England v Australia, 1st Investec Test, Trent Bridge, 5th day

Inspired Anderson puts England 1-0 up

The Report by David Hopps

July 14, 2013

Comments: 328 | Text size: A | A

England 215 (Siddle 5-50) and 375 (Bell 109, Broad 65, Pietersen 64, Cook 50) beat Australia 280 (Agar 98, Hughes 81*, Smith 53, Anderson 5-85) and 296 (Haddin 71, Rogers 52, Anderson 5-73) by 14 runs
Live scorecard and ball-by-ball details


James Anderson made two quick breakthroughs for England, England v Australia, 1st Investec Test, Trent Bridge, 5th day, July 14, 2013
James Anderson secured victory for England with his tenth wicket in the match © Getty Images
Enlarge

James Anderson led England to victory in the first Investec Test as he took the last four wickets to fall in a steadfast spell of fast bowling on a nerve-shredding final day at Trent Bridge. But Australia took some silencing. A last-wicket stand of 65 between Brad Haddin and James Pattinson took a wonderful match, against expectations, into the afternoon session before Anderson struck for the final time.

Haddin's valiant innings, 71 from 147 balls, deserved better than a dismissal by virtue of DRS. But it was better than an umpire getting it wrong; the system worked. Aleem Dar, the on-field umpire, understandably did not spot an inside edge about which only the wicketkeeper, Matt Prior, seemed convinced but England had two reviews in the tank and replays clearly proved Haddin nicked it.

England raced into a jubilant huddle, a capacity crowd cheered with delight and Haddin, his helmet removed, looked pale with exhaustion and regret.

The importance of Anderson to England was doubly emphasised when he finally took a break. At that stage, Australia still needed 64 but, with Anderson withdrawn, the last pair immediately sensed they could hit their way to victory. Haddin, strong on the slog-sweep, was dropped at deep square leg by Steven Finn on 64, Graeme Swann's premature visions of victory banished.

England were so shaken they ended the session with a shameless display of timewasting - Stuart Broad to the fore, under his captain's instructions, with needless boot repairs. The umpires made them have another over anyway.

Much is made of Anderson's skill, but it was his stamina that was also to the fore as he produced a gruelling spell of 13 overs off the reel and was then asked for 11 more deliveries after lunch. Anderson was entrusted first with the old ball, then dismissed Ashton Agar, Mitchell Starc and Peter Siddle with the new. He has bowled 55.5 overs in the match, taking ten for 158 in the process, and passed Fred Trueman in England's all-time list during the game.

Turn to your leading bowler when it most matters. In relying upon Anderson, England's captain, Alastair Cook, was returning to basic principles, and aware also of his excellent record at Trent Bridge but he would have had a few qualms about giving Anderson such an arduous spell with the Lord's Test only four days away.

There is no doubt who is most invaluable to England in this Ashes series. It is not Cook, Jonathan Trott at his most unflappable or even Swann, whose superior spin bowling gives England an obvious advantage. It is Anderson. Once limited if the ball did not swing conventionally, he has grown into the best dry-wicket pace bowler in the world.

All three pre-lunch wickets fell to catches by Cook at first slip, as Anderson found away swing from both around then over the wicket. The best of them was a diving effort to his right to dismiss Peter Siddle, atonement for dropping Siddle in the same position in Anderson's previous over. When you have set a field with a solitary slip - generally justifiable on this low pitch, but not necessarily when Siddle was having a lash - it is advisable to develop spring heels.

Trent Bridge has lapped up one of the great Tests. It was sold out for all five days, and with Australia, six down overnight, needing another 137 to win, there was enough in the game for the vast majority to turn up for the final phase of a gripping Test.

There is more than one way to seek to turn a Test that seems to be tipping against you. Agar, with the eagerness we have already come to expect, fancied scampering a single or two to get the intensity up. The old timer, Haddin, wanted to do nothing of the sort, preferring to hunker in and communicate a sense that Australia would not yield. Twice, Agar almost ended up in mid-pitch, leaving his older - and slower - partner to have a calming word.

The ball was 71 overs at start of play, the floodlights broke through the morning haze and a slow pitch was as inhibiting for the batsmen as ever. Cook was satisfied enough to watch Australia make painstaking progress, so cautious that he even set a long-on and long-off for Swann's offspin, but it was deadlock.

In 11 overs, Australia made 17. Haddin slog-swept Swann for four, Agar, driving with big backlift and loose limbs, deflected Anderson to the third boundary. After 82 overs, Cook had seen enough and took the new ball. But Anderson, his go-to bowler, had already bowled five overs with the old one. Finn had become an option that Cook did not entirely trust. Swann's threat was subdued, his home ground still reluctant to bear favours. Anderson faced a footslog.

If the harder ball did not swing, Australia had an opportunity to step up the scoring rate for more than an hour before lunch. Instead, with the fifth over of the new ball - Anderson's eighth of the morning - Agar fell to Anderson.

Agar prefers to stay leg-side of the ball, foot not always to the pitch, to free up his off-side drives; Anderson, shaping the ball away from around the wicket, found the perfect retort and Cook held the edge at first slip. His 14 had taken 71 balls, in sharp contrast to his first-innings spree, but it was not just the increased pressure second time around, but could also be put down to the debilitating nature of the pitch.

Australia's lower order is no pushover: their bottom three - Starc, Siddle, and Pattinson share a combined Test average of 70. But Anderson had not finished. Starc received another excellent delivery which left him - this time from over the wicket - and Cook again held on.

With eight down, and 100 still needed, Siddle decided that adventure was called for. Cook missed an inviting opportunity to his left at slip, but then caught a blinder in Anderson's next over. At 240 for 9, Anderson finally had to stand down.

With 70 needed, Haddin spotted his moment. A concerted assault upon Finn, who has been thoroughly out of sorts throughout this Test, was Australia's last remaining hope. He took 15 off Finn's first over, passing 50 in the process, crunching him over the leg-side on three occasions. Finn looked insipid. His second over went for nine, including four byes. Broad responded better.

England could afford one bowler to be broken; they could not afford two. Pattinson slogged Swann over midwicket for six as the last-wicket stand reached 50. England turned to Broad, but any longing to return to Anderson had to wait when he tried to stretch and limped off to the pavilion.

England then missed a run out with 28 needed, Haddin and Pattinson caught in mid-pitch as they became mixed-up over a leg-side single, only for Jonny Bairstow's shy at the stumps at the keeper's end to miss the target.

Finn allowed a challenging running catch to slip through his hands at deep square-leg with Haddin 64 and 26 needed. Watching from the Australia dressing room, the coach, Darren Lehmann played with a stress ball.

At lunch, a late lunch, too, this Test would just not lie down. A lie down was probably just what Anderson fancied. But he roused himself for a final time and the faintest of nicks - seen on Hot Spot, heard on audio, unofficially spotted on Snicko and perhaps even suspected by the batsman himself - put England 1-0 up in the series.

David Hopps is the UK editor of ESPNcricinfo

RSS Feeds: David Hopps

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 18, 2013, 11:01 GMT)

England currently in disarray at Lord's. If this is Australia being lucky then I'd like to ask Michael Clarke what this week's winning lottery numbers will be.

Posted by Hammond on (July 18, 2013, 9:58 GMT)

@Shaggy076- whatever mate. Let us just see how much luck Australia have left in this test.

Posted by Shaggy076 on (July 18, 2013, 7:09 GMT)

The only fact is England won by 14 runs. Using your logic we could say when a number 8 is clearly out on 37 and gets 63 and ends up winning by 14 runs - England were lucky, Fact.

Posted by Hammond on (July 18, 2013, 6:05 GMT)

@Shaggy076- When a team is 9/117 in their first innings and following a dubious stumping decision went on to break an all time test record to make a lead, they were lucky. Fact.

Posted by Shaggy076 on (July 18, 2013, 5:10 GMT)

Hammond; Not sure how you can claim your opinion is actually fact.

Posted by Hammond on (July 18, 2013, 4:48 GMT)

No-one misunderstood you. The facts are that Australia was lucky to get anywhere near England in the last test match, and purely based on the first test, won't get any closer to England again at least until they are playing here.

Posted by Shaggy076 on (July 17, 2013, 22:48 GMT)

It looks like everyone has misunderstood me. I had a go in a sarcastic way responding to a post saying Australia were lucky to get so close because Finn and Swann performed poorly. I mockingly had a go at them - in jest. I'm not dissing England or giving any extra credit to Australia. People have had a go at my mocking - which was all in jest at the original post. I just think its poor form as part of the winning side to claim the other side was lucky to get that close. That is all. I have only ever talked about this game - not sure how people are having a crack at me for not praising previous series. H_Z_O ; I apologise with my response to you I mistakenly thought you were also having a go at me.

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 17, 2013, 11:34 GMT)

@Shaggy076 on (July 16, 2013, 23:48 GMT)

"You say Cook, Prior etc can improve but I can counteract by saying that Bell and Anderson are not going to be able to perform to that level again. I can then also say Starc and Pattinson bowled below there high standard, Agar will only improve his bowling with experience, Clarke will not fail again etc etc."

Mate, look again at what I said. I said it would be reasonable to expect England to improve (Anderson and Bell may drop off, but if Swann, Cook, Prior etc all step up the team may be better off for it). I also said I wasn't saying Australia wouldn't.

"England won in a fantastic contest, they were the better team isn't that enough rather than looking at the negatives of the situation."

I don't think I was negative. I said England should improve, and Australia will have to too. If both teams improve, the series should get better and better. How is that negative?

Posted by Hammond on (July 17, 2013, 9:53 GMT)

@Shaggy076- all good mate, whatever you want to believe. At the same time as completely ignoring Englands most recent test series triumph (which was immediately followed by a humiliating whitewash for Australia) you want an England supporter to give credit where it is due. Like irony much?

Posted by Shaggy076 on (July 17, 2013, 4:12 GMT)

Geoffrey Anthony Plumridge ; What rant I'm talking about one game this game. I had a crack at someone who belittled Australias result in this game. I have said in this game England were the better team. I couldn't care less about England vs India I am only commenting on this game.

Posted by   on (July 17, 2013, 3:01 GMT)

@Shaggy076- if you truly believe in giving credit where it is due why didn't you include Englands India test series win in your prior rant?

Posted by Meety on (July 17, 2013, 0:25 GMT)

@JG2704 on (July 16, 2013, 21:05 GMT) - I am sure you could disparity between Umpires sending a decision to review, eg if Zimbabwe/Bangladesh were playing a Test in SA, there'd be more influence for the home side against a fledgling team. That said, by & large - Umpires get decions right over 90% of the time, most are no-brainers. Apparantly the average decison making in a Test sits at 49 (this Ashes Test was 72) - over the course of 30 hours of play - that is not a very high incidence. There could be some protocol to ensure things run smoothly - like a batsmen is to wait at square leg or the boundary while a decision is to be made - the bowler at the top of their run up, not having players mill around the middle. The main thing is, to try & remove obviously wrong decisons regardless of review quotas (I agree it is equal opportunities at 2 each).

Posted by Shaggy076 on (July 16, 2013, 23:48 GMT)

Hammond - I believe in giving credit where it is due, I have stated England won and were the better team. However, I don't believe in the theory in summising what ifs. There is a reason our last wicket pair made runs and a reason a Clarke didn't make runs. As there is a reason Anderson got a lot of wickets and Finn didn't. It is what it is and that is a close game in which England were the better side. H_Z_O; I take your point but this English side has performed in much the same way for a couple of years now. You say Cook, Prior etc can improve but I can counteract by saying that Bell and Anderson are not going to be able to perform to that level again. I can then also say Starc and Pattinson bowled below there high standard, Agar will only improve his bowling with experience, Clarke will not fail again etc etc. England won in a fantastic contest, they were the better team isn't that enough rather than looking at the negatives of the situation.

Posted by JG2704 on (July 16, 2013, 21:05 GMT)

@Shaggy - Think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one here

@ Meety - I genuinely think that umpires would go upstairs/for reviews quite often should it be purely to their discretion in case they got the original decision wrong. I mean how bad would it look if they didn't review something which could have been overturned? Also I genuinely believe it could lead to more dissent. You said that DRS was implemented partly because of the pressure players put on umpires. With 2 reviews per side , each team gets equal opportunities. With reviews at the umpires discretion I believe it could lead to dissent from one side if one side feels that the other side has more appeals reviewed than the other.

