England v Australia, 1st Investec Test, Trent Bridge, 4th day July 13, 2013

Clarke draws line under Broad debate

59

With deed and then word, Australia's captain Michael Clarke has ruled a line under the debate that surrounded Stuart Broad's decision not to walk in the second innings of the Trent Bridge Ashes Test. Clarke himself declined to depart after none other than Broad procured a thin edge to Matt Prior behind the stumps as the tourists slid badly in their chase of 311 to win.

Afterwards he said that while the Australians had been frustrated by failing to secure Broad's wicket, there was little case for directing their anger towards the England No. 8. Clarke even referred to the concept of "getting away with" standing your ground and forcing an umpire to deliberate, something he has done several times himself in the past with varied results.

"We would've liked him out for a lot less that's for sure, but that's the way the game goes," Clarke said of Broad. "I'm not going to go back there. There's no need, it's the game of cricket. There's ups and downs, good times, bad times. Sometimes you get away with it, sometimes you don't. That's what I've seen through my career and that's the way it goes."

Clarke also offered unabashed support to Broad on Sky TV. "I've always been a believer that umpires are there to take decisions," he said. "If everybody walked, we wouldn't need umpires. It is an individual decision but I don't think any less of Stuart for what he did."

Regarding his own dismissal, Clarke said he had been unsure of whether he hit the ball or not, having also brushed bat with pad. His consultation with the non-striker Steven Smith better reflected the 21st century conventions of dismissals in the DRS era than much of the commentary surrounding the question of walking that has sprung up since Broad also stood his ground.

"Obviously not - I referred it," Clarke said. "Well, I knew I had hit my pad. I asked my partner up the other end and he certainly wasn't convinced I hit it either so I referred it. Actually when we both looked at the big screen we couldn't see anything, so we were pretty pumped that we made the right decision. Then I was given out and had another look when I came in the change room and there was a little spot there on Hot Spot. That's the way it goes. That's how the review system operates.

"I've said to our team that if you feel you're not out then back your judgement. And if the review doesn't go your way we move on. I'm not going to go into the DRS at the moment. We're using it. Both teams are using it. It's the same for both teams. We have no excuses at the moment. I'm certainly not going to use DRS as one."

Clarke also offered an extraordinary endorsement of the 19-year-old debutant Ashton Agar. Clearly impressed after watching Agar's treatment of Graeme Swann during his startling, world record 98 at No. 11 in the first innings, Clarke declared Agar to be among the best players of spin to enter the Australia dressing room in years.

Clarke explained that he had batted Agar at No. 11 in the first innings to help ease a nervous debutant into the match. But it seems inconceivable now that Agar will ever do so again for any team. His poise was on display a second time as he hung on stubbornly in the company of Brad Haddin to reach stumps on day four, Australia still needing 137 runs on the final day.

"He's as good a player against spin as we've had in the Australian team for a long time, so I think he'll certainly look forward to facing Swanny tomorrow," Clarke said. "He is definitely not a No. 11 in any team in the world. I batted him there in the first innings only so that he could find his feet in Test match cricket and get into the game. He showed he was ready.

"I thought it was the right thing to let him get into the game slowly, but he obviously proved me wrong there, he batted beautifully."

Apart from Agar, Phillip Hughes in the first innings and a composed opening stand by Shane Watson and Chris Rogers on the fourth afternoon, Australia's batsmen have largely failed to cope with the pressure imposed by England in Nottingham, even if Alastair Cook's side have not sustained it for anywhere near as long as Australia managed. Clarke said the falling of wickets in clusters could be attributed to conditions that England's batsman Ian Bell spoke of in subcontinental terms.

"I think that's the conditions in the UK to be honest," Clarke said. "Especially when you've got a wicket that is quite dry so you've got reverse swing and a lot of spin. I think it's these sort of conditions where if you get in it's about cashing in, going on to big scores, because it is a hard place to start.

"We've spoken about it as a batting unit. It's not from lack of work, the boys have been working extremely hand for the start of their innings and we're as well prepared as we can be. I think we've put up a really good fight so far and I'm excited about tomorrow."

Daniel Brettig is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo. He tweets here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Wealwayslosethecricket on July 14, 2013, 6:43 GMT

    This issue has been handled extremely well by Clarke. With DRS or without it, wrong decisions are always going to be part of the game, and the best way to handle one like this is to just 'get over it', and that's exactly what he's done. After all, there's only a handful of cricketers who would walk when they know they are out even if they've been given not out. In my opinion, this is less of an issue than sorting out the actual practical use of DRS, because that's something that the players and the organisation can actually actively do something about. That said, I hope England waste their remaining reviews tomorrow morning and next ball, Haddin edges one to slip and is given not out, just to stir the pot a little bit.

