Let’s be clear. Mitchell Marsh was out. Stone cold, clear as day, salmon trout, out.
But he was dreadfully unlucky to have been given out.
Marsh’s dismissal was a case of a procedural stuff-up producing the right result.
After hitting the ball back to Matt Henry via his left shoe, Marsh stood his ground. Henry offered an appeal of such minimal proportions it appeared he wasn’t asking umpire Ian Gould if it was out so much as merely wondering out loud to himself if there was a chance he might have just taken a wicket.
More cricket:
» The Liebke Ratings: New Zealand vs Australia third ODI
» Has Brendon McCullum retired a tad too early?
» McCullum: Withdrawing appeal would have been ‘disrespectful’
» Watch: New Zealand retain Chappell-Hadlee Trophy amid controversy
» New Zealand vs Australia highlights: New Zealand take Chappell-Hadlee trophy
» Scorecard: New Zealand vs Australia third ODI
Few, if any, of the other New Zealanders offered an appeal. Gould was unmoved. Henry trudged back towards the top of his run-up.
It was only when the replay on the big screen showed that the ball had not hit the ground before finding its way into Henry’s hands that an appeal took place, a good 20 or 30 seconds after the action had occurred.
Batsmen and bowlers are not offered the chance to watch a replay before making a review through the Decision Review System. The fielding side shouldn’t be granted such an advantage before asking the umpire to check for a bump-ball.
The incident was reminiscent of a delivery during the fourth Test of the 2002-03 Ashes. A Steve Harmison delivery caught Steve Waugh’s edge en route to the gloves of James Foster, but none of the English fielders appealed until the replay appeared on the big screen.
In that case, David Orchard ruled the appeal to be too late. In this case, the fielding side was rewarded with a wicket.
With Marsh at the crease, Australia stood a good chance of winning the match, and the Chappell-Hadlee Trophy with it. With him gone, they crumbled.
But be that as it may, Australia didn’t lose because of that decision. They lost the match – and the series – due to a horribly out-of-form middle order.
This team may be the current world champions, but the Australians have some serious problems that one controversial dismissal cannot gloss over.
Steve Smith was poor this series, but as one of world cricket’s premier batsmen, he’s not the problem. Or at least not the main one.
That dubious honour lies with the likes of George Bailey, Glenn Maxwell and Matthew Wade.
Bailey started the summer well, with two match-winning innings against India, but in New Zealand he has looked incapable of hitting the ball cleanly.
Maxwell’s spot in this side is now as dubious as his ODI Player of the Year award. Aside from his 96 against India in the Melbourne, he has scored just 83 runs in his other eight international matches this summer, at the same time taking a solitary wicket.
Wade is under even more scrutiny. His keeping is sub-par for state cricket, let alone the standard of international matches. With the bat, he has failed to pass 50 while wearing his national colours this summer.
That Wade has been dropped from the World T20 squad indicates the selectors have noticed his minimal impact, and that Peter Nevill is now in the box seat to get an ODI gig. It’s certainly a step in the right direction.
And to be fair, there are a few excuses and bright spots for Australia. Their best limited-overs bowler, Mitchell Starc, is injured. So too are James Faulkner, Aaron Finch – although his absence has allowed Usman Khawaja’s selection – and Pat Cummins. Mitchell Marsh has shown that someone with his last name can be worth persevering with based on talent alone.
But without a functional middle order, Australia cannot hope to dominate the ODI scene any longer.
And nothing, not injuries, not Marsh being out bowled Henry, caught Big Screen, can hide that.
Prosenjit
Guest
Plus one.i criticise shaun marsh because i've seen him bat quite a lot in ipl,where he's been brilliant.to me he's one aussi bat who's come nowhere near of fulfilling potential..since kim hughes.
anon
Guest
"Poor George. Apart from Shaun Marsh, he is Australia’s leading scapegoat." Shaun Marsh has an appallingly poor, selfish strike rate for ODI cricket. He's a selfish batsman who bats purely to get 30-40 runs and save his spot in the side. Doesn't matter to him if it's 40 runs off 55 balls. Khawaja inclusion has already been vindicated. Solid runs at a good strike rate.
Prosenjit
Guest
You missed my earlier comment so let it be repeated..i don't think on field umpires are allowed to change their minds after watching replays on stadium screen.what the rule book says?
ClarkeG
Guest
why would any captain recall a batsman who is clearly out caught. of course the crowd made a fuss - they could see he was clearly out i don't see the hypocrisy
ClarkeG
Guest
very clever of you except in this instance the umpires reviewed the decision and the batsman was shown to be clearly out caught.
Prosenjit
Guest
@julian king,if a bowled batter refuses to leave,an appeal will ultimately be made followed by a few expletives and laughters from fielding side.that's too obvious.
Prosenjit
Guest
I see two probable mistakes there.'umpires did not see or hear an appeal'',how could they take a decision then?
Alan
Guest
They must have been blind as everyone else saw the appeal. Stop making excuses for what was a very just decision. If the decision was not given in NZ's favour, then NZ are the ones who would have been hard done by. Can't believe the Aussies are acting like they have been robbed when the guy was clearly out.
Don Freo
Guest
Lighten up Trussl I am not much younger than he would be...maybe 20 or 30 years. That was 60 years ago. Leave Keith there. That's when he was interesting.
Bunnies1958
Roar Rookie
I can only hope Don, that this a tongue in cheek comment! Keith Miller was one of the most fearless and gifted cricketers, let alone sportsman, of his generation.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
"He held the ball up and said howzat. The very dictionary definition of an appeal." The on-field umpires both told Chris Broad they did not see or hear an appeal from Henry.
Basil
Guest
lol, why should he walk? the kiwi batters don't, as we saw in the recent odis with pakistan!
Prosenjit
Guest
But then are the umpires permitted to take decisions or go upstairs after watching replays on big screen?definitely not.
Prosenjit
Guest
Bailey seems to perform only against india.i'm not sure where the question of excuse come from if marsh was clearly out.also not sure why smith and warner were sent there early?if anything it disturbed their rythm slightly.
Targa
Guest
Australia missed someone like Michael Clarke who generally played old-fashioned ODI knocks without a huge strike rate. 60 off 85 balls would have been fine.
jimmyd
Guest
Nice flag bro
Smocks Folder
Guest
So McCullum is on record as saying he would have recalled Stokes - who was clearly out...
Smocks Folder
Guest
I believe Brendon McCullum, in his last match, "missed a great opportunity to strike a blow for the spirit of cricket". "It was disappointing that McCullum had a chance to make a statement about the way he wants his side to play the game and chose to go the other way," "Don't get me wrong: winning is important. But the longer you play this game the more you realise that some things are too valuable to spoil. By not withdrawing the appeal, McCullum showed his immaturity. He may live to regret it." Quotes attributable to St B of McC...
TC123
Roar Rookie
Would there be an international captain from any country that would have ignored the big screen replay and say nothing? Would Australia have handled it differently SP? Australia got a taste of their own for a change and aren't enjoying it.
Garth
Guest
McCullum didn't call for the review. The umpires saw the big screen themselves, approached McCullum and told him they were reviewing based on what THEY saw. Something they have able to do for years and predating the DRS.