Posted by Hammond on (July 16, 2013, 13:41 GMT)

@Shaggy076- actually, I am Australian, but I believe in giving credit where it is due. Take out Agars miraculous (and I mean the full use of the adjective including the stumping reprieve) knock, and all you get is a 200 run thrashing to England. I don't believe Australia will get anywhere near that close again in this English tour. As for the Ryobi cup, the players saw where the game was going with the 3rd umpire active in every decision, and rebelled against it. Every single on field appeal and dismissal was a rigmarole, and players were bullying the umpire on every decision. In the end the players asked CA to stop it. The ICC will never implement such a system.

Posted by Shaggy076 on (July 16, 2013, 12:17 GMT)

Hammond ; I dont get why the winning side would say that we havent clicked out of second gear, several players played poorly - in my opinion that is very poor form. Try and be a gracious winner. As for my explanation on what happened in the Ryobi Cup, the third umpire rarely intervened and the decisions were right. The umpires are lower level umpires and not full time. As such they wouldnt have the confidence of the international umpires who are full time professionals in upholding this system. Not sure why the players didnt like it because I only ever saw a couple of decisions overturned and they were rightly overturned.

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 16, 2013, 12:09 GMT)

@Shaggy076 on (July 16, 2013, 11:09 GMT) "you won the game why the need to day the ausies are lucky to get so close." Years of being battered silly by your lot. Which we didn't come close to managing here.

Australia weren't lucky at all. But it would be hard to argue England weren't, to a large extent, architects of their own downfall. You talk about Clarke delivering his trademark double ton, but we all said before the series that your batting depends on Clarke a great deal. This match only confirmed that.

Meanwhile that was Cook's first 50 as captain; every other time he's passed 50 as captain he's converted. Trott was below par. Prior too. Swann may not have a great record against Australia, but I've never seen him bowl as waywardly as that against you either. His poor record is usually because of good batting, not poor bowling.

In other words, it would be reasonable to expect England to improve considerably. Not saying Australia won't, but it's worth keeping in mind.

Posted by Hammond on (July 16, 2013, 11:50 GMT)

@Shaggy076- if you are happy in yourself with that explanation run with it. Still would like your opinion on why all the players hated the 3rd umpire direct involvement in the Ryobi Cup..

Posted by Shaggy076 on (July 16, 2013, 11:09 GMT)

Hammond and what would England do if Anderson didn't take 10 wickets the result is the result. Australian tail usually adds runs. Maybe the world's greatest batsman will deliver his trademark double ton. Do not sure what point you are making - you won the game why the need to day the ausies are lucky to get so close.

Posted by Hammond on (July 16, 2013, 10:33 GMT)

@Shaggy076- my point has been since this test if Australia breaks all time test records and still can't beat this England team, what will happen when they don't break test records and England gets out of second gear? And if you did watch the Ryobi cup, can you explain why the players ended up so terribly against the same system that you are advocating?

Posted by Shaggy076 on (July 16, 2013, 10:21 GMT)

Hammond - I did watch the Ryobi cup. Someone watching a screen dedicated to show DRS footage should be able to tell in 30 seconds if its the wrong decision. If they cant do that then the umpires decision stands. There needs to be more respect for the umpires who are both neutral. Meety - Certain fans always feel that are hard done by and DRS is not going to stop that. So you will still be hearing people harping on about decisions several years down the track. I read in this test match references to Damian Martyn last Ashes tour. Every country has them some more than others.

Posted by Meety on (July 16, 2013, 10:08 GMT)

@Shaggy076/JG2704 - (continued) - assuming that there is an average of one genuine appeal per over in a day of Test cricket - the Umpire would straight up adjudicate on over 80 of those decisons with no concerns. It would on average only be around 10 decisons a day being referred (possibly a lot less). The way I would like to see the UDRS system work - is by giving the 3rd umpire one shot at all different replays (say 2 angles + Hot spot) & sound bites & then make his/her decision, with benefit of the doubt going to the Umpire. LBWs (IMO) works fine, I have no problem with path prediction, I want al lLBWs reviewed for the Blue Zone - should only take a moment. The protocol could be the batsmen has to walk to the boundary - in that time, I am sure the pitch map could be brought up. I am not a fan of snicko, & I would keep hot spot, but I would like to know why 2 spots came up on the Haddin dissmissal?

Posted by Hammond on (July 16, 2013, 10:02 GMT)

@Shaggy076- sure mate it sounds simple on paper but they tried the very system that you are advocating in the 2011 Ryobi cup (Aust state odi series) and the players were so disgusted with it they refused to play under it and forced CA to abandon it. Every single out decision (or even appeal) was scrutinised by the third umpire, batsman given out walked very slowly towards the pavilion hoping for a reprieve, and bowlers cadgered the umpire for a referral for every single appeal. It quickly became a farce, even the batsmen hated it. So be careful what you wish for. I almost feel delighted that the BCCI have resisted the DRS in it's entirety.

Posted by Meety on (July 16, 2013, 9:58 GMT)

@Shaggy076 on (July 16, 2013, 8:57 GMT) - you said "...players have accepted the umpires decision for a hundred years why wouldn't they now?" - I would say that increasingly players havent excepted the umpires & the fans of cricket get bombarded with TV replays of WRONG decisions it breds frustration. Who wants to put up with more fans of a certain country harping on about some perceived wrongs from 5 yrs ago? @Shaggy076/JG2704 - Players putting pressure on the umpires is part of what got UDRS implemented in the first place. IMO - Umpires can handle the pressure (Elite Panel), of adjudicating whether to go upstairs on uncertain situations. IMO (with a bit of stat backing) an Umpire knows 90+% of the time about whether there is a dismissal or not. I think evidence at one stage suggested the Elite Panel was up around 97% correct. I think there is scope for the Umpire to review a decision (they do with run outs & stumpings). I also think the 3rd Umpire COULD have scope to intervene too!

Posted by Shaggy076 on (July 16, 2013, 9:55 GMT)

GeoffreyPlumridge; It was a tongue in cheek response to hhillbumper post. The margin was 14 runs it is what is. I'm not going to accept that Australia are lucky to get that close because two players performed poorly. And I never said average team.

Posted by Meety on (July 16, 2013, 9:48 GMT)

At the end of the day Broads not walking is within the rules of the game, but Broad is the one that has to live with the decision - although I doubt he would have many regrets given the apple never falls far from the apple tree. == == == Great game, well done England, although the frustrating thing from an Ozzy perspective is, a very simple game plan of seeing off Anderson wasn't achieved. This is partly due to great bowling, partly due to not enuff application from the top order. When the shine goes off the ball, Cook really only seems to have a one/two punch plan - give the ball to Anderson & Swann. I think SOME of this weakness will be adjusted when (if), Bresnan is in the starting XI. That said - I think BResnan would of been better suited to this Test & Finn the next one. == == == I believe in UDRS, I don't believe that it is applied correctly though. I would like to see that once a decison is reviewed benefit of the doubt goes with the UMPIRE!

Posted by Shaggy076 on (July 16, 2013, 8:57 GMT)

JG2704, players have accepted the umpires decision for a hundred years why wouldn't they now? My preferred system is the umpires umpire as normal, with someone watching the video. They will quickly see if the decision isann obvious error. All borderline calls will remain with the umpires decision. No stopping of play at all.

Posted by JG2704 on (July 16, 2013, 8:12 GMT)

@H_Z_O on (July 15, 2013, 17:16 GMT) I think re Broad/Cook timewasting , the umpires should be within their rights to add on time whenever they feel time is being wasted , like they do in football

Posted by JG2704 on (July 16, 2013, 8:09 GMT)

@Shaggy - Re DRS - I see you supported IC's views re leaving DRS to the umpires but as I and others have put , in that scenario this would surely lead to increased appealing and increased pressure from sides on the umpires. The umpires would pretty much review everything because they know that if they didn't review one which turned out to be worth reviewing they'd be seen in a very dim light. Also from the batsmen's point of view - how would you say to the umpire I thought the decision was wrong etc without coming across as behaving badly? With the system as it is right now , it should mean that there are less tactical reviews as teams only get 2 reviews per inns and it also should mean (and I think it has) helped to curb excessive appealing, bad reactions from players when a decision goes against them as theyknow they can review it. I genuinely think that leaving DRS purely to the umpires would add to player pressure and the game becoming more stop/start than it is now.

Posted by   on (July 16, 2013, 7:21 GMT)

@Shaggy076- well, even those "average" bowlers in an "average" England team were able to beat Australia. What does that make Australia then?

Posted by landl47 on (July 16, 2013, 5:41 GMT)

On the 'walking' debate, let me recount an incident as told in Len Hutton's autobiography 'Just My Story'. In the first test of the 1946/47 tour of Australia by England, Bradman was on 28 when he got a thick edge which went to second slip and was caught by Ikin. It was one of those so obvious no-one bothers to appeal. However, Bradman stayed, when eventually there was an appeal the umpire gave him not out and he made 187.

If not walking was good enough for Bradman.........

Posted by NALINWIJ on (July 16, 2013, 4:51 GMT)

Great test match finally decided by DRS and better team won. My only suggestion for DRS is this. After each 80 overs a team is entitled to another DRS but never have more than 2 DRS at a time. If you use one tactically then the other is only for howlers. The erroneous overturning of a decision by DRS is a concern and this famously ocurred when DUPLESSIS was reprieved against Australia when part of the bowl was inside line of leg stumps which is umpires call and should not have been overturned. Generally DRS improves accuracy of umpiring decision from 90% to a higher level.

Posted by Shaggy076 on (July 16, 2013, 2:05 GMT)

hhillbumper - Swann maintained his record against Australia so bowled as well as possible. Finn is just ordinary. Imagine if Clarke had batted well then this test would have been over a lot sooner. So spare us your tripe.

Posted by Happy_hamster on (July 15, 2013, 23:09 GMT)

Lest we forget England only had 3 bowlers for most of the 1st innings and if not for Agar Aussie would have been all out <130, I thought Broad's bowling was excellent and he seems to have got his mojo back. Bres also looks to be getting it back, personally I would stick with Finn at Lords (home ground) although this is Aussies clearest chance of a win given historical dominance here if that means anything.

Posted by Shaggy076 on (July 15, 2013, 22:55 GMT)

H_Z_O; There has always been luck associated with winning cricket matches and not for one minute suggesting that DRS has cost us the game as it is the same to both sides. My issue is I don't like the current system. Now teams need to be able to bat, field well, bowl, run between wickets and use DRS well. This doesn't sit well with me as except for DRS all the other things are cricket skills. DRS should simply be an umpiring aid. Which is not having the result it was desired to do. If Australia were the beneficiary of the system I would still have issue with it - In my opinion it simply should not be a tactic used in cricket. With the Haddin dismissal I wasn't convinced by hotspot but have since listened to it with the sound up and I agree with the decision. As for balls clipping the stumps I am happy with whatever the umpire may call.

Posted by hhillbumper on (July 15, 2013, 19:53 GMT)

Aus should never have got that close.If Swann had bowled well let alone Finn this would have been over much sooner.England need to perform in the next test as you can get amongst the Aussies they seem to falter.

Posted by JG2704 on (July 15, 2013, 19:52 GMT)

@SirViv1973 on (July 15, 2013, 12:57 GMT) To be fair , I think most (if not all) the regular Aus fans on these boards have not made too much of the decision issues. We have the usual l drama queens that come on here whenever Eng do well or whenever a big decision goes England's way and that will never change

Posted by JG2704 on (July 15, 2013, 19:52 GMT)

@H_Z_O on (July 15, 2013, 17:41 GMT) If you were messing then I'd say many a true word said in jest. Agree re Mitty. Don't/won't always agree with what he says but no whingeing from him re decs.

Posted by JG2704 on (July 15, 2013, 19:51 GMT)

@Shaggy076 on (July 15, 2013, 10:40 GMT) Personally I have few issues with DRS. The one thing I would definitely change though is that if a fielding side reviews an LBW and it is clipping the stumps then even though it stays as the umpire's call , the review should remain.