  • H_Z_O on July 15, 2013, 14:03 GMT

    @hm007 Actually, you have that backwards. The fact that a batsman who is given out caught behind, without hitting the ball, and has no reviews left, has to walk off the field knowing he wasn't out, is exactly why the batsman has to be allowed to do what Broad did. He knew he was out. Australia did. Dar didn't. If the roles were the other way around, Broad hadn't hit it, but the Australian fielders saw the deflection off Haddin's gloves and assumed he did, appealed and Dar gave it out, would Broad have been allowed to stand his ground even if he had no reviews left?

    As for batsmen standing their ground if they're bowled or caught in the deep, if the umpire misses that then I really hope the condemnation would not be aimed at the batsman for not walking, but at an umpire who has the eyesight of Mr Magoo.

    Dar should have given Broad out. Instead of blaming Broad for not walking, or even Clarke for wasting his reviews, why not blame Dar for missing what was an obvious decision?

  • mrgupta on July 15, 2013, 11:16 GMT

    For all the Aussie supporters crying fowl here let me remind you of another decision when DRS was not yet introduced. In the 2nd test at Sydney in 2007-08 series between India and Aus Andrew Symonds nicked the ball to the keeper. The nick was loud and clear and it was very obvious but he was not given out and he didn't even tried to walk off. Aussie were in bad shape that time and would have definitely lost the match if Symonds was given out. That didn't happen. Broad did the same. If Symonds was right at that time then so was Broad.

  • RoBoBobster on July 15, 2013, 7:42 GMT

    surely you could argue that a thick edge means you were less out-done than a thick one so he had even more right not to walk than for a faint tickle - but hey, that's cricket

  • on July 15, 2013, 6:12 GMT

    i remember the test match between pakistan and australia and gilchrist also got lbw but austrlian umpire didnt give him out and Pakistan lost that test match .Why shane warne always criticize umpires when the lost an ashes or test match against any team .

  • BKyogi on July 15, 2013, 5:13 GMT

    I can still remember when A.Symonds did not walk when he clearly edged the ball to the slip cordon during the 2nd test match against India. Umpire Bucknor did not give him out and he went on to score a century by which Australia won the match. Also, note that the Aussies always have a surprised look on their faces when given out by the umpire. Even when they are bowled, they wait to see whether the bowler bowled a no ball.

  • cricket-is-best on July 15, 2013, 3:20 GMT

    this is ridiculous that broad's crime is even compared to clarke's case, which was far from being foul! clarke stood there to use available technology, as he himself was not sure he nicked it. On the other hand, broad displayed a tremendous act of zero-remourse, even after such a thick edge to slips! its a great attitude by clarke to defend broad, in stark contrast to some of the ex-english cricketers displaying a cognitive distortion act of maximization of clarke's act to minimize broad's!

  • tapooori on July 14, 2013, 23:30 GMT

    Right after Michael Holding passed verdict over Chris Broad's incident, Two Australian players did something which also was as GOOD or BAD as what Chris did.

    Captain of Australian team referred a legitimate caught behind decision (for sure he knew he edged that ball to Prior). And if that was not enough, Haddin decided not to walk after edging the ball in to Prior's gloves (only after the use of DRS he was sent back). Should these two players also banned for bringing the game into dispute?

    The culture not walking after being caught is brought by Australia and except Gilchrist any or every Australian batsmen waits for umpires to give them out. The DRS is basically introduced to kill that "OZ" culture.

  • Twinkie on July 14, 2013, 22:44 GMT

    Mahesh Kameth, Ramdin did not fake a catch. He did not even appeal. Watch it again on youtube. The umpire never asked him if he'd caught it. It's exactly the same as Broad. He just did not volunteer any information. And why should he? The 'spirit of the game' is a nebulous concept with glaring inconsistencies. Keep talking Michael Hoding! The ICC has never been known for its fainess and equitable distribution of penalties.

  • Whatsgoinoffoutthere on July 14, 2013, 21:54 GMT

    @ Anthony Batiste: "When you smash it to first slip you should walk and save the game from farce.Standing your ground after a feather nick is a different kettle of fish."

    The only difference is that in the latter case you think you're going to get away with it. It's like saying a smash-and-grab is theft but picking someone's pocket isn't. Agar was out for six and Trott was sawn off for a duck and the only place this line of debate is headed is that you appear to be wishing the Australians had lost by more.

