Tony Greig once had Ian Chappell given out twice in a Test (at The Oval, I seem to remember) caught behind off his pad; each time Chappell marched off the pitch in such a way that no one knew that he had been hard done by. This has always represented to me the high point of cricketing behaviour with regard to mistaken umpiring decisions: once the umpire has given a decision, get on with the game, whether in the field or as batsman.
When Brian Lara was given out on Friday, he lingered long at the crease and his whole demeanour made it plain to the world at large, who knew it from their TV screens anyway, that he had not hit the ball with his bat. Later he made an interesting statement. 'I still find it impossible not to walk when I know I'm out.'
This oblique remark - which means, I suppose, that he knew he was not out, or else he would have walked without even waiting for the umpire's decision - is no defence. Lara's comment implies that umpires should not give him out caught, since he will do that for them. In fact, his attitude reveals the bad side of 'walking' - those who do tend to regard themselves as more wronged than the majority, who leave all such matters to the umpire, and take the rough with the smooth. If, like Lara, you walk, you have to take the rough with the rough, however bad the decision.
And this was a bad decision. Lara played the ball skilfully, making sure that his front pad protected his stumps, while withdrawing his bat out of the way between his legs. I should think that it was just about impossible for the ball to have hit the edge and if it had, the umpire could hardly have seen it.
What is more, there was no doubting the crucial aspect of this dismissal. Lara had been visibly determined, no doubt well aware of his modest record at Lord's. He was taking no chances. He looked like a man who knew not only that his team's fortunes might well rest on him, but also that he being at the crease might be the most relaxing place for him after his bizarre decision to field first on winning the toss on a pitch that looked bare and flat and was bound to wear.
One would have thought that the triangular series final on the same ground two weeks previously might have concentrated his mind in this regard. Lara won the toss then and decided to field. On the face of it, this must have seemed an almost routine decision because every one of the earlier matches had been won by the team batting second, although most had been played in cloudy conditions.
The final was played on the pitch used four days before for the match between England and West Indies. It was dry and white, somewhat worn and, what is more, the day was sunny (as it was on Thursday). As the match went on, the ball came on to the bat less and less and West Indies' momentum was destroyed by the slower bowlers, Daniel Vettori and Chris Harris. Similarly here on Friday. West Indies raced away, only to be pegged back by Ashley Giles bowling into the left-handers' rough outside the off stump. Perhaps Lara was too persuaded by his theory that England lacked a plan B if plan A - keep bowling Steve Harmison - were to fail.
In the event, Vaughan was strangely reticent with Harmison. Having withdrawn him after three expensive overs with the new ball, Harmison did not bowl again until the thirty-second over. And yesterday Matthew Hoggard bowled for 50 minutes - and six overs - before Harmison came on.
One key question the captain needs to ask himself is whom the batsman would least like to face. My guess is that they would have preferred Hoggard - although Hoggard's first over of the morning caused Shivnarine Chanderpaul problems as he seemed, uncharacteristically, to be making the ball move away late from the left-hander from round the wicket, and, to be fair to Hoggard, he looked more athletic and lively than when I have seen him recently. Perhaps, like Ian Botham, he is better when running in hard and bowling at the top end of his range.
When Harmison did eventually bowl, he looked good, cruising in and bowling an accurate and probing spell that showed just how far he has come in both control and know-how, in that he bowled several balls just short, getting lift from the unresponsive pitch, and then pitched the odd ball invitingly farther up outside the off stump.
Chanderpaul, the least flamboyant of the West Indies batsmen, played a fine innings. He has an open stance, showing the bowler the stumps and more, but as the ball is bowled, he bends his knees, shifting his weight first on to his front, then quickly on to the back foot, and moves in front of middle and off. Watchful, fidgety and industrious, he also unleashed a stream of cover drives off front and back foot as first with debutant Dwayne Bravo, then with Ridley Jacobs and Omari Banks, West Indies fought towards their first target, to avoid the follow-on.
The cricket was absorbing and hard-fought, with few easy runs on offer. The pitch was still gentle and easy-paced, although there were signs of occasional untoward lift, notably the ball that dismissed Bravo, which took off from just short of a length to be caught above his head by wicketkeeper Geraint Jones, who spent most of the innings grovelling for the ball round his feet. If England had been in a position to enforce the follow-on, they may have chosen not to, given the settled weather forecast.
You've read the piece, now have your say. Email your comments, be as frank as you like, we can take it, to sport.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk, or mail the Observer direct at sport@observer.co.uk