Posted by   on (July 15, 2013, 18:06 GMT)

I have recommended some solutions to players not walking, claiming catches not due et al - 1. No 3rd Umpire - both sides may have their reps watching TV Replays. 2. Fielding side has the right to withdraw their appeal till the new batsman comes to the field of play. 3. Batsman has the option of walking off the field till the bowler starts running in to deliver the next ball. 4. All decisions can be re-assessed at the next logical break in the game. 5. If any side has suffered an error, that side gets to claim what would have happened on the field of play, after the game proceeds on the assumption that whatever was claimed had actually happened. Theoretically - 10 legitimate balls & a side can be all-out, batsmen can score at 6 runs per ball, upto 20 overs an hour is possible. Top that with a special individual penalty on the player who benefitted from the umpiring error.

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 15, 2013, 17:56 GMT)

@jmcilhinney on (July 15, 2013, 10:29 GMT) I've long said that in response to bad decisions, even when they go against England. You just don't know what would've happened. Trott, for example, out or not, maybe he'd have nicked the next one to slip and the whole thing would have been moot. Maybe if Agar had been stumped Australia would have rallied and skittled England out cheaply second time round? Maybe if Broad had been given out he might have come out fired up and gotten a few early wickets. Every decision, every run, every wicket, affects everything that happens afterwards. To deny that is to pretend cause and effect don't exist.

There's stuff I think needs to be worked on, like with Trott (whether he was out or not) the absence of a piece of technology should mean the review is null and void, neither costing the reviewing side nor the other team. Likewise "umpire's call", it's harsh when that costs you a review.

But the better side won. The close margin shows how much better.

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 15, 2013, 17:41 GMT)

@Mitty2 on (July 15, 2013, 5:37 GMT) class comments, as always. And yeah, I'm an England fan and even I think we had the rub of the green on the marginal ones. I'm not sure I remember too many "umpire's call" ones going in your favour, and nearly all of them did go in ours. That sort of stuff I do think will even out because it's just down to whether the standing umpire thinks it's out or not. Still think that bit needs looking at because it just leads to too many inconsistent decisions in one match.

@JG2704 on (July 15, 2013, 7:58 GMT) Oh I know, I was only messing ;). Someone like Mitty, for example, and he's by no means the only one, has been fair and given his honest opinions. Several other Aussie fans have. We don't always agree but we don't have to. Try as we might, we're all biased, but as long as we're respectful and give credit where it's due, disagreement is healthy and good.

Can't wait to see what they whinge about after Lords ;).

Posted by saravanan.s on (July 15, 2013, 17:31 GMT)

Player not walking OFF after edging the ball is not Just 20th Century issue, I have seen many of the OLD matches where in many great players never walked after edging the Ball in 19th Century also. In simple words AUS lost because they didn't use the DSR option properly, at the same time it is unfair from ICC not to allow the 3rd DRS option, Just because the team got 2 wrong, What ICC is going to do with that??? Such a Non-sense concept. (May be someone can give advice to ICC that they can RUN few Advertisement while the 3rd decision is under review, ICC is only running the game for Money). Coming to this match, it is such a fascinating test match, I personally feel AUS better off not winning this match, because I feel only Aus bowler performed well on both Bat & Ball. At least let the Aus Batsman sit & analyze the Technique they are applying to play Shorts, otherwise I don't see that they going to score RUNS. The top 6 batsman must do the home work Mr. Cricket was doing all along.

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 15, 2013, 17:16 GMT)

@bobagorof yeah, I was surprised to see not much being made of the time-wasting by Broad and Cook. For me that's a lot more against the spirit of the game than not walking. Not because it necessarily impacts the game as much (it arguably doesn't) but because it harms the fans, who just want to watch the cricket.

Despite being an England fan I was glad the umpires were wise to it. Was also very surprised, as one commenter mentioned, not to see Haddin go after Swann for that over. It was clear England didn't want to bowl it, and wanted to have as many runs to play with after lunch as possible. Why not knock a few off and make it tougher?

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 15, 2013, 17:07 GMT)

@Shaggy076 actually Root didn't walk. He consulted with Cook over a review, and he doesn't strike me as the kind of bloke to "chance it". I honestly think he wasn't sure if he'd hit it, much like Clarke's edge (where he hit his pad first and might not have felt what was a very, very faint edge).

I honestly don't think you've got much to go on with the Haddin one. Where I think you've had the rough end of the stick, though, is the "umpire's call" stuff. Root, for example, I thought was out lbw to Starc. Not given. You reviewed it and it was an "umpire's call". Not only did you miss out on a wicket that was no more or less out than Rogers' lbw in the first innings, but lost a review. I think you shouldn't lose it when it's "umpire's call". You could then have reviewed Broad.

Hughes was out, the video evidence actually backed hawk eye up. They showed a slowed down video and the ball's at least 2/3rds in line with leg stump. And Trott, I've been told, was out, based on overhead video.

Posted by cric_J on (July 15, 2013, 15:52 GMT)

(cont..) Anyone remember the 2007-2008 India/Aus series and the Sidney test in particular. Ponting refused to walk after an edge , Clarke claimed a grassed catch , the Indians : Ganguly and Yuvraj were given out to howlers. Where was the sportsman spirit then ?

Going by the comments here , then Clarke too should have called Trott back as a reflection of good sportsman spirit.

Mind you , I am all for good sportsman spirit and believe it is excellent on a batsman's part to walk. But if he doesn't , it isn't unfair by any means. It's just a lack of conscience. Every batsman has a RIGHT to wait for the umpire's decision and Broad did just the same. There needs to be no issue with that.

And snicko showed a clear edge for Haddin , so there WAS an edge and he WAS out. End of story.

Posted by cric_J on (July 15, 2013, 15:39 GMT)

Way too much of talk and criticism of the DRS , sportsman spirit and the "poor decisions " going on here. Since it was Australia who lost the game , most of it comes from the Aussie supporters.

But in that case let us just go back to day 2.

Agar could have been given out on 6 just as Bell was in the CT final but he was not. That was a "part and parcel " of the game and 'mere bad luck for England" according to the Aussie supporters. Then , Trott got an edge but was still given out LBW , thanks to the hotspot cam mishap. It was an absolute howler but was termed merely as "unfortunate" and "a slight and rare glitch on the hotspot's part" by most Aussie supporter's.

These "mere glitches" , "unfortunate incidents" and "parts and parcels of the game" could well have cost England the match , which wouldn't have been "mere " at all.

Why then is there so much whinging about what Broad did ? Surely these things do happen in cricket. The Aussies have done the same numerous times.(cont...)

Posted by bobmartin on (July 15, 2013, 14:44 GMT)

No argument as to whether or not Haddin hit the ball... Everyone watching on TV with the sound turned up could hear the snick clear as a bell.. and the later snicko proved it beyond any shadow of doubt...Most people at and on the ground..including the umpires and players in the deep probably didn't hear it for the crowd noise... but it was there all right... And remember there was an incident where the third umpire failed to give a batsman out because the hotspot was inconclusive and the sound wasn't turned up... as a consequence of which the ICC have ruled that if the hotspot is inconclusive then the third umpire can turn up the sound in order to make his decision.. So no problem.. and any controversy only exists because you want it too..

Posted by ThyrSaadam on (July 15, 2013, 14:13 GMT)

DRS as such is not flawed, but it is unimaginative use of DRS, by players/ICC that has made it seem a failure it was. If the ICC/players are so interested in having all the decisions taken correctly then why not have 3rd umpire talk to Aleem Darr, and say there was en edge he should be gone, right after the replays were available? It is not like hotspot which takes some time to reveal. All in all England were really far away from 10-0 dominant performance.

Posted by SirViv1973 on (July 15, 2013, 12:57 GMT)

I can understand Aus fans disappointment, having come so close to victory & ending up loosing. However I cannot believe the amount of Aus fans blaming the defeat on DRS. This was an incredible test match which could have gone either way, neither side deserved to loose the game & Aus can take a lot from their fighting display. However IMO I just think that over the 5 matches Eng will just have too many firepower for the ozzies. Eng always start slowly & get better & the fact that Eng are already one up should be a an ominous side for Aus.

Posted by SyedAreYouDumb on (July 15, 2013, 12:36 GMT)

Such a brilliant match. Started on first day of Ramadan and the whole match was simply the best. Test cricket at its finest!!

Posted by GrindAR on (July 15, 2013, 11:29 GMT)

Good contest from both sides, but did not expect the onslaught by Jimmie on tail enders... 11 runs were not far away... if the middle ones played their shots better.

Posted by GrindAR on (July 15, 2013, 11:22 GMT)

sad to see Aussie tailenders did not give enough fight as they usually do.

Posted by whofriggincares on (July 15, 2013, 11:17 GMT)

@jmcilhinney, I said in my post that I don't know for sure if Haddin hit it ( I think he probably did). My point is that you can mount an argument either way that is where the DRS falls down. If you are going to back the umpire on marginal LBW calls then why not catches etc etc blah blah blah. That is my point and the reason there will always be debate over it's use. As for the LBW's I disagree with you completely. I don't believe (unlike many of the umpires that have officiated in games I have played in and coached)that the ball has to hit middle, however I do believe and the law states that the Ump must be CERTAIN that the ball is going on to hit the stumps. With demonstrated movement , angle and the distance still to travel there must have been enough doubt in both Roger's and Watsons decisions to save them which hawkeye confirmed. Sometimes umpires (even professionals) forget all the dynamics and just think that looks out. Many LBW's look out at first viewing but in fact are not.

Posted by Shaggy076 on (July 15, 2013, 11:03 GMT)

jmcilhinney; The Hughes dismissal has been regularly not out for a 100 years and no one has ever complained about it - I only want DRS correcting howler decisions and there was a legitimate reason for the officiating umpire to give it Not Out. As for the technology no technology is 100% accurate and as the rules say half the ball has to pitch in line with leg it was millimeters away from that classification. There is an error rate and so i am not certain that the ball pitched in line. I have argued the same with Trott - Do I think he was out absolutely he didnt touch it but there was enough doubt there to stick with the officiating umpires call. Simply the system I want is the umpires call unless a third umpire notices an obvious umpiring error. Over the day I have changed on the Haddin view, my initial post was before snicko and there was circumstancial evidence to say he hit it but nothing concrete, however TV was on quiet as wive was sleeping have watched it since and happy with it.

Posted by Shaggy076 on (July 15, 2013, 10:40 GMT)

JG2704 Clearly I don't like how the DRS system is administered. I have also stated on other posts that it is the same for both teams nor do I blame it for the loss. I believe if you think something isdetracting the spectacle of cricke then you should voice your disapproval and thought this was a good forum for that. The system is not working how it was intended anin my opinion needs to be reworked.

Posted by John-Price on (July 15, 2013, 10:34 GMT)

@Thyagu5432 - Why pick on Broad? Both Clarke and Haddin edged and waited to be given out, hoping to get away with it, and so has virtually every professional cricketer in the world. Are they all criminals?

Posted by Harmony111 on (July 15, 2013, 10:30 GMT)

Aus fought well in this test although they are slightly weaker man to man. Based on this test, an Aussie fan might feel optimistic of his chances in the next 4 tests but IMO, this was a lesser performance from Eng and it is likely that they will get better as we move along. KP was coming back from an injury and already looked in good form in the 2nd innings. He can kill a match in 2 sessions. Trott looked in supreme form in the 1st innings and got a rough one in the 2nd, Bell got a 100 and Cook also got runs in the 2nd innings. Compare this to Aus, which batsman really gives you any confidence? Barring Clarke (& Agar :-p) no one else looks reliable. I say this knowing well that Hughes/Haddin/Watson got some runs. Aus could fall away & lose 0-5.

The only hope for Aus is in seeing their fast bowlers getting better. They have the talent but to beat Eng as things stand, they need to be destructive.

From Eng PoV, keep Jimmy in bubble wrap. Minus him, Eng are still better but not by much.

Posted by jmcilhinney on (July 15, 2013, 10:29 GMT)

It's worth mentioning that something that pretty much everyone conveniently forgets is the fact that if any one thing had happened differently then everything thereafter would have been different too. People may talk about a dismissal that happened in the first innings and then assume that everything else would have stayed the same, which it wouldn't. To say that Australia would have won if Broad had been given out is a complete assumption because then Swann would have been facing different deliveries and perhaps he would have scored the runs that Broad did. It also means that Australia would been facing different deliveries. Maybe they would have cruised home or maybe they would have collapsed in a heap like they did in the first innings. If any one thing had been different in this game then everything thereafter would have been too, so we have no idea what the result would have been in that case. That's a fact that noone has taken into account so far that I've read.