    This Test will be more noteworthy for different things than the result: It looks like Australia might have unearthed a genuine spin-bowling allrounder of the like they haven't had since Ritchie Benaud. And England are at present over-reliant on Jimmy Anderson to an extent that opens them to huge risk over this series and the one that follows.

  • Wealwayslosethecricket on July 14, 2013, 6:43 GMT

    This issue has been handled extremely well by Clarke. With DRS or without it, wrong decisions are always going to be part of the game, and the best way to handle one like this is to just 'get over it', and that's exactly what he's done. After all, there's only a handful of cricketers who would walk when they know they are out even if they've been given not out. In my opinion, this is less of an issue than sorting out the actual practical use of DRS, because that's something that the players and the organisation can actually actively do something about. That said, I hope England waste their remaining reviews tomorrow morning and next ball, Haddin edges one to slip and is given not out, just to stir the pot a little bit.

  • H_Z_O on July 15, 2013, 14:03 GMT

    @hm007 Actually, you have that backwards. The fact that a batsman who is given out caught behind, without hitting the ball, and has no reviews left, has to walk off the field knowing he wasn't out, is exactly why the batsman has to be allowed to do what Broad did. He knew he was out. Australia did. Dar didn't. If the roles were the other way around, Broad hadn't hit it, but the Australian fielders saw the deflection off Haddin's gloves and assumed he did, appealed and Dar gave it out, would Broad have been allowed to stand his ground even if he had no reviews left?

    As for batsmen standing their ground if they're bowled or caught in the deep, if the umpire misses that then I really hope the condemnation would not be aimed at the batsman for not walking, but at an umpire who has the eyesight of Mr Magoo.

    Dar should have given Broad out. Instead of blaming Broad for not walking, or even Clarke for wasting his reviews, why not blame Dar for missing what was an obvious decision?

  • mrgupta on July 15, 2013, 11:16 GMT

    For all the Aussie supporters crying fowl here let me remind you of another decision when DRS was not yet introduced. In the 2nd test at Sydney in 2007-08 series between India and Aus Andrew Symonds nicked the ball to the keeper. The nick was loud and clear and it was very obvious but he was not given out and he didn't even tried to walk off. Aussie were in bad shape that time and would have definitely lost the match if Symonds was given out. That didn't happen. Broad did the same. If Symonds was right at that time then so was Broad.

  • RoBoBobster on July 15, 2013, 7:42 GMT

    surely you could argue that a thick edge means you were less out-done than a thick one so he had even more right not to walk than for a faint tickle - but hey, that's cricket

  • on July 15, 2013, 6:12 GMT

    i remember the test match between pakistan and australia and gilchrist also got lbw but austrlian umpire didnt give him out and Pakistan lost that test match .Why shane warne always criticize umpires when the lost an ashes or test match against any team .

  • BKyogi on July 15, 2013, 5:13 GMT

    I can still remember when A.Symonds did not walk when he clearly edged the ball to the slip cordon during the 2nd test match against India. Umpire Bucknor did not give him out and he went on to score a century by which Australia won the match. Also, note that the Aussies always have a surprised look on their faces when given out by the umpire. Even when they are bowled, they wait to see whether the bowler bowled a no ball.

  • cricket-is-best on July 15, 2013, 3:20 GMT

    this is ridiculous that broad's crime is even compared to clarke's case, which was far from being foul! clarke stood there to use available technology, as he himself was not sure he nicked it. On the other hand, broad displayed a tremendous act of zero-remourse, even after such a thick edge to slips! its a great attitude by clarke to defend broad, in stark contrast to some of the ex-english cricketers displaying a cognitive distortion act of maximization of clarke's act to minimize broad's!

  • tapooori on July 14, 2013, 23:30 GMT

    Right after Michael Holding passed verdict over Chris Broad's incident, Two Australian players did something which also was as GOOD or BAD as what Chris did.

    Captain of Australian team referred a legitimate caught behind decision (for sure he knew he edged that ball to Prior). And if that was not enough, Haddin decided not to walk after edging the ball in to Prior's gloves (only after the use of DRS he was sent back). Should these two players also banned for bringing the game into dispute?

    The culture not walking after being caught is brought by Australia and except Gilchrist any or every Australian batsmen waits for umpires to give them out. The DRS is basically introduced to kill that "OZ" culture.

