Ambrose with a brutal 137 off 123 balls for Sussex in the Pro40 against Somerset yesterday. It is early days in the competition and Prior is the only centurion so far, but who has made the second best score with 99 not out? A: Marcus Trescothick; B: Ryan ten Doeschate; C: David Sales

Question 11 Which county captain was named man of the match in the 1984 B&H Trophy final, held on this day, despite making a duck, not bowling and holding only one catch? A: John Abrahams; B: Clive Rice; C: David Bairstow

Roger Bayes RIP

I hope readers will forgive the personal nature of this post. Maybe it will inspire others to share their memories of similar people who shaped their lives.

Three men are primarily responsible for my love of cricket and, by extension, my choice of career. My grandfather, who died two years ago, was one and now, after the death this week of Roger Bayes, that just leaves a certain Essex batsman who scored 8,900 runs for England.

Roger was an English teacher at my old school, Colchester Royal Grammar, and more importantly was also master in charge of cricket. In the former role, I remember him teaching us how to scan a sonnet (I still recall him using the sentence "Old Pat is sure to have a piece of chalk" as an example to the class) or introducing me to The Merchant of Venice, the Grapes of Wrath and To Kill a Mocking Bird.

It was as cricket master that he had most influence. My school was big on rugby and cricket but I was never particularly talented at either. Nonetheless, realising the interest I had in cricket , Roger happily accommodated me into the school cricket set-up in other ways. When I was 15, a year or two before my contemporaries were playing for the school first XI, I was roped in to score for the firsts and I spent several happy summers in the school scorebox, coloured pencils at hand. Yes, I was a geek, but I enjoyed it.

On one occasion, I even got to play. We were up against Wolverhampton Grammar School, who were a player short for some reason. Roger, the wily old sod, offered them the use of his scorer as a spare fielder, knowing how useless I was. He had the good grace to say "well done" when I then caught out the Colchester captain at square leg, one of three catches in my entire school career.

Roger also managed the Essex colts side and one year I scored for them at various county grounds. He even allowed me to join in fielding practice with these future county cricketers (actually only two of them, Elliot Wilson and Nathan Batson, went on to play first-class cricket, both briefly). My skills never improved but it was nice to be involved. For some reason Roger would shout out "OK, Ipswich Town, 4-4-2" before fielding drills. It meant the players had to line up in that formation and he would hit catches to them. Well, they were in 4-4-2, I was a sort of libero player running around like a headless chicken.

Although the pinnacle of my playing career was school second XI, Roger also ran a village side called Camul, after Camulodunum, the Roman name for Colchester, and I played for them occasionally. In 1991, we got to the final of the Mobil Matchplay, a tournament for under-16 sides. Although I had played some of the games on the way (even holding one of those rare catches in a game against Epping), I was naturally not selected for the final, which we lost on a bowl-out after rain interrupted the second innings, but Roger still let me score in the match at Essex's county ground at Chelmsford and, most importantly, announce the bowling changes. My school report that year contained some comment about having a future as a public-address announcer.

I don't think it is being disrespectful to observe that Roger was known for his thirst. The first XI were regularly taken back to his club for drinks after the matches and he was usually seen with a beer or glass of wine in his hand when watching games. There was the time when he was playing cricket and went out to bat with a pint of beer, handing it to the umpire when he was taking strike. Classy. Because of his permanent red face, he was given the affectionate nickname of Rufus. That's the thing about a classical education: it enables children to use Latin tags as a way of mocking their teachers.

He used to referee house football matches from his car, flashing the lights when there was a foul and showing the direction that a kick should be taken with his indicators. He also used to shower with the boys afterwards (oddly given that he had hardly broken a sweat). That would probably be frowned on these days but I honestly can't remember any suggestion of impropriety. Maybe it was just a way of ensuring that the smelly boys washed.

As often happens, I hadn't had any contact with him after leaving school until three years ago I bumped into him behind the Pavilion at Lord's. He had just retired by then and was spending the time well. That summer our school was hosting the annual Royal Grammar Schools cricket festival, which Roger had organised as his swansong, and I was invited along. I remember him then as he ever was, wandering round the boundary with a jug of beer in his hand, shouting admonitions and encouragement to the players.

