What does that quote prove exactly? That Australian cricketers, as well as Stuart Broad, are pricks? I kinda already knew that.
The point I was making is that this victory is unfortunately tainted in some people's eyes because it was won by the team who used DRS better, rather than the better cricketing team (arguably).
The umpire made a howler. We know that. The Australians don't blame Broad for anything. We know that too.
Did you see the period of time after the incident, when Broad was obviously deeply embarrassed, had his head down and shoulders slumped, and looked pleased to leave he pitch at the end of the day when ordinarily he'd have walked off with a big smile on his face? It kinda tells you all you need to know.
What would you say to the cricketers who do walk when they edge it? Are they being stupid and naive and living in cloud cuckoo land? Perhaps they want to actually feel like they earn a win, rather than taking advantage of dodgy decisions. It's not a fair game if people are playing under different rules according to their own conscience and sense of fair play is it?
I can understand why a lot of England fans won't care about this. But it's a tainted win nonetheless.

Moving on. Have you guys read this just up on BBC BBC Sport - Ashes 2013: Australia captain Michael Clarke comes of age
Apparently Clarke is one of the best captains out there??? Completely disagree with most of the article, he's in great nick with that bat, well last year anyway, but as a skipper hasn't shown it yet for me. Not by a long way.
Brilliant start from our openers 
bleeding hell!
Well a poor start, a great middle and a slightly iffy end sum up day 1 of the 2nd test for me.
Overall you would normally want in excess of 400 on a batting wicket like this with fair weather all test, but I really do think that we have a pretty special bowling line up, especially Jimmy.I think that we should be able to defend 300-350 pretty well to be honest and think we'll end up around 320 all out.Fingers crossed that the likes of Swan can have a good knock though and if we get to 350then I think we can really go on the attack.
Shaping up to be another great test.That said, if Australia click with the bat then they could easily rack up a 600 score on a pitch like this.You would have to question their ability to do that though as there are not many really world class batsmen in the Aussie side (Clarke & maybe Watson).With the likes of Bell, KP, Trott, Cook, Root and even the likes of Bairstow and Prior, we should be beating them in the batting stakes.I guess that was shown in the first test when only that Agar performance really saved them from being all out for 130.
Despite the great batting wicket, I think we can bowl them out for around 280 if we can get a fairly decent 350.We can go on the attack early and hopefully cut through the top and middle order as we did in the first test.
What you're getting now is a lot of confusion by players over how and when to use the technology, and it's actually having a big effect on games.
That Swann wicket just now is a case in point.
You're also getting quite regular umpire howlers. I wonder whether some of that is just umpires relaxing a little because they know technology may be used.
You're also getting errors during the review system. The camera shows one thing, and the decision goes the other way. That, too, is happening quite regularly.
You can totally understand the views of the Indians in all this.
The aussies need lessons on using their reviews, their selections so far have been awful, Watson's LBW was as plumb as you could have made it and it was his screw up that made Rogers think twice about potentially losing their remaining review. If Watson hadn't been so foolish then Rogers would have likely reviewed straight away.
As for Hughes, surprised he bothered really, at his level a batsman should know if he has nicked it, no matter how feint the nick, he can feel that and should know that a review would be a waste.
Theres nothing wrong with the review system IMO, Australia just seem to be useless with it.
Yeah agreed the Aussies are awful with reviews.
That Hughes one is interesting though. Why did he review it if he knew he edged it? Makes you wonder doesn't it...maybe he didn't think he edged it?
I remember a series a few years ago in South Africa vs England, in which they didn't use hot spot or snicko. So even if the batsman edged it, it was worth a review by the batsman on the basis that the only way you'd be given out is if there was a visible edge on the replay.
So anyone who got a feather on it would review it, knowing they'd be given not out. I remember Graeme Smith being very canny with using it.
That's my point with the technology. Using it wisely is an important part of the game, but it shouldn't be. It should just be about how good you are at cricket!

He will have reviewed it hoping for a result a bit like Bairstow, get out of jail card. He knew he hit it, at this level you know even the slightest touches.
The review system allows us to at least try and remove questionable decisions, of course it has to be used well in order for it to work well, if you waste reviews then tough. It can make a match a fairer result if wrong decisions are correctly reviewed.
It's still about how good you are at cricket, however you now have an aid in case of umpire mistakes, but only if you don't throw them around like sweets
I'm not really that clued up on cricket - why didn't England make them follow on?