  • Twinkie on July 14, 2013, 22:44 GMT

    Mahesh Kameth, Ramdin did not fake a catch. He did not even appeal. Watch it again on youtube. The umpire never asked him if he'd caught it. It's exactly the same as Broad. He just did not volunteer any information. And why should he? The 'spirit of the game' is a nebulous concept with glaring inconsistencies. Keep talking Michael Hoding! The ICC has never been known for its fainess and equitable distribution of penalties.

  • Whatsgoinoffoutthere on July 14, 2013, 21:54 GMT

    @ Anthony Batiste: "When you smash it to first slip you should walk and save the game from farce.Standing your ground after a feather nick is a different kettle of fish."

    The only difference is that in the latter case you think you're going to get away with it. It's like saying a smash-and-grab is theft but picking someone's pocket isn't. Agar was out for six and Trott was sawn off for a duck and the only place this line of debate is headed is that you appear to be wishing the Australians had lost by more.

    This Test will be more noteworthy for different things than the result: It looks like Australia might have unearthed a genuine spin-bowling allrounder of the like they haven't had since Ritchie Benaud. And England are at present over-reliant on Jimmy Anderson to an extent that opens them to huge risk over this series and the one that follows.

  • hm007 on July 14, 2013, 20:11 GMT

    Currenly the argument is that batsman can stand for the umpire's decision regardless of whether he has touched the ball or not. This is totally flawed argument. If you ask me, a batsman has the right to stand his ground ONLY in case he is not sure if he has touched the ball. This does happen often, sure. However, if the batsman is sure that of touching the ball (assuming that his senses are upto the mark when there is a healthy edge, if he doesnt, then rush him to hospital please) he SHOULD walk. If he doesnt, he should be peanalised for acting against the spirit of the game. The case for not walking is that batsman often get some rough decisions against them and they should be allowed to take those which are in favour of them. However, DRS system was introduced exactly to avoid such decisions. Otherwise, every batsman should be allowed to stand irresptive of he has been cought in the deep or got bowled and if umpire goofs it up and if there are no reviews left, there is no coming back

  • derpherp on July 14, 2013, 15:08 GMT

    @varmachs- it's 2013. Not 1903, please define "gentlemen" in a relevant, modern, non-hierarchical manner.

  • 200ondebut on July 14, 2013, 15:06 GMT

    Look in the book!!!!! Blimey people you all need to let it lie. Bad decisions are part and parcel of the game - there are hundreds of examples and we have had at least three in this test. Need to move on. (No doubt our friends in India can now give examples where SRT, MSD or Dravid have moved on)

  • on July 14, 2013, 14:53 GMT

    Broad declined to walk because umpire didn't give him out. Holding's allegation and comparison to Ramdin doesn't appeal me simply because Ramdin faked a catch. In this case, umpire Aleem Dar didn't consult Broad and hence it is baseless to compare the two cases. If umpire had ruled him out incorrectly, he would have had no choice but to walk (unless the ICC's substandard DRS is in place).

    If Aussie fans feel that umpire is doing some favour to England, then where are the so called great umpires from Australia (I still remember Tendulkar's LBW decision when the ball nicked his helmet, repeated no balls againt Murulidharan's bowling) who openly murdered this sport just because of their lust to favour Australian team.

  • Sportius on July 14, 2013, 14:53 GMT

    Micheal Clarke can't criticize Stuart Broad even if he want to coz he did the same thing in Sydney 2008 vs India. He edged to Rahul Dravid at slip and waited for Umpire Bucknor to add one more blunder to his pretty long list. He was standing there like a stone. He waited till the Umpire to make one of the few correct decisions he made in that test. Don't believe me? search youtube.

  • on July 14, 2013, 14:13 GMT

    Either u hv umpires to make decisions or u just let players decide n walk without umpires! If d umpires r there, they r thr for a reason! Let individuals decide whether to walk or not! But I totally agree with Anthony tht Holding is right! If Ramdin was wrong then every act against the spirit of cricket shud b punished!

  • on July 14, 2013, 14:01 GMT

    When you smash it to first slip you should walk and save the game from farce.Standing your ground after a feather nick is a different kettle of fish. That said, The English handled their reviews much better than Australia and it was the difference.

  • on July 14, 2013, 13:30 GMT

    The whole point Holding was making about Broad not walking is that Ramdin should not have been punished for claiming a catch he had dropped. His point was that if you punish that, you must punish everything that is "not in the spirit of the game." Holding was not having a go at Broad, he was having a go at the ICC.