We exchanged letters a few times in the next couple of years but I hadn't heard anything this year and was thinking about him a few weeks ago, meaning to write. On Monday I heard that he was critically ill in hospital and then heard last night that he had passed away. I suspect he was 70 or thereabouts.

As I said at the beginning, apologies for the meandering personal nature of this post. But a few generations of Colchester schoolboys owe a lot to Roger Bayes. I hope he's enjoying a glass or two in the great pavilion in the sky.

Blame the captain

Time for the nation's favourite game: scapegoat-hunting. And after the mess at Headingley, when England barely competed for more than a session at a time, it is appropriate that the more hysterical sections of the media should go looking for someone to blame. Intriguingly, attention is turning less on the fair dinkum Aussie who was surprisingly selected out of nowhere (he did, after all, take twice the wickets of either Broad or Flintoff) and instead the ire is being poured on the captain.

Is Michael Vaughan still worth his place in the side as either batsman or captain? I'd venture a no to the former (as Pablo has pointed out in the comments to an earlier piece, his average is below 30 in the past 11 Tests) and a yes to the latter. Although I admire Andrew Strauss as a captain and think that he should have been in charge for the last Ashes, Vaughan does offer a certain invention and motivational inspiration more often than not.

On the flip side, his own coach seems to have turned on him. Peter Moores was quoted earlier as saying that it was Vaughan who decided that Darren Pattinson should play ahead of Chris Tremlett. Given that Moores is renowned for giving as much away in press conferences as a tub of curdled yoghurt, it is interesting that he should suddenly develop an opinion. Is all not well in the dressing room?

Should Vaughan survive until the winter, he will become England's most-capped captain, passing Michael Atherton's record. With due respect to our revered cricket correspondent, who won 13 of his 54 Tests as captain (he could only play with the cards he was dealt), I'd suggest that Vaughan (26 wins in 50 Tests) has been a far bigger success. He deserves a fully supported run through to the Ashes next summer. But what do you think?

And where else do England need to make changes for the third Test? Should Broad be recast as a No 6 all-rounder? Has Ian Bell reverted to type again? Is Tim Ambrose really better than Matt Prior (or the oft-forgotten James Foster)? Answers by the usual channels...

Online Surveys & Market Research

An average birthday

There is a wonderful letter from a Paul Barton in Toowoomba, Australia, in the latest issue of The Wisden Cricketer magazine that is worth repeating here:

"There will be plenty of celebration regarding Don Bradman's 100th birthday on August 27, 2008. Has there been any thought as to when he would have turned 99.94? This would be on August 5 (using 99.94 rounded) or August 6 (using his un-rounded average of 99.94285714286 etc)."

Congratulations, Mr Barton, on such a supreme act of geekery. You will find many admirers on this website.

Incidentally, yours truly wrote this month's cover story in TWC about the various innovations in batting before Pietersen and his switch-hits. You may find it worth a read on their website. Or even buy the magazine.

Bowled Darren

So that is that at Headingley. And though it may be cruel to say it, that is probably that for Darren Pattinson's Test career. His final haul of two Test wickets puts him joint-306th in the all-time England wicket-takers table, level with Mike Atherton and one ahead of David Gower. Thanks for trying Darren, take a shower and join us in the bar later.

Spot the batsman

After 11 Test innings...

Chris Broad had made 324 runs at an average of 32.4 with two fifties

Stuart Broad has made 371 runs at an average of 41.2 with three fifties

Of course, Broad Sr's opening Tests were against the West Indies in their mid-80s pomp, and he did rather well in Australia a couple of years later, but you have to admit that Broad Jr has started out quite well as a batsman (even if he is meant to be in the side as a bowler). I'd argue that the South Africa attack he has now hit two fifties off is as threatening, relative to the respective batting abilities of father and son, as the Windies.

And, as I have mentioned on this blog before, Stuart was happy to tell the media when he won the Cricket Writers' Club's young player of the year award: "I learnt how to play from my mother."

A team for the third Test

It seems that even the England management have given up on our batsmen taking the second Test into a final day. As England grapple on at Headingley, an email arrives in my inbox announcing that the squad for the third Test will be named on Saturday. The timing of the email seems to send out the wrong message: forget this Test, even though we are technically still playing it, on to the next one.