Posted by jmcilhinney on (July 15, 2013, 10:18 GMT)

@whofriggincares on (July 15, 2013, 8:04 GMT), I'm sorry but anyone who tries to say that Haddin wasn't out is deluding themselves. Atherton did not remark that the mark was there before the ball. He asked whether it might be. That's because in one frame the ball was in front of the pad while the bat was obscured while in the next the bat was in front and the ball was obscured. Noone can say that the mark was there before the ball because you can't see the bat before the ball has passed it. That's what made it less then 100% obvious BUT:

1. the mark was inline with the ball, despite what some people are trying to claim. 2. the mark was not on the bat during the batsman's backswing. 3. there was a single, sharp noise as the ball passed the bat and suggesting that that was made by a creaky handle is in the realm of fantasy. 4. there was nothing else that reasonably could have made the mark or the noise other than the ball.

Posted by jmcilhinney on (July 15, 2013, 10:11 GMT)

@whofriggincares on (July 15, 2013, 8:04 GMT), I believe that a batsman should be given out LBW if the umpire believes that the ball was likely to be hitting the stumps. Do you really think that the umpires gave those LBWs believeing that there was only a 50% chance that the ball was hitting? Of course they didn't. They believed at the time that the batsman was likely out. We can talk about giving the benefit of the doubt to batsman but how much doubt do they deserve the benefit of? 50%? 25%? 10%, 1%? If we demand that there be no doubt at all then the number of LBWs given will drop mightily. At the time, the umpires believed that the batsman were out and gave them so and there's no specific evidence to say that they were wrong. If you believe that on-field umpires still have a role to play then you have to give their original decisions appropriate weight, which DRS currently does. If you're going to ignore their original decision then there's no point their being there at all.

Posted by Thyagu5432 on (July 15, 2013, 9:21 GMT)

jmcilhinney: Neither Anderson nor Bell would have got the chance to do what they did if Broad had walked. Aussies would have wrapped up the test in 4 days. All those performances were clouded by Broad's "Broad" act.

Posted by Thyagu5432 on (July 15, 2013, 9:15 GMT)

John-Price: I am not talking about umpiring errors here. Umpiring errors happen always, some go your way and some don't. In Broad's case, it was simply a case of bad sportsman spirit. If you edge and you are caught, you have no business to stay in the middle. Rest are mistakes made by umpires, which is precisely that, mistakes whereas in the case of Broad, it was a crime.

Posted by anshu.s on (July 15, 2013, 9:02 GMT)

Really good game of cricket, but posters on this website need to go slow on " test cricket is real cricket and down with limited overs cricket talk.Cricket is a minority sport compared to other major sports and cricket community cannot afford to be divided based on there like or dislike of a particular format, my mates who are fooball,Rugby/other sports fans really love to hate and talk down cricket and they don't do it on basis of any format.

Michael Holding in Skysports post match analysis said man to man in every department English are better than Aussies and if Australins manage to win even a single test he will swim all the way to Jamaica !!!

Posted by Mitty2 on (July 15, 2013, 8:39 GMT)

@John-Price, if Root didn't feel it and considering there was a sound on snicko, how on Earth can you consider it an erroneous decision? Likewise with Trott's decision, absolutely no sound, and on the overhead front on view, no deviation in sight, OH, not to mention that it was hitting middle of middle. I'll agree with you on Agar's decision though, in which he had foot over the line, but it wasn't grounded.

But if we're talking about luck, how about broad's innings in which 95% of runs were scored on his edge, he was out twice from Agar (one a non-reviewed LBW), dropped twice, had edges dropping short and almost chopped it on to his stumps about 5 times. Let's not also forget that every marginal - "umpire's call" - decision on DRS went England's way. England are a better side, yes, England scored more runs, yes, England took 20 wickets, yes, but you can't argue that England didn't have the rub of the green - to a massive extent.

Posted by JG2704 on (July 15, 2013, 8:18 GMT)

@Shaggy076 on (July 15, 2013, 6:13 GMT) You say about the fact that it was a brilliant game in response to Landl but still all you talk about is DRS.- Nothing about the game. DRS has always worked the same way and as Clarke himself says "It's consistent for both sides" Pretty much all the issues were marginal barring Broad's non dismissal. Maybe the TV umpire should have special dispensation to have a word in the onfield umpire's ear when such incidents happen

Posted by whofriggincares on (July 15, 2013, 8:04 GMT)

@jmcilhinney , I don't think the umpiring issues in this match are as simple as you say. Lets start with the Rogers and Watson LBW's do you really think (regardless of DRS) that a batsmen should be given out when it is a 50/50 chance at best of hitting the stumps? The 3rd ump should say to the standing ump "only nicking leg mate too much doubt" the standing ump should then swallow his pride and reverse his marginal decision. As for the Haddin decision I will start by saying I don't know if he hit it, however he was given not out, the mark looked too high ,even Atherton remarked the spot seemed to be there before the ball arrived and snicko had the sound appearing after the ball passed the bat ( creaky handle perhaps?) add to that the unconvincing appeal and Andersons surprise at the decision going his way and a detective would conclude he probably didn't hit the ball! The LBW process in particular should be changed ASAP. As for the Trott decision there was no noise and no hotspot.

Posted by jmcilhinney on (July 15, 2013, 8:02 GMT)

@Peter Dembitzer on (July 15, 2013, 6:47 GMT), I agree re the Agar stumping: it was too close to call with confidence so, while I think the he was probably out, giving him the benefit of the doubt was the correct call. I also agree the same should have applied to Bell in the CT but it was a different day and a different umpire. Maybe Oxenford would have given Agar out too.

I'm not sure that I agree re Trott though. It was a real shame that the side-on HotSpot was not available and I'm sure that Australia would have felt aggrieved if the decision had stood based on that but I'm not sure that there really was conclusive evidence that the original decision was wrong. When I saw the front-on replay I was 100% sure that I saw a deviation. Snicko casts doubt on that but we know that that was not available to Erasmus. The front-on HotSpot was useless so he has basically gone by an apparent lack of a sound on the stump mic. I guess that's been done before so it must be considered conclusive.

Posted by John-Price on (July 15, 2013, 8:02 GMT)

Thyagu5432 - how can Australia possibly deserve a victory when they scored less runs and had three lucky decision go there way (Root, Trott, Agar) when England only had one, and that one, the least important of the four? Also, if the Australian target had been less, the pressure on the last wicket partnership would have been turned up earlier and England may well have picked up the last wicket earlier - just as the have always done in tight Ashes matches over the last 35 years.

Posted by sachin_vvsfan on (July 15, 2013, 8:00 GMT)

Aussies shouldn't complain much about Broads decision. They misused DRS by gambling for lbw decisions and they should not expect opposition batsmen to walk when your own captain doesn't . I know this result hurts but in terms of howlers this is not even remotely close to that infamous sydney 2008 test. Symonds, Ponting, Clarke(although given out) did not walk off and worse the umpire did not even refer to the third umpire for stumping and when referred on the other occasion it was turned down

That said I don't believe this Aussie team is strong enough to close the gap. Aussies had their own share of luck with Agar and Trott. The tail only masked their batting problems. Bailey, Vouges or Faulker are far better than some of the T20 batsmen in their side.

@TheBigBoodha But Aus lost all those series that you mentioned. They were strong in the first test (still lost) but then went on to loose series. Is this the best match for them in the series? I hope not. But time will tell

Posted by JG2704 on (July 15, 2013, 7:58 GMT)

@ H_Z_O on (July 14, 2013, 14:27 GMT) There are numerous whingers/one eyed fans on these threads from both sides - oh and let's not forget the neutrals too? Unfortunately the percentage of genuine posters seem to get outweighed by the others these days

Posted by JG2704 on (July 15, 2013, 7:58 GMT)

@ Cpt.Meanster on (July 14, 2013, 14:35 GMT) You've just proven our points which we discussed on another thread 100% on these Eng/Aus threads. You tried to tell us that you give credit where credit is due but if you can only whinge about the Broad incident and not comment on the Bell century , the Agar (near) century , Jimmy's bowling , the last wicket stand which got Aus so close , the twists and turns of the game in general. Not one meagre bit of credit to any player from either side. Says it all really PS - Nice to see you speaking for other fans.

Posted by jmcilhinney on (July 15, 2013, 7:53 GMT)

@Thyagu5432 on (July 15, 2013, 6:55 GMT), so Ian Bell scores the only century of the game under extreme pressure and he doesn't rate a mention? Many are rating that as Bell's most important innings of his career and yet there were no heroics from England? Anderson came back again and again to take 10 wickets in the match and yet there were no heroics from England? Some may say that he only took so many wickets because the other England bowlers didn't pull their weight but let's not forget that, despite bowling the bulk of England's overs in that second innings, he still bowled fewer than any Australian seamer did in England's second innings and none of them managed to equal his wicket tally or economy rate. You pluck two performances out of the air for Australia and claim they deserved to win based on those while ignoring anything good done by an England player?

Posted by jmcilhinney on (July 15, 2013, 7:37 GMT)

cont. I'm confident that Root will find his feet at the top of the order and I believe that Bairstow has the talent to succeed and am hopeful that he will overcome some technical difficulties and fulfil that promise. Prior also looked in good enough touch in the second innings so it's a matter of whether he can counteract the plans that Australia have obviously developed for him.

As for Australia, they'll be looking for improvement from their bowlers too. They were rather inconsistent in the first innings and did get a number of wickets from ordinary to poor deliveries. They can't rely on England batsmen gifting their wickets. They did bowl some very good balls too though, so if they can bowl more consistently then England will have to be very watchful. The batting is obviously the big issue for Australia. Rogers looked composed and solid while Watson looked assertive but his dismissals will feel awfully familiar. tbc

Posted by jmcilhinney on (July 15, 2013, 7:29 GMT)

As I said earlier, a great game that really could have gone either way. Despite the extremely high level of entertainment provided, the cricket was not always of the highest order so both teams will be looking for areas to improve in for game 2. Stamina will be a big factor with Anderson being the one everyone will be watching closest. For England, they need their third seamer to at least keep things tight so either they'll want a different type of pitch to keep faith with Finn or look elsewhere, probably to Bresnan. England will also want more from their batsman. Cook needs to find some form as he's a lynchpin. Trott looks fine but needs to cut out the loose shots like the one that got him out in the first innings. Whether he edged it or not, the ball he got first up from Starc in the second innings was a beauty and most right-handers would have had trouble with it. KP and Bell both look in good enough form to expect more good things from them. tbc

Posted by   on (July 15, 2013, 7:19 GMT)

At the end of a wonderful test match, the result went in favour of the side who used drs sensibly. broad nicked but aus couldnt review as they had exhausted all thier reviews & haddin nicked when they were just 14 short, but eng who had their reviews got the decsion over turned. funny it may sound, but there was not much 2 choose btwn two sides apart from 2 stand out performnances-agar in first innings & bell in d 2nd innings.

Posted by   on (July 15, 2013, 7:12 GMT)

Great win by England. But credit goes to Australia for their never die easily approach. Hats off to both the team for spirited and brilliant fight. But England cannot completely burden on Jimmy for the Ashes, bcoz his fitness is most important for the back to back ashes. Other bowlers have to take responsibility. As far as Australia they are ready for keen contest with good collective team work. All the Best for both of them.

Posted by Thyagu5432 on (July 15, 2013, 6:55 GMT)

This victory by England is terribly skewed. Aussies deserve to win with Agar performing the heroics in the first innings and Haddin doing that in the second. If at all there is any in England, it is actually villainics and not heroics. Broad should have walked and if he had, this match would have been long won by Aussie. It only helped to make this match thrilling and finally ending in the wrong team clinching the victory.

I hope cricinfo publishes this.

Posted by   on (July 15, 2013, 6:47 GMT)

A wonderful test match spoilt by the third umpire Erasmus being falsely maligned. Agar stumping was indecisive and should have been not out( as Bell should have been in the Champions Trophy.) Decision correct. Trott dismissal was a failure of technology and not the third umpire. He ruled on what was available. Did Botham and co report the non dismissal of Broad to the ICC? Of course not. That decision was the poorest of the game and as bad as the first ball of SA readmission v Australia in the World Cup. Another decision that went Englands way was when the very incompetent Rod Tucker( as third umpire) gave Kallis out caught when his hand wasnt even on the bat during the test matches. Tucker went on to star in the Champions Trophy with more shocking decisions and gets rewarded by umpiring in the final- mindboggling.