  • bobmartin on July 14, 2013, 13:25 GMT

    @RawleSH...Read the Laws..Under Law 27.2.. it states.. and I quote verbatim "The batsman is quite within his rights to remain at his crease until an appeal is made and the umpire gives his decision." That is exactly what Broad did...He acted within the Laws... therefore cannot be punished since he hasn't committed an offence Whatever Ramdin did is immaterial.. the authorities may have made a mistake... they may have been too severe... Ramdin could always have appealed the decision, but he didn't.. He admitted the charge and was punished... End of story... Michael Holding can whinge and whine all he likes.. but the facts are the facts.

  • varmachs on July 14, 2013, 13:03 GMT

    If this continues, cricket will be no more considered as a Gentleman's Game. I request all the players to remember that they are playing Gentleman's Cricket and live up to it by walking out if they sincerely think that they are out. They don't need to wait for the umpires call.

  • on July 14, 2013, 12:54 GMT

    @ Posted by whensdrinks on (July 14, 2013, 11:30 GMT) Rahul Dravid walked in his test debute while abtting on 95 Sachin walked in World Cup 2011 against West Indies when given not out by umpire......

  • RawleSH on July 14, 2013, 11:50 GMT

    This is the a fine example of the double standards in world cricket. West Indies wicketkeeper was fine and suspended for bringing the game in disrepute because he claimed a catch that was not one. Broad stood there knowing he was out. Isn't that the same type of dsihonest action the brings the game in disrepute?

    Is it onlly when certain teams are playing are dishonest actions bring the game in disrepute but when others do it thats just part of the game. It either Broad brought the game in disrepute becasues he knew he was out and did not walk or the Australian wicket keeper and other fielders brought the game in disrepute by appealing for a catch that was not a catch

  • whensdrinks on July 14, 2013, 11:30 GMT

    I think the difference between England winning or losing this test may be the 60 runs scored by the Broad/Bell partnership after Broad should have been given out. I have to chuckle when the sub-continent criticises Australians about walking. Has an Indian batsman ever walked?? Not that I can remember.

  • on July 14, 2013, 10:49 GMT

    Having nicked one himself and not walked not sure what else he could say? Also last Ashes where he was caught bat pad he didn't walk.

  • salsad on July 14, 2013, 10:15 GMT

    Why someone critisize Broad. Aussies use to do same practice, like they won in Hobart vs Pakistan in 1999-2000, when they were reduced to 126/5 and Justin Langer was clearly dismissed caught behind and then him and adam made a partnership of over 200+ to won the match. Justin didnt walk why should Broad.

  • sharidas on July 14, 2013, 10:01 GMT

    So much has been said about this one incident, and that too mostly by the press.I am of the old school, where I would walk if I knew I had nicked it.....But , if I was playing now.I certainly would not and why should one. If the umpire had made a mistake, what choice do you have if your two referrals are over ?

  • on July 14, 2013, 9:40 GMT

    Typical Australian temperament!

  • LALITHKURUWITA on July 14, 2013, 7:48 GMT

    I like the way Agar bats as a teenager. Did his grand farther play cricket for a prominent school in Sri Lanka

  • raj877 on July 14, 2013, 7:44 GMT

    i am hater of DRS because it is not fully justyfied, for example yesturday when watson got out you can get 2 result,, 1] given out by umpire australia reviewing 3rd umpire conformed hitting top of leg stump then standing decision out,final call out ],,if you imagine in that case umpire given not out,,2 [ given not out by umpire englad reviewing 3rd umpire conformed hitting top of leg stump then standing decision not out,final call not out],,,,,,so thats why DRS is so poor,,,,my request when revieing dont take standing call & give 3rd umpire to take dicision like run outs

  • on July 14, 2013, 7:33 GMT

    Clarke comments on Broad's 'non-walking' only gives a small twist to an old saying. "Those who live in glass houses are cautious to throw stones at others". Nothing more than that! And, for heaven's sake, please refrain from giving a 'statesmanship' like aura for Clarke's indirect effort to justify his own action!

    But I am not surprised; the visage of Clarke standing inconspicuously behind Ponting when Ponting authoritatively raised his finger upwards, when the field umpire checked abut a bum-catch by this great guy!

    Years have gone by, after that infamous test. Clarke is a very mature cricketer now; but that view just refuses to go away! Sorry, Micahel; with all due respects!