Using the now established England policy of picking players simply by looking down the averages and selecting someone who is doing well but has barely been heard of (on the grounds that their lack of public stature means you can easily ditch them if they don't do well) I have guessed at the following XI from the latest championship averages:

Paul Horton, Ian Westwood, Andrew Gale, Paul Borrington, Steve Snell (wk), Jonathan Clare, Chris Woakes, James Tomlinson, Tony Palladino, Ian Hunter, Ragheb Aga

That should have the Aussies quaking: 11 decent county players, with between seven and 52 first-class caps. The batsmen all average above 31 (Horton is almost touching 50) and have made 18 hundreds between them; the bowlers have nine five-fors en masse. Well it's worth a go.

Watch out for Wakefield

There is a tenuous link between the Open golf and cricket that may be of interest. Sitting in fourth place at the moment at Royal Birkdale is Simon Wakefield, a little-known Englishman who has played very steady golf and could be a shock winner in the Ben Curtis/Todd Hamilton mould. Wakefield's uncle, I learn, is Bob Taylor, the former England wicketkeeper.

Mind you, if Wakefield, the world No 252, wins it would say something about the other golfers who had a chance with Tiger Woods being absent. Could Wakefield be the Darren Pattinson of the links?

England need to dig deep

If South Africa could do it, why can't we? Because it is starting to look as if England will have to bat for two days at Headingley to save this Test match. OK, South Africa's lead at the moment is only 120 and their batting is not that deep. We may well skittle them before lunch. England certainly should not be thinking at this stage that they can't win the game. There are three days left, for a start. Keep convincing yourself Kidd.

But it seems likely that even if we bowl them out before tea today, England will have to bat well into the final day to eat up the deficit and make enough of a lead to be safe. Do we have the batsmen who can stay in for more than 120 overs, given the improvements shown by South Africa? A lot of questions will be asked of England's temperament: the sort of tests that will be asked of them by Australia next summer. Now is the time to show some balls - think Ricky Ponting at Old Trafford in 2005 or Neil McKenzie at Lord's last week. Time for Vaughan, Bell and Cook, especially, to prove that they are capable of building a big innings when the pressure is on.

Speaking of pressure, though, I'm up at the Open golf, where Greg Norman still leads going into the final round. Hitherto he has breezed through this tournament, looking every inch a man who has just got married and is playing for fun and to impress his new bride. Now that people are starting to talk about him as a possible champion, though, will those old demons return?

Norman has been a great golfer and twice an Open champion but he also had a reputation for blowing tournaments. He could have won half a dozen more majors, most notably when he was psychologically battered by Nick Faldo at the Masters in 1996. Has he put that all behind him? I hope so. It would be a wonderful story if Norman could lift the Claret Jug againt at the age of 53.

England v South Africa, second Test

Strange things happen in sport - and this comes from someone who has been watching 53-year-old Greg Norman lead the Open for much of today - but the selection of Darren Pattinson for his first bowl in Test cricket this morning is one of the stranger. I've already posted on him, so leave your comments there. Cricinfo described his second ball today as being reminiscent of Angus Fraser in his pomp, but Graeme Smith soon went after him, hitting three fours, and Pattinson was taken off after three overs.

Great that Andrew Flintoff is back and bowling so well, but the batting looks light. Flintoff made 17, which is no worse comparatively than anyone else did, but Tim Ambrose does not look like a Test No 6 (nor more than Flintoff does) and Vaughan continues to cause worries. Ian Bell returned to his usual "so far but no farther" approach to an innings, and Kevin Pietersen remains the only batsman of threat.

On the two controversial "catches", the one claimed by AB De Villiers off Andrew Strauss even though it was very clear that the ball had been taken on the bounce and the one by Michael Vaughan that was given and then changed after Hashim Amla appealed, my view is this: fielders occasionally make dodgy appeals knowing that they are trying their luck, it is up to the umpires, backed up by TV if needs be, to tell them to get knotted. In the case of the De Villiers catch, it was very naughty of him to appeal for something so clearly not out but the umpires made the right decision.

The Vaughan "catch" was less clear-cut and I'm sure his appeal was based on a hunch rather than an attempt to con anyone. But when Amla was given out, he should have gone. It is outrageous for a batting side, watching the game in the dressing room, to see that someone should not have been given out and then demand a TV replay. The umpires should have gone to the TV in the first place but once they decided not to, the batting side should accept the poor decision.