Posted by jmcilhinney on (July 15, 2013, 6:42 GMT)

@Shaggy076 on (July 14, 2013, 23:14 GMT), you've picked two poor examples out of three there. I don't understand how anyone can complain about Hughes dismissal. I think that most people thought that the ball pitched outside leg and I certainly did but it's not like HawkEye was used to predict where the ball pitched. That was actual recorded footage. Did you watch the replay with just the pitch-map superimposed? That shows clearly that the ball pitched on leg. Nothing to do with HawkEye at all. Unless you think that the pitch-map was doctored somehow. As for Haddin, who cares about Snicko when the edge was clearly audible? I heard the edge in real time and was confused when England's appeal seemed half-hearted. There was no deviation from such a thin edge, which is presumably the reason, but a clear mark on HotSpot and a clear sound on the stump mic are pretty compelling evidence. The only dodgy one is Trott, and then only because side-on HotSpot was missing due to operator error.

Posted by jmcilhinney on (July 15, 2013, 6:28 GMT)

@Chris Sun on (July 15, 2013, 0:47 GMT), that's what pressure does. In the first innings, Agar came in with no expectation and nothing to lose. If he'd been out for a duck noone would have been surprised or held it against him at all. In the second innings, there was a mountain of expectation on him and therefore he had everything to lose. A player's ability to handle pressure is one of the things that makes some players stand-outs and some talented players failures. He doesn't look like handling pressure will be a big problem but that doesn't mean that he has ice in his veins. It was simply unrealistic for people to expect that Agar would repeat his first innings performance that, while not a complete fluke judging by his FC record, was still freakish. Fortune favours the brave and he was, understandably, just not as brave in the second innings.

Posted by   on (July 15, 2013, 6:15 GMT)

Australia should rethink abt the squad bring the young talent Maddison. Bring back Shaun Marsh and Pat cummins.

Posted by Shaggy076 on (July 15, 2013, 6:13 GMT)

Landl47; I get your point it was a very entertaining game, but in my opinion the current DRS system is not removing what it was designed to do. I'm not in anyway blaming it for the loss - but felt the need to point out my opposition to the current system. I know it is the same for every team but cant comprehend how use of the DRS is a tactic that captains need to evaluate as its simply not cricket. THis was a fantastic game of test cricket with many wonderful contributions Anderson was brilliant, Bell awesome knock, Haddins innings was top class as was Siddle's bowling - now the ICC sort out the DRS system and make this game even better.

Posted by   on (July 15, 2013, 5:55 GMT)

Don't see why voges can't get a gig for Cowan? Another right hander to combat swan. Has good technique/temperament and knows English conditions/ bowlers well. Is a busy cricketer. Same cannot be said for Ed. Bat Hughes 3 voges 4 pup 5. That's the only change I'd make

Posted by Haiphong on (July 15, 2013, 5:48 GMT)

Congrats, England, and well done Australia! How i wish we had pulled it off however. Will be an interesting 2nd Test for sure - not only because of the physical demands (3 days of rest inbetween) but, more so, for the emotional strength and character required - particularly for Australia. My guess is that there will be minimal changes to the team (Khawaja for Cowen should be one) and it's a 'must-win.' Let's look forward to another good game.

Posted by Mitty2 on (July 15, 2013, 5:37 GMT)

Agree with @landl47, stop whinging! England would've won convincingly if Agar was given out (and on law and precedent he should've been given out) and if Broad was given out (no comment needed), we probably would've won. Same goes with how lucky England generally were in their second innings and how lucky we were to continually be saved by our number 11s. But those assertions both change the game completely and different tales would've played out - so stop!

Credit the game - it was amazing - and leave it at that. Personally, and many will agree with me, I feel that the luck was against us for the majority with numerous 'marginal calls' and such... But as many responded to the Broad incident with "it evens out", hopefully evens out with the second test! Can't wait for the next test! Will England do what they barely ever do in play to their potential? Will Aus continue to defy and build on an unexpected performance? Will Anderson pull up? Will Clarke use the DRS properly? Who will ump?

Posted by   on (July 15, 2013, 5:30 GMT)

one of the most fantastic bowler i had ever seen on english pitches...if he stays in this form i think he will be the most lethal bowler in this ashes...

Posted by Massey_T on (July 15, 2013, 5:14 GMT)

@SL Rocks, mate you need to understand the context here rather than talk about who is no.1 or no.10. The thing is, there might be a no.1 in the form S.A. or India or even a pak/sl (i doubt that would happen). Doesnt matter, cos none of them have created a platform for test cricket to prosper like how England have done when they play us. It isnt the rankings buddy and if thats what you think, that its all about rankings, then you have a lot to study about what ashes is. We are talking almost 50+ yrs here between 2 teams with a rivalry and fan following unheard of, while you are talking about a team that is no.1 for 2 years!!?? Do you understand how outrageously dum that sounds? Yeah now you get it...hopefully. Nothing against s.a. here, as with sl the team i guess u follow. Try putting all the factors here and do not see cricket in the eyes of rankings, at least not with the ashes!.,its way more than that!, and thts y healthy intelligent viewers rank us as the champs of test crickt

Posted by disco_bob on (July 15, 2013, 5:13 GMT)

Finally I have seen the light, T20 cricket is the way of the future, nobody should be forces to endure such gut wrenching torture for 5 days.

Posted by jmcilhinney on (July 15, 2013, 4:59 GMT)

@Chinmayan on (July 14, 2013, 16:47 GMT), the morning session had already been extended half an hour because Australia were 9 down. They're not going to extend it any longer because the players can't keep going indefinitely. As it turned out, Broad's delaying tactics had no bearing anyway so complaining about that has no merit. Anyone who thinks that such tactics are an issue should look at their own team because you can bet any and every team does similar things. There was a big blow-up in Australia the last time that SL were there because some Australians thought that SL were deliberately delaying the last ball because the batsman had been scoring easily of the previous few. You can bet Australia have dragged their feet at times in an effort to waste time though, so there's really no moral high ground to be had there.

Posted by bobagorof on (July 15, 2013, 4:57 GMT)

Oooh, heavens. England only just scrape a win against an Australian side that is 'the worst to ever leave the shores'. How proud they must be.

To be fair, I am bitterly disappointed that Australia got so close yet still lost. Some great nerve shown by the Australian lower order, and the result of the match could have been so much different if the DRS had been used more intelligently - rather than speculating on some iffy decisions, if Clarke had kept a review up his sleeve then Broad would have been out earlier, the target less and Australia would have won. Then again, Trott was perhaps unfairly given out. Australia should be emboldened by their performance - despite the critics, they have proven they can compete and should have won. A few more runs from the upper order would be nice, but encouraging signs from the young brigade. Broad and Cook should really look at whether their action just prior to tea is really in the spirit of the game. Not a good look.

Posted by harshthakor on (July 15, 2013, 4:35 GMT)

One of the best Ashes test matches of all time containing all the ingredients of a classis.A true testimony to the great spirit of the Ashes.However Stuart Broad's failure to walk when clearly out and some bad decisions by the 4th umpire marred the game.The game illustrates the role of fighting spirit and attitude above pure class.These were the very qualities that brought Australia so close.

In the end the Bell -Broad second innings 138 run partnership was crucial and the flurry of wickets at the end of the 4th day.

Posted by hotcric01 on (July 15, 2013, 4:26 GMT)

Congratulations England and Jimmy who is one of my favorite bowlers.However Australia gave a good fight thanks for the lower order but their top and middle order batting remains as a major problem.How long do they keep ordinary Cowan as a top order batsman?Smith also is not so good against fast bowlers.At least now give Khawaja a chance and keep him in the team for a while.Openers are not too bad I think they will improve further.If I am correct there was a time hussy at N0.06 and great Gilly at No.07.How strong batting line up it was! Where is that Aussy pride? Anyway England played really well but they have their own top order problems to solve.As I said earlier,they too much depend on Jimmy and without him they are in a big problem.Good luck to both teams.

Posted by landl47 on (July 15, 2013, 4:08 GMT)

What a strange thread. About half the posters know that we just watched a fantastically entertaining game and would have enjoyed it whoever won (though I admit the England fans are probably slightly happier!).

The other half don't seem to care about cricket and just want to whinge, carp and moan about umpiring, DRS, sportsmanship (as defined by themselves) and anything else they can think of.

If you didn't enjoy this game, I suggest you neither understand nor appreciate cricket. I loved every minute of it, whichever side was on top.

Posted by Samdanh on (July 15, 2013, 3:40 GMT)

Thanks to Aleem Dar, who seemed to have slept while standing at the most crucial moment for Australia. England won, else, Aus would have won well before lunch. Credit to Australia for having carried themselves graciously, though it is a fact they were done by this major blunder by Aleem Dar. Also, ICC should revise DRS to declare batsmen out when hawk eye indicates ball clipping bails or stumps even marginally. Else, luck or ill luck with marginal decisions, may continue to impact teams. Eng team, please do not forget to thank Aleem Dar, even as you commend great performances from Bell and Anderson

Posted by whofriggincares on (July 15, 2013, 3:23 GMT)

Obviously the selectors will be looking to make changes in the Aussie 11. Starc was ok but I think Bird deserves a go. I would like to see a side consisting of 1. Watson 2. Rogers 3. Khawaja/Warner 4. Hughes 5. Clarke 6. Haddin 7. Faulkner 8. Agar 9. Siddle 10. Pattinson 11. Bird. Cowan has to be dropped I admire his fighting qualities but his manner of dismissal in both innings of this match was disgraceful. Trying to thrash the part time spinner through the off side 2 ball before lunch is a rookie mistake. Faulkner may still be a little green but he gives you a left arm option that doesn't have to be overused cutting down footmark damage for Swann and is usually fairly economical in one day cricket anyway, he would also be a very handy number 7 IMO. Clarke simply has to go back to 5 as my old man used to say "don't fix what isn't broke.

Posted by lillee4PM on (July 15, 2013, 3:12 GMT)

As an Aussie, I didn't think we had much hope of winning before this test began and expected England to wrap it up in four days. So, to see the fight in some of our batters was inspiring. It's disappointing to think that the not out decision against Broad (what a howler!) made the difference in the end because this was an amazing test match. I am pro DRS but the system needs a lot of improvement and the video umpire should have the power to intervene at any stage. This series has the makings of a classic contest...can't wait for Lords!

Posted by Mitty2 on (July 15, 2013, 3:05 GMT)

On the repercussions of this test... Gillespie said that Anderson's strength was durability, but after bowling like that for long spells (practically rescuing Eng), how will he come up for lords? Based on what I've always thought (Finn, Broad, Jimmy being a terribly balanced trio), and the results of this test, it is obvious a workhorse and an attacking/skilful bowler is needed and above all, no loose bowlers (Finn), so Eng need Bresnan - who will be hoping to better his poor recent performances (injury hindered of course) in for Finn.

On Aus' bowlers, most will know how I prefer Bird to Starc, but I thought Starc performed much better than usual, although Patto was unlucky and more threatening with the old ball. For reasons of not just the figures of this test, and reasons of potential, limitations and weaknesses, I'd keep Patto, drop Starc and bring in the impressive Bird. And yes, a 'rest' is necessary, we bowled over 210 overs!

On our batsmen, it will be Usman for Cowan :/

Posted by   on (July 15, 2013, 2:09 GMT)

As a Aussie cricket fan I truly believe that England got a very very lucky win and the Austraila got a very unfortunate unlucky lost there ! I suppose that's cricket , can't wait for the next test , hoping the Aussie to bounce back !

Posted by Massey_T on (July 15, 2013, 2:01 GMT)

@SL Rocks, mate you need to understand the context here rather than talk about who is no.1 or no.10. The thing is, there might be a no.1 in the form S.A. or India or even a pak/sl (i doubt that would happen). Doesnt matter, cos none of them have created a platform for test cricket to prosper like how England have done when they play us. It isnt the rankings buddy and if thats what you think, that its all about rankings, then you have a lot to study about what ashes is. We are talking almost 50+ yrs here between 2 teams with a rivalry and fan following unheard of, while you are talking about a team that is no.1 for 2 years!!?? Do you understand how outrageously dum that sounds? Yeah now you get it...hopefully. Nothing against s.a. here, as with sl the team i guess u follow. Try putting all the factors here and do not see cricket in the eyes of rankings, at least not with the ashes!.,its way more than that!, and thts y healthy intelligent viewers rank us as the champs of test crickt.

