Brilliant game, spoiled by Broad though. How anyone has the gall to not walk when they've been caught at slip is beyond me.
England are a far better side than the Aussies. They played at 50% of their capabilities and still managed to win. The two last wicket stands masked the massive gulf between the teams.
But Broad didn't edge to slip...it came off the keepers hip to the slips
That's a big enough deflection, take away the hip and it goes straight to slips right hand!
I think you need to look at the Aussie media reaction to Broad's decision not to walk to get an idea of the state of the game now. It was a howler from the umpire, end of. The vast majority of batsmen don't walk these days, and with DRS, why should they. The fielding team have a bit more in their favour now, and as Clarke has now said, he realised he used DRS poorly in this match so has to shoulder some blame also.
England played well when it mattered but think they have plenty more to show. Good it was a tight game, should wake them up a bit to the threat of this Aussie team. Going to fight all the way but would like to see us kick-on from here and really hammer it home, win the next couple and seal the series.
Swann's form was a tad concerning, never seen him bowl so many full tosses. Hopefully out of system. I thought Broad has an excellent game with the ball as well. Didn't get the wickets but was economical when needed, especially after replacing Finn in the 2nd innings when he had gone around the park!
Can't wait for Thursday!
Indeed. The thing with being a batsman is that the next time you bat the umpire could give you out when you haven't edged it. Swings and roundabouts.
By the same token if the TV umpire had seen that Agar was obviously stumped when on 6 (?) in the first innings then Englandwould have won comfortably.
The worrying thing with DRS isTV umpires making mistakes, there is no excuse. Two howlers in this game and one I can recall from the Champions Trophy. Umpires on the pitch making errors is just part of the game but when they have a tv screen in front then it's inexcusable.
It did make me laugh when Atherton was saying the game ended on a controversial DRS decision. Errrr no it didn't, that's what DRS is for, nothing controversial about it.
Yep that was amusing. Can you imagine if they hand't reviewed it, or had none left. DRS at the end made sure the game didn't end in controversy.
I completely understand what you guys are saying. But my point is that this match was won by the captain who used DRS most effectively. If Clarke had used it effectively, the Aussies would probably have won.
In my opinion that takes something away from the game. Maybe adding a few challenges to each innings might help?
You can't call that the only factor though, if the third umpire had done his job properly then it could have been an easier victory for us than it was.
Wow. I don't watch cricket but I've heard so many holier than though people on the radio complaining. Surely it's like a ref missing a handball or foul in football. The away fans and opposition always see it and go loopy.Imagine if the player ran over and confessed to the referee and asked to be booked/sent off. How would his team mates/manager/fans react. Then there's the retired Aussie cricketer on 5live on Sunday morning who did walk and his team mates were furiously. Priceless.
Australia vice-captain Brad Haddin says Stuart Broad did nothing wrong by refusing to walk in the first Ashes Test at Trent Bridge.
And Haddin says the incident adds fuel to the suggestion that DRS be taken out of the players' hands and given instead to the umpires to use themselves.
England star Broad clearly nicked a ball from Ashton Agar behind to Haddin, and after the ball ricocheted off Haddin's glove it ended up in the hands of first slip.
The on-field umpire gave Broad not out, to the dismay of the Aussies, who had no more reviews, having used up all their three opportunities.
Broad added a further 28 more runs after that - and England's margin of victory was just 14. Haddin though insists Broad was within his rights to stay at the crease.
"I personally think the umpires might as well use the reviews. I don't think they need to be in the players' hands, to be honest," Haddin said. "I see nothing wrong with what Stuart did. The umpire is there to make the decision and he has seen it different to everyone else.
"That's what the system was brought in for, the howler. The system is the same for both teams, we just haven't used it very well. That's the bottom line.
"We have to take emotion out of the decision and go on what we see. If you think it's out, challenge it. We obviously got it wrong this Test but it might be different next Test."
Haddin took Australia within sight of a remarkable victory at Trent Bridge before falling to James Anderson who finished with 10 wickets.
Haddin admitted he knew he had nicked the ball, though England needed to call on DRS to get the decision after the initial verdict went against them.
"The umpire didn't give me out so I wasn't walking," he said.
"I knew I nicked it. I told James (Pattinson) that I hit it. The umpire just didn't give me.
"Obviously Jimmy was the difference. He was at you the whole time. I had the opportunity when Steven Finn came on to force the game a little bit," Haddin said.
"I had the feeling England didn't really want to bowl him. I was always going to go then and see where it got to, see if they could bring Jimmy back quicker than they wanted to. In the end it worked against me, he got me in the end.
"He has shown over a long period of time that he has got a pretty big engine. It's obvious he is the one we've got to work through. He bowled extremely well in difficult conditions for fast bowlers.
"It's important to get him bowling a lot of overs. My mindset was to take the game to Finn because I had the feel England didn't really want to bowl him when the pressure was on."