And before anyone accuses me of pro-England bias, I expressed the same opinion in this blog last summer when Kevin Pietersen also walked off to the pavilion only to be told to appeal a catch by his team-mates. It is the men in white coats who control the game, for better or worse, not the spectating players.

Darren Who?

OK, I'm a bit out of touch at the moment. I'm up at Royal Birkdale for the Open and, frankly, after the downpours we suffered yesterday I'm still waiting for the mist to evaporate off my glasses. So when I turned on my computer just now to see how the Test match was looking and saw the headline "Pattinson makes debut", I thought "I didn't even realise South Africa had someone called Pattinson in their squad."

But he's one of ours. Or rather, one of Australia's. Darren Pattinson makes his England debut today (drizzle permitting) as a replacement for the injured Ryan Sidebottom, having been listed earlier this morning on Cricinfo as an Australian. He was born in Grimsby, Lincolnshire, but raised in Australia and made his first-class debut for Victoria last year - at the age of 28.

He took five wickets on his debut for Notts this season and I vaguely recall the name, but at the time I probably thought "just another Kolpaker". His first-class record of 40 wickets in 11 matches at an average of 26 does not suggest anything special.

That picture, by the way, is him bowling for Nottinghamshire, not (as I initially thought) for South Africa.

There are two possible explanations for why Darren Pattinson was called up at short notice from Trent Bridge. 1) In these straitened times, the selectors wanted to save on paying mileage to a bowler from a southern club; or 2) Possibly following on from that, the selectors actually meant to call up Darren Gough but hit the wrong number on the speed dial. I suppose there is also a third explanation: that the selectors have seen real promise and think he can do a job.

This is surely one of the most left-field selections ever. Possibly up there with the time that Australia plucked Peter Taylor from obscurity for an Ashes Test, with some people wondering if the selectors had meant Mark Taylor. Taylor took a six-for in his first Test, so maybe Pattinson can have a similarly charmed introduction. This could be the best selectorial hunch since Tom Spedegue won the Ashes for England with his "dropper".

Good luck to him. The true test of whether he is English or Australian will be the post-match interview. If he begins by saying "Ahhhh, look, mate..." then he's a fair dinkum Ocker. But who cares if he's good?

The Line & Length Monday XI - answers

As England battle to find a way through the South Africa defences, here is almost as stern a test: our weekly cricket quiz. Click on the link below for the answers

Question 1 South Africa almost batted throughout Sunday without losing a wicket before Graeme Smith was out near the close. Only once has a side not lost a wicket in a whole day's play in England, when was it? A: 1948; B: 1989; C: 2001

Question 2 Smith and Neil McKenzie failed to bat through an entire day on Sunday but they have shared a day-long unbroken partnership in the past. Who was it against? A: Bangladesh; B: India; C: Zimbabwe

Question 3 Who holds the record for the biggest opening Test partnership in England? A: Geoff Marsh and Mark Taylor (Aus); B: Herschelle Gibbs and Graeme Smith (SA); C: Jack Hobbs and Herbert Sutcliffe (Eng)

Question 4 And a final question about opening partnerships, there have been 31 occasions in Tests when the England opening pair did not score a run. Which of these famous opening batsmen does not appear in the list? A: Geoffrey Boycott; B: John Edrich; C: Marcus Trescothick

Question 5 In the 180 or so overs that were possible for South Africa's bowlers in two rain-affected warm-up matches before the first Test, who got the most bowling under his belt? A: Makhaya Ntini; B: Morne Morkel; C: Paul Harris

Question 6 After whom is the trophy that England and South Africa are competing for named? A: Nelson Mandela; B: Basil D'Oliveira; C: Graeme Pollock

Question 7 Surrey failed to beat Nottinghamshire in the County Championship today, meaning they are still without a win. Who is the other winless side in the tournament? Who? A: Gloucestershire; B: Hampshire; C: Glamorgan

Question 8 Probably not on many people's radar, but who is presently winning the English second XI championship? A: Kent; B: Durham; C: Essex