Posted by Leonb on (July 15, 2013, 1:56 GMT)

Great game and well done England. Now by my reckoning and the Aussie rules Jimmy really should be rested for the next game - right? After all how can a bowler possibly be expected to play another test so soon after bowling almost 56 overs - so come on, rest him ... please?

Posted by jmcilhinney on (July 15, 2013, 1:24 GMT)

I have to say that I think that the controversy over DRS is being overstated by many with an agenda, i.e. either they don't want DRS or don't want to admit Australia's failings. As far as I'm concerned, there was only one issue with DRS in this game and that was on Trott's dismissal. If you don't believe that he edged the ball then even that's not an issue and, if not for operator error, the side-on HotSpot would have cleared that up anyway. Broad's reprieve was an umpiring error and would have still been an umpiring error with no DRS. Australia had the means to correct it but abused DRS earlier with poor LBW reviews. Rogers and Watson were both given out so would still be out without DRS, which showed no clear reason to overrule. Agar was probably stumped but it was too close to call while Bell's LBW was rightfully overturned. Root didn't review anyway so no issue there.

Posted by MrKricket on (July 15, 2013, 1:17 GMT)

Great game and too tense for me to watch as an Aussie fan. Well done to England but please can you give Australia one of these close games one day? As John-Price says we always lose the close ones. Having suffered through the famous Melbourne Test (3 runs) in 1982-83, The Oval 1997 (19 runs) Melbourne 1998 (12 runs), Birmingham 2005 (2 runs) not to mentions Headingly 1981 (18 runs) it is surely time we won one of these!! Feels inevitable to get so close and lose. While it may be better than losing by an innings it's the same end result. SOB! Check out the list and see how many other times Australia appears (Windies Adelaide 1 run, South Africa Sydney 5 runs, New Zealand Hobart 7 runs): http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/215342.html

Don't hate us - we have suffered a lot too!

Posted by Shaggy076 on (July 15, 2013, 1:03 GMT)

I think the administrators of the game need to take a good hard look at DRS and work out why they brought the thing in for in the first place. It was only to remove the absolute howlers from umpires and the current system is not doing that. Whether it be the Trott dismissal or the Hughes one I am happy to take the officiating umpires decision in these instances. SO much confusion, we had a system in Australia where the whole ball had to pitch inside leg stump costing us the Adelaide test to England where some of the ball inside leg stump - officiating umpires decisions on tight calls have continuously been ignored. The umpires are getting a high percentage of decisions right, and some that are not howlers by no stretch are being reversed - why do we have officiating umpires? The system was brought in to save Bell and make sure Broad was out - as for the rest I am happy to take the umpires call.

Posted by   on (July 15, 2013, 0:47 GMT)

Why didn't Agar smash it around like he did in the first innings. He played a completely different knock, where he used up time instead of playing freely. Clarke should not have promoted him. If he came out batting at no.11 with Haddin, he would've smashed those runs needed and Australia won the test match.

Posted by   on (July 15, 2013, 0:43 GMT)

Great Ashes test match! Well done to England you performed when it mattered most and got the chocolates! Commiserations to my team Australia you put up a brave fight but lost it when you did not capitalize on England's low first innings score and except for young Agar's innings would have been woefully behind on England's first innings score. Harsh? no,reality! Forget about the side show of DRS,Broad and DAR,just get more out of your top order!

Posted by   on (July 15, 2013, 0:42 GMT)

Haddin didnt hit that ball, soind was consistent with creak of the bat, thats why no England player went up, on Pryor, No Hot spot visible, umpire saw glare of the bat, above where the ball passes the bat, replay it as much as you like, thats how it is, even commentators both said looked like that spot was on the bat before the ball had passed.

Posted by Johngakji on (July 15, 2013, 0:40 GMT)

Australia never win the close ones. Bring in Lyon for Cowan for Lord's. Contributions from Agar, Siddle, Starc, Pattinson or Lyon should make up for Cowan.

Posted by challagalla on (July 15, 2013, 0:18 GMT)

I tilt towards the underdog and was rooting for australia throughout the test. They won my heart again and again when all seemed over and out. Lovely test . My only regret I could not watch it and derived pleasure vicariously reading it on cricinfo. What would i do without cricinfo and internet. Anderson bowled 55 overs. What will england do if he breaks down. He was the difference between the two sides. Time for Cowan et al to step up and deliver. Lets hope the aussies do a better job of managing their referrals .

Posted by TheBigBoodha on (July 14, 2013, 23:59 GMT)

@joseph Langford, I think your analysis fails to acknowledge one important factor. The AUS tail enders score not only because they are decent batsmen, but because England only have two decent bowlers. Naturally they will tire after bowling a long time, so this gives the talented lower order batters a good opportunity to dominate. This will will not be the last time we see Pattinson, Agar, Starc or even Siddle rattle up big scores at the end of the innings. It will happen often, given the limited nature of the England's second string bowlers. What that means is that Australia will post a few huge scores this series, as most of the top order batters are also running into form, or at least not far off it. Australia will win one or two tests in is series, I predict, especially if they bat first. England got the best of conditions on days 2/3 here, and that was a big factor in their win.

Posted by TheBigBoodha on (July 14, 2013, 23:48 GMT)

I would also tend to agree that the biggest weakness of the DRS is that it becomes a bit of a guessing game, and quite clearly England were guessing with that last half-hearted review. As someone pointed out, it is a bit like a game of cards, and just hope you don't pull the joker! I see no reason why Australia should have been penalised for reviewing the Watson LBW, as not out should have been the call in the first place, given that it was no better than a 50-50 call. In the end the game was decided by the use of DRS. - esp. given the Broad incident - and luck had a fair bit to do with it. I do not consider this to be good for the game.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 23:47 GMT)

Classic game. Well played both teams. Going forward England have their traditional 1st innings of a series batting disaster out of the way and Australia's last man heroics in both inning rather hid how poor the top order was.

Posted by Rowayton on (July 14, 2013, 23:40 GMT)

John-Price July 14 18:57. I think you're right, and from an Australkian point of view it's very frustrating. However, in the three that immediately come to mind, Melbourne in 82/3, Edgbaston 05 and this one, I would say that in each case we got closer than we should have. Each had substantial last wicket partnerships. And in each case the last wicket ended up falling to a top quality bowler - we've never 'given' the last wicket to an inferior bowler. This trend will probably turn around, if I live long enough. One other thing - can we get rid of the necessity of having 'neutral' umpires? It's a joke that 8 of the 12 best umpires are cup-tied from these games. I'd love to see Llong and Reiffel for instance at Lords.

Posted by ADB1 on (July 14, 2013, 23:39 GMT)

@ScottStevo, you've got to be joking. If the Agar stumping had rightly been given out, Australia wouldn't have had a look in, chasing 500 in the last innings. Facts are, Australia still lost despite being gifted 150 runs by Erasmus.

Posted by Trapper439 on (July 14, 2013, 23:23 GMT)

As an Aussie fan I was gutted when I heard Haddin nick the ball. Didn't even need a replay to know he was out. But what a fantastic Test. One of the best I've seen in almost 30 years of watching cricket. Congratulations England. Anderson was fantastic throughout, and Bell took the game away from us with a fine innings.

I just hope that Australia can pick themselves up over the next few days and come out fighting again in the Second Test. Long live the Ashes!

Posted by Shaggy076 on (July 14, 2013, 23:17 GMT)

H_Z_O; The difference with the Root dismissal is the umpire gave him out and he walked. That was the overwhelming evidence. To many umpire decisions are being overturned with flimsy evidence. If it is not conclusive it should always go back to the umpires decision. They are still being payed to be umpires right?

Posted by Jayzuz on (July 14, 2013, 23:15 GMT)

Yep, the game could have gone either way. What was notable is hat each time Australia threatened to take a dominant position, England got a marginal or poor umpiring decision, with the Watson LBW being the most telling of all, even more so than the Broad incident, which also cost Australia the game No point either in saying that runs don't count because a lower order batsman makes them. Agar, Starc and Pattinson can all bat, so the fact is that most games one or two of them are going to get a a decent score. Simple maths! England are just going to have to deal with that. I just hope we get some more games, and that Australia can actually win some of these close games, because they have lost SOOOO many in the past few years.

Posted by Shaggy076 on (July 14, 2013, 23:14 GMT)

Pyketts - I imagine he was out, but in my opinion the DRS is an absolute farce. It is meant to stop the howler decisions but is clearly not working in that manner. The umpire gave Trott, Hughes and Haddin not out and I believe the evidence in all 3 scenarios (considering they are not allowed to use snicko) was not overwhelming and as such the umpires decision should remain. That has been good enough for 30 years. I'm happy with the Bell decision getting overturned as that was the wrong decision, it needs to be set up so the Broad decision is never overlooked. Take it away from the captains, and give it to the umpires. Its simple for a third umpire to say you got that one wrong, but border line calls should always remain with the officiating umpire. The system is not working in the way it was meant to.

Posted by 4test90 on (July 14, 2013, 23:12 GMT)

As an Aussie, I have been mystified as to why India refuse to use the DRS. After this Test, I think I understand !!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by latecut_04 on (July 14, 2013, 22:58 GMT)

@allen_Nelson your comment "Truth is without contributions from no.11 this test would have been a disaster for australia." is arguably the most myopic comment posted.Truth is without contributions from Jimmy Anderson England would have been wiped out.how about that.Also Agar is no No:11 stuff.He came last because it was his first test.I doubt seeing him EVER as No:11again. (especially after he showed some resistance in 2nd innings too)Reminds a bit of India's Irfan Pathan who could bat really well although wasn't a genuine allrounder.(Remember Steve Waugh praising his efforts after India's Perth test win in 2008)Agar has filled the wickets column too which is his primary role and he seems to be a long term prospect especially considering Aus batting weakness and competant fast bolwing.He can at least be used and persisted with like SA did with Harris.and this is from India and a neutral observer.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 22:56 GMT)

ausis played there heart out ,, they were clearly harddone

Posted by Shan156 on (July 14, 2013, 22:55 GMT)

England will only get better from here. Of late, they seem to do poorly in the first test of a series, a symptom previously seen with India. Swann will bowl better in other surfaces of this series, Anderson will have off days but that will be compensated by Broad or Bresnan (looks like Finn's series is over - he looked clueless and it looked like he has lost his captain's confidence). Our batting will certainly come good soon. It hasn't done great since the start of the summer collectively. Aus. will feel the heat then. As well as they have played, I think this is the best result they can get in this series. Their batting looks hopeless. Their last wicket is not going to rescue them every time and some of their top order batsmen are batting like tailenders.

@John-Price, it's true. It only means that Aus. choke under pressure. They also lost a test by 1 run against the Windies.

Posted by Shan156 on (July 14, 2013, 22:46 GMT)

@Sampathkumar VN, what a load of nonsense!! This is not a charity or a friendly. This is a test match with the Ashes at stake. Why should the debutant be allowed those 2 runs? What is so gentlemanly about that? If anything, I think Agar would hate the opposition gifting him 2 runs so that he complete his century. Every run and every wicket has to be earned.

Posted by dalboy12 on (July 14, 2013, 22:46 GMT)

The ashes might not be against the two best teams in world cricket at the moment - but boy, that doesn't stop it from producing some of the best test matches. Another classic one here -- great play from both teams. Aussie just never give up - and Bell and Anderson were great for England. I expect to see changes for the second test in both teams. Finn was average at best in this game and I'm guessing Bresnan will come in. He will further strengthen the English batting line up. Aussie will have to do something with their top 6 - they can't keep relying on number 11. Just for one from left field - the Aussie pace attack was great in this game - but I would look at playing Bird, simply because as a pace bowler who bowls good line and length and moves the bowl just a little. I reckon he will be very dangerous in English conditions. I think everyone has seen the difference between these two team is not that much any talk of 5-0 to England, should be gone. This is going to be a tight series.

Posted by samincolumbia on (July 14, 2013, 22:43 GMT)

Aussies put up a good fight in England's own backyard and almost won the match. If not for Dar's horrible snafu, Aussies would have rightfully won the match. As this match showed, England are over rated and dependent on Anderson to get 20 wickets in a test.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 22:04 GMT)

Player of the match: DRS ...well played

Posted by terryzarsov on (July 14, 2013, 22:00 GMT)

Certainly an exciting match, but everyone seems to be conveniently ignoring the fact that Dar's horrendous decision was the difference between the two teams. Broad added 28 before his second dismissal, Bell 24 in that time. Of course this isn't Broad's fault.