  • bobmartin on July 14, 2013, 6:55 GMT

    @ Rohit Ramesh... Quite clearly your prejudice against DRS shows in your comments.... and you obviously don't fully appreciate how the system works..It is there to correct mistakes by the on-field umpires.. period... .Ask yourself this question... How many mistakes would you expect umpires to make in a match...4 .. 7... 10 ...20 ? Well if used correctly, the system can cope with an infinite number.. because if you appeal against a decision and DRS proves the umpire made a mistake, you do not lose a review..It's only by challenging a correct decision that you lose a review..Therefore the fault lies entirely with the players.. not the umpires or the system.. They are using, or more correctly abusing it; and when you do that, as I said , you lose a review as a consequence. If it was used as it was intended to be used, in theory you would never lose a review. The two reviews in fact are a lifeline to correct the odd mistake by the players incorrectly asking for a review.

  • on July 14, 2013, 6:35 GMT

    umpires definatelky not doing a good job .. there's been some poor decisions . especially Broad's . u can't ave such decisions in Ashes . its tough for players to play like this ..

    and I think Aussies still got a good chance of winning . I hope Ashton hit a good half century and had din at least helps him then Aussies definitely can win and if Anderson fails to do something with the new ball ...

    hope Aussies win this match .. Insha Allah . :-)

  • on July 14, 2013, 6:27 GMT

    Umpires should have the authority to consult with the 3rd umpire if he has doubt. But obviously if umpire is always in doubt, then he should not be in elite panel. Every umpire's performance should be judged on yearly basis that how many times he consult the 3rd umpire....Good umpires will do the least time.So, in this way cricket will become free of errors. I hope ICC will pay attention towards my proposal.

  • soumyas on July 14, 2013, 6:26 GMT

    Aussie's batting is disappointing me, They are batting like kids... Get rid of Ed cowan,Phil hughes and get some experienced batsmen back into team like Brad hodge and Symmonds, I don't know why symmonds retired even after keeping fit body. All his efforts of keeping his body shaped has no meaning until he gives best services to the nation in need.

  • on July 14, 2013, 6:17 GMT

    very true in the infamous series of india downunder there were several moments aussies could have walked in spirit of the game , but to no repite umpires kept on making mistakes and aussies kept winning.....today history is repeating itself again & australia is on recieving side in england & india is going great guns ...this is called justice indian style...

  • IndiaNumeroUno on July 14, 2013, 6:13 GMT

    Funny how these two teams always blame others at the drop of a hat for not showing "spirit of cricket... and here we are burying the same at every opportunity. Now I understand why its called the "Ashes"...these are the ashes of the Spirit of Cricket.

  • PFEL on July 14, 2013, 5:26 GMT

    If Agar makes an unbeaten 70 or 80 tomorrow then you'd have to consider batting him in the top order . . . seriously. I've watched the whole game and he is the ONLY batsman who has looked comfortable, with perhaps the exception of Trott in the 1st innings. And he has looked in complete control. Cook, Clarke, Pietersen, Haddin, everyone else really has looked edgy and like they are always vulnerable. except Agar.

  • on July 14, 2013, 4:17 GMT

    Its good that players and the viewers believe in umpires but who can forget that Sydney Test match when Umpire mark Benson asked Ricky Ponting to give the decision. Aussies are getting what they have done in the past!

  • Johnny_129 on July 14, 2013, 4:13 GMT

    Australia definitely need to groom Agar as an all-rounder. Not just taking this one innings into account but also his age and poise under pressure. Not many teenagers can handle it. Agar has shown the qualities and now he requires decent opportunity up the order to develop further.

  • Cheeki on July 14, 2013, 3:54 GMT

    I guess that Clark and co have no reason to complain about Broad. Just rewind to Monkeygate 2008. If Symonds had walked, India would have won the match and series.

  • Cobra0077 on July 14, 2013, 3:48 GMT

    I think the best technology available should be used to help decision making of the umpires.

    Having said that, I have noticed in the last few years that most of the umpires are reluctant to make close calls & actually many more calls that are not even close which a person with a good eye and knowledge of the game can call by just watching the internet streams. Many easy calls on run out & stumping are immediately being referred to the 3rd umpire. If others feel the same, then where are we going, are the umpires afraid to make calls which may be found wrong by DRS or are the current umpires not just up to the standard or is politics playing part here with some countries wanting new technology & some not wanting it. We know that technology can be manipulated, because there were times when one was sure that the ball was hitting the stumps(in LBW's) and then the review shows the ball is missing by quite a bit.Question is if corruption is involved then we will end up going in reverse.

  • on July 14, 2013, 3:30 GMT

    Back in 2003,the same Austrians(Symonds and Ponting) never walked from crease after being dismissed many times against mighty Indias.In fact Symonds was out 5 times by edging it to keeper,didn't he stood there?,About Ponting,i believe in the same Sydney test,after taking 1 pitch catch of Sourav Gangula he was suggesting like he has taken the catch cleanly.Right now Australians are going through a bad phase,hope now they are realizing the meaning of Game of Spirit.