Question 9 Happy 32nd birthday to Geraint Jones, the former England wicketkeeper. In what profession did Jones train before deciding to become a professional cricketer? A: Dentistry; B: Law; C: Pharmaceutics

Question 10 How many wickets did Hedley Verity take for Yorkshire against Essex in one day, exactly 75 years ago? A: Ten; B: 14; C: 17

Question 11 The Open Championship starts at Royal Birkdale this week, so on a golf theme which former England captain has won the annual President's Putter tournament (for Oxford and Cambridge golfers) in Rye on three occasions? A: Tony Lewis; B: Ted Dexter; C: Mike Brearley

Return of the Shield

Never let it be said that Australians don't eventually learn from their mistakes (apart from when they made Crocodile Dundee 3). Second only to the ridiculous decision (later recanted) to kill off Harold Bishop in Neighbours, the worst mistake ever made by an Australian was when someone agreed to rebrand the Sheffield Shield as the Pura Cup nine years ago, ending more than 100 years of first-class history to placate a milky sponsor.

The fans hated the new name, the players hated it (Paul Reiffel said it felt like treason to put his face to an advert for it) and while Pura may have increased their recognition factor, most people still referred to the tournament as the Sheffield Shield.

Well now the dark days are over, the competition has a new sponsor, Weet-bix, and the name has been restored. Australian first-class cricketers will once again compete for the Sheffield Shield (not even the Weet-bix Sheffield Shield) and everything is right with the world.

Incidentally, why do the Aussies call the breakfast cereal Weet-bix and we call it Weetabix? Did a letter go missing in the post at some point?

According to The Australian, the shield itself was dismantled into 150 pieces after Pura took over and it has been painstakingly restored. It is now kept in a see-through case to prevent damage. The Shield dates back to 1891-92 when Lord Sheffield was in Australia to promote the English team led by WG Grace. At the end of the tour, his nibs donated pound £150 to the New South Wales Cricket Association to promote inter-colonial cricket. By a 6-5 vote, the states decided to put the money towards an annual trophy.

Where to put Flintoff...

England have added the big guy from Lancashire to their squad for the second Test against South Africa, which starts later this week, and I think we can assume that barring any late injuries he will play.

But should he? And who should be dropped to make way? And where should he bat? For what it's worth, my answers are: yes, Collingwood and (with crossed fingers) No 6 but what do you think?

Much of the first part of this summer was spent worrying about whether Flintoff had lost his batting mojo, but having made two fifties and a thirtysomething in three of his past four innings, that is an area of his game that, if not totally recovered, is at least looking better than it was.

One comment on this blog yesterday suggested that Stuart Broad should bat at No 6, which is intriguing but almost definitely won't happen.

I was impressed with the way Broad bowled at Lord's, though. He regularly forced the batsmen on to the back foot, so much so that some of them were almost treading on their stumps.

I think he has earned his place for Headingley and one assumes that Sidebottom, if fit, and Anderson go too. If Sidebottom's bed-hopping has finally knackered his back, though, there will be a temptation to play Flintoff instead of him and give Collingwood a reprieve. I'd rather see Flintoff and Simon Jones in if that were the case.

Anyway, over to you: who's in, who's out and where do they all go?

Another Test, another farcical end

Let me begin this post by congratulating South Africa on showing the backbone and technique to grind out their second innings for 167 overs, ensuring that the first Test match ended as a draw. Having made a bit of a mess of their first innings, they showed how hard it will be to shift them throughout the series, especially if the pitch is offering little help.

But what a shame that yet again the Test had to end in farce. I know (but don't really agree) that a Test can be called off as a draw at 5pm if the match is going nowhere, so why was there any need for the umpires to offer the light at 4.35pm, given that the batsmen weren't really in any danger and, frankly, England had given up trying to get them out?

I know that one ball from Paul Collingwood had reared up at Ashwell Prince, but it was one ball - and Colly, the old 75mph trundler - for goodness sake.

Having taken them off, the umpires then decided that the light had got better ten minutes later, so out they came again. This time there were 15 minutes to survive before stumps could be drawn, but Graeme Smith, the cunning blighter, had worked out that if he declared (SA were 47 ahead) then that would eat up ten of those minutes.