The rules that prevent Aussie and English umpires presiding over Ashes test matches mean we end up with spuds like Dar in charge. Worst of all, he's also umpiring games two and five.

Posted by Rich1973 on (July 14, 2013, 21:57 GMT)

congratulations to both teams for 5 days of great entertainment, really enjoyable test to watch with plenty of drama, special praise for Agar, Anderson, Bell & Haddin, wish they were more tests like this although not so good for the nerves, on to Lords now & hopefully more drama to come

Posted by Harmony111 on (July 14, 2013, 21:50 GMT)

I think Haddin made a bit of a mistake when he played out Swann's over just before lunch. Aus needed 20 at that time and Haddin was kind of hot. He was playing Swann very well at that point and 2 hits might have reduced the target by 8/12 runs. THAT would have really rattled Cook & co. They were already rattled when instead of being super aggressive in the final over before Lunch the chose to waste time to get a break. Aus would look at Cowan & Siddle for the stupid shots they played to get out and they would also look at a few decisions that made the game into what it became finally.

Reg the final wicket, I have a problem. The Hot spot showed TWO spots 2 inches apart on Haddin's wicket. How is that possible? It clearly is malfunctioning of Hot Spot. If it can malfunction once, why can't it do that again? So what's the reliability of the Hot-Spot?

Even in CT13 Ind vs Pak, Hotspot had shown a white spot of unknown origin in over 32 of Pak innings besides the one that got Asad.

Posted by JG2704 on (July 14, 2013, 21:48 GMT)

@Shan156 on (July 14, 2013, 18:50 GMT) re "Can hardly believe the whingeing here" I'm sure you can and realistically must have been expecting it. I see our popular neutral poster is giving his balanced views on all aspects of the game and is proving us wrong by giving loads of credit to both teams. TBH - I think we maybe had the better of the decisions and def the better of the luck. I only listened to part of it today (was on my pushbike up til 12.30ish and took a pocket radio with me). Usually I can't get a reception but while I couldn't get Radio 4 I managed to follow it on 5. IMO I think lunch coming when it did upped Eng's chances. I left Elberry Cove (near Paignton) at lunch and by the time I cycled to Totnes Eng had won although I expected it to an Oz win

Posted by JG2704 on (July 14, 2013, 21:48 GMT)

@ clarke501 on (July 14, 2013, 16:19 GMT) I think it's difficult as (if there are more reviews for special circumstances) a side would almost certainly try and milk the special circumstances and also the umpire would be reviewing all the time as he's be worried about how bad he'd look if he didn't review one which turned out to be a worthwhile review

Posted by thebrotherswaugh on (July 14, 2013, 21:43 GMT)

Sorry, I forgot to say congratulations to ENG for a hard-fought win. It looks as if Lehman will have his work cut out for him - one of the big team goals was to have more batsmen score 100's. Well, no OZ batsmen managed that feat in this match - Agar got closest batting at #11. I sincerely hope our batsmen can turn things around, but I doubt it. It'll be very interesting to compare the number of centuries scored by both teams at the end of the series - I'm predicting 8-3 or 9-4 to ENG. I just hope we don't blame our bowlers, but I suspect they'll carry more than their fair share of the burden. Can't wait for the 2nd test - OZ must win, no excuses allowed, because if ENG go 2-0 up, Botham's audacious prediction could very well pan out!

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 21:39 GMT)

England won the test but lost the credibility and fair play stakes.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 21:36 GMT)

the first investec ASHES is over now in a nail biting way. At lunch time it was anyone's game. England again faulterd to wipe out the tail both in first innings when Aussie were 117 for 9 and went to make 280, again in second innings they were 240 for 9 and went to make 296. Both the teams have the credit with Aussies came to this test as underdogs.Now it is clear that the series is going to be tough for both England need to find better bowling combination as Anderson is the only bowler seemed to be taking wickets with Broad not so dangerous and swan out of his magic spells and Finn completely out of form. They should bring a good replacement for Finn for the second test not Bresan who is again not a dependable bowler. They must have the fifth bowler like Aussie has Watson prefereable take an all rounder or use Root more. As far as Aussie is concerned they must bring back Ryan Haris who is a genuine wicket taking and hard working bowler and drop Pattison. let us see

Posted by thebrotherswaugh on (July 14, 2013, 21:33 GMT)

A gutsy effort from the tail & Haddin, but you can't expect the 10th wicket partnership to keep 'saving your bacon'. The top order crumbled after a good start for OZ - far too many batsmen dismissed after getting a start. We all knew Haddin is a fighter - the top order needs to take note. The best team for the duration won this match, but there wasn't much in it. OZ let down by its batsmen - the bowlers did a good job, they actually bowled far better in the 2nd dig, but ENG batted very well in a tenacious manner. Anderson was magnificent for ENG and he'll be equally dangerous at Lords. I just hope we can conjure a win somehow, but it will have to on the backs of our bowlers - no faith in the first 5 wickets getting the job done - I suspect that Clarke, overdue for a poor series with the bat, might continue to struggle for the rest of the series, only average low to mid 30's. He'll have plenty of company. That's where the difference will lie between the two teams.

Posted by OneEyedAussie on (July 14, 2013, 21:23 GMT)

I could go on about what if's regarding whether Haddin nicked it or if the umpires had have got it right with Broad's edge - but the truth is the Australian top order failed again. From the top 4: 8 innings and only one 50+ score. Clarke and Cowan were particularly disappointing (though one can forgive Clarke given his form over the past 18 months). Fantastic performance from Australia's bowlers and lower order that deserves to be commended.

In the end I would say the difference between the two sides was that Bell went on to get a hundred - which is why I would recommend dropping Cowan immediately.

Posted by JG2704 on (July 14, 2013, 21:22 GMT)

@ Biggus on (July 14, 2013, 13:29 GMT)/ Jono Makimon (July 14, 2013, 13:58 GMT) AussieSam on (July 14, 2013, 14:24 GMT)/ Chris_P on (July 14, 2013, 14:39 GMT)

(apologies if I've missed anyone) Thankyou for your sporting comments. Look forward to reading all your balanced views throughout the series

Posted by wix99 on (July 14, 2013, 21:18 GMT)

Australia have proven to be a competitive team against England although I think England were slightly better. Australia just needs more consistency from its batsmen to beat England. The only change for the next Test should be Cowan out and Khawaja in.

Posted by Front-Foot-Lunge on (July 14, 2013, 21:16 GMT)

Anderson deserves cricketer of the year for this. Two five-fers in one Ashes match, the first in the series, on the deadest wicket in all of England. The weather, aided by the ground preparation, turned this usually seaming wicket into one which sucked the life out of the ball. Anderson has re-affirmed yet again that he is the ultimate all-pitch specialist. In the first innings here England were down to just 2 seamers with Broad out injured. Then effectively just Anderson alone, as Finn proved quick but wayward (and the wrong choice for this pitch). Jimmy's pace was faster than Pattison throughout the match, wasn't that interesting how that little battle ended! James Anderson is simply doing what he does so often: winning Ashes games for England. Today was just another day at the office.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 21:12 GMT)

Amazing game- it truly had everything! Congrats England!

Posted by Woodinville20 on (July 14, 2013, 21:09 GMT)

It was a great match but the DRS and Stuart Broad didnt make it as memorable as other Ashes tests- When was the last time a debutant at no.11 made 98?

Posted by JG2704 on (July 14, 2013, 20:39 GMT)

What a superb game of cricket and congratulations to both sides who displayed heart , courage , vulnerability and a little skill. Each inns had partnerships and mini collapses and there has already been plenty said re the controversies. It seems the umpires were at times as vulnerable as some of the players. Had Australia won you'd have to say the big factors would have been wrapping up the Eng tail so quickly in the 1st inns , the Agar inns/partnership with Hughes , the start to the 2nd inns and the last wicket stand in the 2nd inns. Eng's factors were skittling the Aus batsmen on the 2nd morning , The Bell review (helped by JB) when he was given out , the Bell/Broad partnership and the 2nd inns mini mid order collapse. I think we may have had the edge in luck here but I think this test shows us that both teams are more evenly matched than some media would have us believe

Posted by pixiek on (July 14, 2013, 20:33 GMT)

Aussies are like the Yankees (of baseball in North America). Even when the chips are down, even when umpires err and even when it's up to the last man to fight for a win they keep fighting. Gentlemen and Broads apart, England was saved by (the) Bell who played a characteristic match saver that turned out to be the match winner. It was fascinating cricket and Test cricket at that.

Posted by jackthelad on (July 14, 2013, 20:16 GMT)

Well, there it is - closer than anyone would care to be, but the first of the ten matches is done. @Aby Prasad, you are completely right, other Tests have created great moments, but The Ashes (we have to give it capital letters) is unique, and there is not a competition that can compete with it for history, tradition. drama ... you name it! I'm an England supporter, but I give a hand to the Aussies, who fought and fought and nearly brought it off. Great game, hoping for a great series (or two).

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 20:15 GMT)

As stated previously, Australia's chances of winning lay in the hands of the bowlers .... both with the bat and the ball. I think that someone with record books should see what the highest runs scored by the two 10th wicket partnerships is!!!

Incredibly Australia fell only 14-runs short of victory .... this is despite the last 4-wickets in the 2nd Innings scoring almost as many runs as the first 6-wickets .... and remove the opening partnership and the problem becomes quite apparent.

And this is not a one off occasion in the recent history of Australian Cricket .... Johnson (2nd Test SA 2011), Harris/Lyon in WI (1st Test WI 2012), Wade (3rd Test WI 2012), All bowlers (2nd Test SA 2012).... and there are others.

Although I find the Australians DESPERATELY unlucky to lose this game, it now makes it five Test loses in a row, which I think is another record, and is simply a result of ignoring the underpinning problems in the Australian Team.

Posted by 2.14istherunrate on (July 14, 2013, 19:46 GMT)

Since the DRS piece is slightly old I will make my point on this current article. On Thursday Marais Erasmus gave Ashton Agar not out to a putative stumping after taking an age to adjudge and yet there was no part of the foot on the line let alone over it,and the rest is history. Today I just saw Nigel Llong give out Lendl Simmons stumped and he had his foot firmly on the line,but possibly none of it over. I do know which is correct (Lloyd) and which is not, but I am concerned that Erasmus did not and what can be done. If international umpires do not know the rules then what is happen? International cricket requires that accuracy because it is crucial to everyone's happiness. I hope Erasmus bothers to learn the rules properly.

Posted by ScottStevo on (July 14, 2013, 19:43 GMT)

As an Aussie, I'm extremely proud of our team today. We played exceptionally well and had it not been for possibly the most dodgy hawk-eye pictures ever put together, we'd have walked this in. England, looked hopeless without Anderson and once again, Swann was barely a threat without some ordinary decisions and dicey video doctoring - as he has been his whole career versus Australia. Hawk-Eye 1 - Australia 0.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 19:38 GMT)

Congratulations to England on first blood. Anderson and Bell were magnificent and the chief reasons for England's victory. There were some worrying displays from Finn and Swann - who seemed out of sorts. It was a classic test match and one where the UDRS has really come of age. India please take note. The Aussies were worthy opponents and surpassed my expectations with this performance. It should be a cracking series and the return tour later this year should be so close! Cricket was the real winner and Ashes cricket at it's best. Australians should be proud of their team and I suspect that they are going to win a game or two before the summer is over. I can't wait for Thursday.... COME ON ENGLAND!!!

Posted by MartinC on (July 14, 2013, 19:33 GMT)

Great Test match - not always great cricket on the first coule of days but great cricket. Congratulations from an England fan to the Aussies for the way they battled - but a win is a win and we will take it and go to Lords 1-0 up.

Jimmy Anderson bowled his heart out today but a little worrying from an England perspective that it was almost a one man show. Broad and Swann bowled OK but I think Cook has lost confidence in Finn and Bresnan may come in for the Lords Test.