    THANKS TO CRICKET,IT WILL DEFINITELY MAKE JUSTICE.

  • humdrum on July 14, 2013, 3:28 GMT

    We have seen earlier in this test that the english bowling is suspect under counterattack. So clark missed a trick in the sense that a pinch hitter could have been tried to create some panic, especially after the solid start they got. out of the box thinking was reqd but not forthcoming.mere grinding on a dusty surface wont get them the runs.point is that england believe they are overwhelmingly superior, which they are not.The morrow should spring a few surprises.

  • jmcilhinney on July 14, 2013, 3:09 GMT

    I think that a lot of people were too hard on Australia regarding their reaction to Broad's non-dismissal. They were obviously upset at the time, as any team would be, but there was nothing in what they said or did thereafter, except maybe a bit of petulance from Pattinson towards the umpire when an LBW decision went against him when there was a clear inside edge. They certainly didn't seem to hold a grudge, even if some people tried to project one onto them. I think that people are also being hard on Clarke regarding his reviewing his own dismissal. Joe Root's dismissal suggests that it's not one that England would have reviewed but I'm quite sure that Clarke believed that there was at least a string chance that he didn't hit it. Particularly after not having been able to review Broad's dismissal previously, I really can't see Clarke using up their last review when he knew he was out.

  • on July 14, 2013, 3:05 GMT

    cricket used to be deemed as a gentlemans game. As such if you know you hit the ball you should walk. Gilchrist got a lot of flack by aussies for walking in the world cup, but gained the respect of the rest of the world.

  • on July 14, 2013, 2:51 GMT

    I wonder why people label Aleem Dar's decision to give Clarke out a controversial one? The third umpire and the world saw a thin tickle. This is not the first time for Australia to mess up with the DRS. In my view, Mahela Jayawardene is the best with using the review system. Go Ashton, win a match for the nation.

  • on July 14, 2013, 2:21 GMT

    you've gotta be kidding me if he says its okay to not be righteous! thats against sportsmanship and cricket will cease to be a gentleman's game. This aint no poker to stand your ground and bluff your way through it.

  • on July 14, 2013, 1:49 GMT

    Agar has really impressed in both the innings. The calm and composure he showed in the final overs was phenomenal for a debutant picked as a bowler.

  • on July 14, 2013, 1:48 GMT

    Well there simply is the problem with DRS. Clarke says that he wasn't sure and neither was Steve Smith so they decided to review it. Clarke has basically wasted a review on a 50-50 decision. Now other batsmen can't use that review for a howler that they are sure is not out and hence the howler continues to live on. This is precisely why the DRS has been a laughing stop. It has failed to do what it was meant to do. i.e. stop the howler.

  • on July 14, 2013, 0:20 GMT

    Clarke is not a selector anymore, he gets the side he is given. Cowen will go for Khawaja next test.

  • vijayadith on July 14, 2013, 0:06 GMT

    When gilchrist walked in the WC semi final, Ponting said that Gilchrist should let the umpire take a decision What changed now?

  • GussyLC on July 13, 2013, 23:55 GMT

    Australia got away with a decision as well , agar should of been out stumped on 10 but was not given. They shouldn't be complaining.

  • darkamdusias on July 13, 2013, 23:37 GMT

    What a heartening display of sportsmanship. Stay classy, Mr. Clarke.

  • Strongscotch on July 13, 2013, 23:28 GMT

    M.Clarke stood his ground even after clearly edging to the slip against India so obviously he has to support Broad here On the match itself, the stage was set for Clarke to lead from front and get to the target and he failed. His away record is poor. We might have another Home bully here.

  • on July 13, 2013, 23:27 GMT

    I think it's time we just picked an Aussie side made just of bowlers. Our batsmen are pathetic and the bowlers last longer than them. We'd get the opposition out quicker, requiring less runs. Problems solved

  • H_Z_O on July 13, 2013, 23:25 GMT

    Not surprised. Clarke's a decent fella, a professional, and he knows lots of Aussies, himself included, haven't walked when maybe some people thought they should have. Not as blatant as Stuart's, maybe, but where do you draw the line?

    Australia felt aggrieved in the heat of the moment and rightly so. Dar should have seen it and given Broad out. Had he done, Stuart would have had to leave. But Broad didn't do anything worthy of vilification. The double standard with Ramdin is obviously an issue, but that's for the ICC to handle and show that the rules apply equally to everyone.