Michael Vaughan seemed to agree and so we had the ludicrous situation of first Kevin Pietersen and then Alastair Cook, a man who had bowled 26 overs in his entire first-class career, sending down an over to eat up time before at ten-to-five, Smiff declared and the match was called off.

OK, the game was going nowhere, but surely the only reason you forfeit the final hour is if neither side can win. By declaring 47 runs ahead, hadn't Smith given England a chance of winning? Scoring 47 shouldn't be beyond England in an hour. Of course, Smith's declaration was only made because England had promised not to chase it, but it leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.

Yet again, the spectators are short-changed. Even if the match had nothing riding on it, they had paid to watch six hours of cricket and they should have been given it or at least given a clean ending.

Spinners who open

Last night we had the unusual sight of two England spinners taking the new ball, so that they could get a few overs in against South Africa in light that was too poor to allow Sidebottom and Anderson to go first. Monty Panesar and Kevin Pietersen had two overs each and then, naturally, when play resumed this morning it was back to the quicks doing what quicks are meant to do.

It got me thinking and researching about when England last opened the bowling with a spinner. It was actually only two years ago, when Monty opened the second innings against Pakistan at Headingley, but as you would expect it has been quite a rare occurence. Before that match, the previous time was when Ashley Giles opened with Matthew Hoggard against India at Ahmedabad (he was wicketless). Before that was in 1992 when Mark Ramprakash was given the dubious honour of bowling his off spin at Pakistan at the Oval when the away side needed two runs to win in the second innings. He began with a wide and then Aamir Sohail hit his first legitimate ball for four.

Phil Tufnell opened in the second innings against New Zealand at Wellington the previous winter in a dead game and John Emburey opened in the first innings against West Indies at Old Trafford in 1988 (perhaps because he was captain - it didn't work, he was wicketless). Phil Edmonds bowled first at India as they chased only 48 to beat England in Bombay in 1984, taking one wicket but not the ten that England would have hoped for.

You then have to go back 20 years for the previous time when England opened the bowling with a spinner. In fact it was a pair of spinners: Ken Barrington, who bowled leg breaks, and Fred Titmus's offies were used at Old Trafford because only two overs were possible at the end of a drawn Test with Australia. In 1952, however, England used two spinners as an attacking opening pair and it paid off. Malcolm Hilton, a slow left-armer, and Roy Tattersall, an off-break bowler, opened in the second innings against India at Kanpur, bowled 60 overs between them (supplemented by seven overs of off spin from Jack Robertson) and the three took nine wickets to give England a chance of victory.

Before then it was Len Braund and Colin Blythe in 1902 but maybe I'm now showing that I've got too much time on my hands...

South Africa rally on day 4

I was in the Tavern Stand at Lord's yesterday for the third day of the first Test, watching England move into a position of such strength that it even appeared likely that they could win by an innings within four days. South Africa showed their true colours today, losing only one wicket as they fought to get back into the game.

It is almost possible - but surely unthinkable - that South Africa could score 250 runs quickly enough tomorrow to give themselves 40 overs of bowling at England with a target of 150. That won't happen, of course, not least because South Africa will be glad just to save this game; they won't want to risk making a declaration and looking stupid this early in the series. Honours even and on to Headingley.

Funny how easily one can be made to look stupid. In the Times Online podcast before this Test, I gave the opinion that South Africa's pace trio would cause us problems, that the South Africa batsmen were if anything more dangerous and that Ashwell Prince, who had scored 118 runs in his previous eight innings, was their only weak link in the top six. Naturally, the bowlers looked toothless and Prince was the only batsman to flourish.

I was delighted to see Prince get his hundred, especially the way in which he celebrated. It has become traditional for batsmen to leap into the air as they trot the historic single that brings up three figures, but I think that Prince, from a lower starting point, outleapt even Kevin Pietersen. Yet Saturday belonged strongly to England thanks to some controlled bowling and some brilliant fielding.

James Anderson's two catches off Monty Panesar were sublimely athletic, but Panesar perhaps made the most telling contribution himself when he bowled Neil McKenzie behind his legs. It was just after lunch and I was watching the first overs from the Nursery bar on TV. As the ball reached the batsman, it was so wide of leg stump that I feared we would concede byes. But it turned beautifully and just clipped the leg stump. Panesar has become that rarity: an England spinner who really can spin.