    Interestingly I did theorise that Clarke used the review when he was batting because the bowler was Broad and it seemed like the red mist descended a bit and he got stubborn. It looks like I was wrong, Clarke didn't think he'd hit it and the identity of the bowler made no difference. Fair play to him, then. Good game on tomorrow, not over yet.

  • kellhound on July 13, 2013, 23:09 GMT

    Naveed Khan, perhaps you haven't kept up with it, but since Lehmann has been given the coach's job, the selectors have changed and Clarke is no longer one. He still is asked about his choices, as all captains should be, but the selections make the decision at the end of the day, so your final comment is unfortunately no longer relevant. The rest of your comments do tend to highlight an ongoing issue though - Cowan is in a slump and frankly was fortunate to be selected for this test. Not sure how he'll go for #2.

  • on July 13, 2013, 22:15 GMT

    clarke no longer selects playing x1 so get you facts and a d agar is good but let the guy develop, cowan out of team period and hughes if you forget scored 81 not out with agar forgot and his out decision was not even clear anyhow i always have faith in australia.

  • on July 13, 2013, 21:07 GMT

    Agar, Haddin and Starc will see Aussies through. The way Agar is batting, I believe he is better batsman than Cowen and Hughes. Maybe, in next Test Match, he is promoted to one down and Cowen to #8 or even replaced with Khawaja. Clarke is good on field captain, however, his selection of playing XI is not good.

  • on July 13, 2013, 21:07 GMT

    Agar, Haddin and Starc will see Aussies through. The way Agar is batting, I believe he is better batsman than Cowen and Hughes. Maybe, in next Test Match, he is promoted to one down and Cowen to #8 or even replaced with Khawaja. Clarke is good on field captain, however, his selection of playing XI is not good.

  • on July 13, 2013, 22:15 GMT

    clarke no longer selects playing x1 so get you facts and a d agar is good but let the guy develop, cowan out of team period and hughes if you forget scored 81 not out with agar forgot and his out decision was not even clear anyhow i always have faith in australia.

  • kellhound on July 13, 2013, 23:09 GMT

    Naveed Khan, perhaps you haven't kept up with it, but since Lehmann has been given the coach's job, the selectors have changed and Clarke is no longer one. He still is asked about his choices, as all captains should be, but the selections make the decision at the end of the day, so your final comment is unfortunately no longer relevant. The rest of your comments do tend to highlight an ongoing issue though - Cowan is in a slump and frankly was fortunate to be selected for this test. Not sure how he'll go for #2.

  • H_Z_O on July 13, 2013, 23:25 GMT

    Not surprised. Clarke's a decent fella, a professional, and he knows lots of Aussies, himself included, haven't walked when maybe some people thought they should have. Not as blatant as Stuart's, maybe, but where do you draw the line?

    Australia felt aggrieved in the heat of the moment and rightly so. Dar should have seen it and given Broad out. Had he done, Stuart would have had to leave. But Broad didn't do anything worthy of vilification. The double standard with Ramdin is obviously an issue, but that's for the ICC to handle and show that the rules apply equally to everyone.

    Interestingly I did theorise that Clarke used the review when he was batting because the bowler was Broad and it seemed like the red mist descended a bit and he got stubborn. It looks like I was wrong, Clarke didn't think he'd hit it and the identity of the bowler made no difference. Fair play to him, then. Good game on tomorrow, not over yet.

  • on July 13, 2013, 23:27 GMT

    I think it's time we just picked an Aussie side made just of bowlers. Our batsmen are pathetic and the bowlers last longer than them. We'd get the opposition out quicker, requiring less runs. Problems solved

  • Strongscotch on July 13, 2013, 23:28 GMT

    M.Clarke stood his ground even after clearly edging to the slip against India so obviously he has to support Broad here On the match itself, the stage was set for Clarke to lead from front and get to the target and he failed. His away record is poor. We might have another Home bully here.

  • darkamdusias on July 13, 2013, 23:37 GMT

    What a heartening display of sportsmanship. Stay classy, Mr. Clarke.

  • GussyLC on July 13, 2013, 23:55 GMT

    Australia got away with a decision as well , agar should of been out stumped on 10 but was not given. They shouldn't be complaining.

  • vijayadith on July 14, 2013, 0:06 GMT

    When gilchrist walked in the WC semi final, Ponting said that Gilchrist should let the umpire take a decision What changed now?

  • on July 14, 2013, 0:20 GMT

    Clarke is not a selector anymore, he gets the side he is given. Cowen will go for Khawaja next test.