Even more rare is to have two England spinners sharing the new ball, but that was essential if they were to get in any overs in the twilight last night. Pietersen had dismissed Dale Steyn to close the South Africa innings and he almost had another scalp today when Graeme Smith edged a ball from Pietersen when he was on 106 and Tim Ambrose, with floppy gloves, made a hash of catching the ball. If he hadn't bothered, Paul Collingwood would probably have snaffled it but instead Ambrose did a good job of impersonating a goalkeeper turning the ball round the post.

How Pietersen would have loved to have added Smith to his list of wickets (Kamran Akmal, MS Dhoni and Ross Taylor being the other scalps). That he caught Smith one run later off the bowling of Anderson was probably a small compensation.

So what will happen on day 5? Much depends on whether South Africa continue to demonstrate that gritty determination to avoid getting out that they showed today. Across their two innings, South Africa have scored at barely two and a half runs per over. They are in no hurry and England will have to find ways of shunting them tomorrow. I fear that we could be heading for a repeat of the Lord's Test against Sri Lanka two years ago, when England were 360 runs ahead on first innings and failed to win.

In fact, on the past three occasions England have made more than 550 at Lord's (v Sri Lanka, West Indies and Pakistan) they have not won a single game. A sign of how Lord's flattens out as the game goes on, or a sign of England being unable to turn the screw of games they are winning?

[pics: Getty]

Bell falls for 199

What a sad way for Ian Bell to go, caught and bowled by Paul Harris for 199. When the disappointment has gone I hope he looks back on this innings with pride and uses it for inspiration to develop into the game-changer that he can be, rather than the follower he has tended to be.

David Lloyd has been chirping before and after the dismissal that no one has been out for 199, but there have actually been six occasions when a batsman has been out one shy of a double ton. Mudassar Nazar was the first, in 1984, and was followed by Mohammad Azharuddin, Matthew Elliott, Sanath Jayasuriya, Steve Waugh and Younus Khan. Andy Flower was once not out on 199.

I said in an earlier post that Bell needed to make a lot more than just 100 and he has done that. Ultimately the difference between 199 and 200 is little different to that between 189 and 190.  After all, Rob Key made a double hundred for England at Lord's and where is he now? What matters most is that he stayed in and, with superb batting support from the increasingly impressive Stuart Broad, pushed England on towards 600. And by getting out he has allowed Michael Vaughan to declare and given England the chance of a wicket or two before the close.

Incidentally, what a terrible decision by Graeme Smith to insert England. By making 593 for eight, England have achieved the tenth highest total by a side batting first after losing the toss. Some way behind the worst decision of all, when Zimbabwe won the toss and then spectated as Australia made 735 at Perth.

Where others lead, Bell follows

Lunchtime in the Test match and well done to Ian Bell for reaching his eighth Test hundred - his third at Lord's - in the morning session. The responsibility is now on him, especially after Collingwood departed early, to turn his lunchtime 118 into something a fair bit bigger, 150 at least.

But... while not wanting to take anything away from Bell, I have noticed a rather odd trend in his career. Each time Bell makes a hundred, someone else has got to three figures earlier in the innings. In this Test, it was Pietersen who milked the appluase last night before Bell made his own hundred. In 2005, when Bell made his first and biggest hundred against Bangladesh, Marcus Trescothick got there first. Later that year, when Bell made 115 at Faisalabad, Pietersen was the first to reach three figures in England's innings despite coming in after Bell.

In summer 2006, Bell made three hundreds against Pakistan, the first coming after Cook and Collingwood had earlier registered tons, the second coming again in the wake of Cook, and the third after Pietersen had made a hundred first. Finally, last summer, he again let Cook and Collingwood take the applause before making his own hundred against West Indies.

Eight innings, eight hundreds and yet on no occasion was Bell the leading man. I just wonder whether he is uncomfortable with the responsibility of setting the game's agenda. Is it just a coincidence that at Old Trafford against West Indies last summer Bell fell for 97, with no other batsman making more than 60? The situation cried out for him to play a big innings and he couldn't.

Sorry, I know this will read like negative carping, rubbing it in for the poor lad after a good knock. But trends, especially 100 per cent trends, do often reveal more than innings on their own.