Posted by John-Price on (July 14, 2013, 18:57 GMT)

I make this the seventh time England have beaten Australia by less than 30 runs since 1981. And in that time, while Australia have slaughtered England on many occasions, I don't think they have once won a close test match.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 18:53 GMT)

A number 11 batsman making debut on verge of history and there's no more gentlemen in the game to allow him make that 2 runs, no walker a la Brian Lara or no captain like India's GR Vishwanath to recall umpire given out Bob Taylor. Perhaps for the first time a TV umpire gives out on "hearing" a snick rather than seeing snickometer or hotspot. Mark my words, Aussies will win the Ashes 2-1 with 2 drawn or washed out or the Ashes will be shared 2-2 with 1 test washed out.

Posted by Shan156 on (July 14, 2013, 18:50 GMT)

Can hardly believe the whingeing here. It was a great test. Yes, there were howlers and both teams were affected. Move on. Let's hope the next test is better with less umpiring errors. Aussies, or any team for that matter, simply cannot moan about marginal decisions since they always even out. If Agar was given out when the Aussie score was 131 in the 1st innings, England would have triumphed yesterday. The problem for Australia is that their batting is weak. Their bowling was excellent and fared better than England's attack but the standout bowler on either side was, as expected, Jimmy Anderson. Take Jimmy out and the English pace attack does seem to look innocuous. Swanny is expected to come into his own in the remaining tests but the Aussies have done their homework against him. Finn needs to go back to county. I suggest England pick Tremlett instead of Bresnan for Lord's. Broad bowled some good spells yesterday without the results to show for it.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 18:39 GMT)

This match, should have given boof some idea of the direction to go in the future for Australian cricket. I say remove the whole lot, Khwaja, Hughes, Cowan and Watson (after giving adequate oppurtunities. The fact that a decent bat (not fully part of the setup) comes in and plays this CLASS of cricket means that there is talent in Australia, the selectors and management are not correctly looking at them. Clarke is wrong, if Brad Haddin's knock was played by any of the 3 to 5 batters Australia would have won this game (infact many games) by 6 wickets.

Posted by hhillbumper on (July 14, 2013, 18:29 GMT)

It was a good performance by England.Finn is a concern and needs to get some overs under his belt. Well done to Aus for the good fight they showed and credit where it is due.As for Jimmy Anderson,Yep he is just a flat track bully.Not

Posted by YorkshirePudding on (July 14, 2013, 18:16 GMT)

@RohanMarkJay, the only aussie I've ever known walk without waiting for the umpires decision was Gilchrist. Look bat at 2010/11, the Second innings of the Adelaide test KP to Clarke, off the face of the bat to pad to short leg, umpire didnt give it Clarke stood his ground, thankfully england had a review.

And who can forget Ponting memorable rant in 2005 when he was run out, or the 'discussion' with the upiare at Melbourne in 2010/11 when a decision didnt go the way he wanted.

Glass houses and throwing stones.

Posted by thelapal on (July 14, 2013, 18:15 GMT)

I am surprised when clarke said they don't bother how the runs are coming as long they are coming and doesn't matter who scores the runs. If he plays with this attitude there are strong chances australia can loose this series 4-0. In both the innings its no.11 batsmen who saved australia from a horrible defeat and for them it looked as if they fought well and they keep can keep their heads up.Truth is without contributions from no.11 this test would have been a disaster for australia.

Posted by Ravi_M on (July 14, 2013, 17:54 GMT)

Excellent match and it was really good to see Haddin and Pattinson put up a good fight. Especially good to see Haddin trust his partner, pick the right balls to hit and watch every ball carefully. England is mostly dependent on Anderson and occasionally Swann. Broad and Finn are pretty much useless as bowlers. Broad's shoe tying antics were clearly against the spirit of the game and Cook encouraging it was just as shameful. Waiting to see if the Match Referee will charge them both with violating the spirit of the game and docking them their match fees as they fully deserve.

Posted by stumpedlloyd on (July 14, 2013, 17:44 GMT)

Just like Sri Lanka relied almost entirely on Muralitharan, it looks like England depends solely on Jimmy Anderson to bowl sides out. Finn so lacks in confidence I am surprised he can even run up to bowl, Broad is a flash in the pan (performs perhaps once every 6 or 7 tests with the ball), Swann didn't look like he would get anyone out today. So England will pick trundler Tim Bresnan for Lord's? Give me a break.

What is more unsettling iis the quality of umpiring. For The Ashes, the ICC can only choose from four non-English or Australian officials - Aleem Dar, Kumar Dharmasena, Tony Hill and Marais Erasmus. If the First Test was anything to judge umpiring standards by, we are in for a long summer. Surely, the two teams can agree and we get better umpires, even if they are from Australia and England. I have faith in Paul Reiffel, Richard Kettleborough et al.

Posted by popcorn on (July 14, 2013, 17:43 GMT)

In the present DRS System,Umpire's Call for an lbw decision is a joke.If the ball is hitting stumps, whichever portion of the stump,it is out.Ask Mark Waugh,if you don't know the rules.

Posted by nlight on (July 14, 2013, 17:40 GMT)

I thought England were the slightly better side before this game, now I rate them even. If Australia bring back Warner for Cowan, then I think Aus will win at least one of the remaining tests. Agar is the best teen we've seen since Amir. This was the most intense test for years.

Posted by Ozcricketwriter on (July 14, 2013, 17:33 GMT)

DRS is fine, it is the rules about its use that need changing.

1) Get rid of "umpire's call". It is either OUT or NOT OUT. If it is completely unclear, then it is NOT OUT. Benefit of the doubt to batsmen, not umpires. 2) Get rid of umpire's ability to review when players haven't. This effectively gives teams an extra review, which is unfair. Umpires should make decisions live. It is up to the players to review them. 3) Use all technology all of the time. Don't turn it off because the TV broadcaster is busy with it. Don't leave it out because a board can't afford it. And don't let a board bully everyone else by refusing to use it.

That's it. Simple. Australia didn't waste any reviews. DRS is simply inconsistent with the rules that it uses. And Haddin was not clearly out. It should never have been given out when there was no deviation, a sound that could have been something else and a spot so tiny that it could have been a speck of dust.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 17:32 GMT)

With England 11-2 in their second innings, still 54 runs behind at tea on the second day, the test was there for the Aussie's to take, but they couldn't do it. They haven't the heart or skills of the England team. They had their chance and they blew it. England will now win this series at a stroll.

Posted by Tribal_Cricket on (July 14, 2013, 17:31 GMT)

I really appreciate broad's decision of not walking. No one should walk while playing against an Australian side for the simple reason that their batsman wouldn't walk if they were in a similar situation. And its very funny Aus fans are speaking about the spirit of the game...if teams were ranked on the basis of following the spirit of the game Australia would definitely be ranked last.

Posted by Jakespin on (July 14, 2013, 17:30 GMT)

What a game - about as exciting a match as anyone could hope for. Have to respond to some of the one-eyed nonsense being spouted here though. Australia only lost because of Broad's extra thirty-odd?? What about Agar's reprieve on 9? If that had been given, as everyone except the third umpire thought it should, the Aussies would have lost by yesterday morning!! Let's just stop the jingoistic blame-game rubbish - stuff happens, get over it and look forward to Thursday!

Posted by landl47 on (July 14, 2013, 17:24 GMT)

A wonderful and thrilling game- maybe not the best demonstration of cricket skills I've ever seen, but one of the most wildly fluctuating games going right down to the wire, with the final result in doubt right to the end.

I have always said the Aussies can never be counted out and they proved it again. There is one extraordinary statistic from this match- Australia's first 9 wickets, in the two innings combined, amassed 348 runs for 18 wickets, an average of 19 runs per wicket. The two 10th wickets provided 228 runs, average 114! I'll say now that Agar and Pattinson are the two best #11 batsmen I've ever seen. Both of them played brilliantly and looked as good as the senior batsmen in their partnerships.

For England, truly memorable performances from Anderson and Bell. Both will take their place in Ashes lore. However, despite how well they played, for me Agar was man of the match. Without him, this game wouldn't have been close. With him, it was a real thriller.

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 14, 2013, 17:21 GMT)

@Lyndon McPaul not sure about Steyn, but I said before the series that, while Siddle is a much better bowler than he gets credit for, I think Anderson is more skilled. Swing both ways, new ball and old, he can also use clever changes of pace quite well too as we saw with Rogers. At that point, it looked like Australia were coasting and Rogers in particular was totally comfortable. He looked nailed on for a century, and as we saw with Bell, all it was going to take was one ton and a few others chipping in, and you'd have won.

As well as Jimmy bowled, though, Saker deserves a lot of credit. Before he took the job, Anderson had 156 wickets at an average of 35 and a strike rate of 60.4, while Broad had 83 at 36.15 and a strike rate of 67.3. Since then, Anderson has added 161 at 24.73 and a strike rate of 55.1 and Broad has added 115 at 27.18 and strike rate of 55.6. That's a big difference, and shows how an ordinary attack was transformed into a very good one.

Posted by browners76 on (July 14, 2013, 17:21 GMT)

Some funny comments regarding DRS. If Agar had been given out stumped on the second day this match would have been over in 3 days. One freak innings made this match much closer than it should have been and I think we're all happier for that....just! Anderson has put to bed the theory by many on these threads that he's over rated. He out bowled the three Aussie quicks put together. Ian Bell take a bow too, one of the great ashes innings. Finn was awful and needs axing, would prefer Tremlett or Onions but Bresnan seems favourite. If Cook wins the toss in the next match then he'll surely bat, the bowlers must be exhausted.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 17:15 GMT)

RobinMarkJay - be interested to see your opinion at the end of the series. I think your wrong, but that's just my opinion. England remember lost Trott to a poor DRS decision. The batters can bat a lot better than this. However that is a very good Australian bowling attack and they should be getting good batters out. It's not necessarily poor England batting. It will be a close test series!

Posted by sri1ram on (July 14, 2013, 16:55 GMT)

Close and nice advertisement to Test cricket, awesome and great and all that. But, I absolutely loved to see that the India-Australia SCG Sidney test and results was being replayed in this match. There Ozzies under Ponting and Clarke took the hook-or-crook route to win. However you see it, here it is kind of similar with England. That SCG test was the single greatest indicator of the fall that the mighty Ozzies would take in test rankings, and Trentbridge would be the biggest indication of England's slide in Tests. All the best though.

Posted by RohanMarkJay on (July 14, 2013, 16:52 GMT)

I agree with Ryan Hill. Like you said "England has won a test thanks to the DRS rules and Broad's lack of sportsmanship" . Absolutely. This England team isn't really that good and this Aussie side is well capable of beating them! They almost did.This modern crop of English cricketers like you said don't stand for fair play and sportsmanship unlike previous generations of English cricketers.They have a win at all cost mentality even though they are not that good.Their batting is quite weak. Their bowling is a one trick, two trick pony.Take Anderson out and their struggling. I for one would like to to see this Australian team beat England this time. Australia got a much better bowling attack, and if Australian top order perform like Watson and Clarke and others etc.Then this England team would be well and truly cooked. Because England's batting line up is quite weak. To win however Australia will have to contend with poor umpiring, a DRS system that is a shambles and Jingoistic Eng fans.

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 14, 2013, 16:51 GMT)

@Mitty2 I wasn't sure about the Root one, there was a sound but sounds are ambiguous. There was a comment from a physicist earlier and I've heard it before that when the ball passes the bat the air gets compressed and can give off a "click" sound similar to a nick. But he was plumb lbw to Starc a few balls earlier and because the umpire had gave him not-out, the review was unsuccessful. Losing that review cost you badly with Broad.

Trott, I haven't seen an overhead angle so I can't comment on that. But I did say even at the time that I didn't think the decision was match-defining and England should let it go. Agar I thought was out, but my real complaint was the inconsistency re: Bell. It left a sour taste in the mouth, but then I think all the "umpire's call" lbw decisions seeming to go for England and against you can't have tasted any better.

All in all, that was a great match. If we'd lost, it still would have been. Bring on Lord's, I say.

Posted by Chinmayan on (July 14, 2013, 16:47 GMT)

Are there any provisions for the batting side to request extended session of half an hour before Lunch? When Captain Cook was messing with Broad's Boots, I felt that the only way England can brake this partnership is by breaking for lunch!

Posted by a1234s on (July 14, 2013, 16:45 GMT)

this DRS system is making a mockery of 21st century innovations...showing phantom nicks when there aren't any...the bat not lighting up when there is a visible deflection..and it's just sad that this match was decided by who made best use of their DRS appeals..

this was plain old roll of the dice..nothing else...

and oh England.. good going with the spirit of the game and everything..

Posted by SL_rockz on (July 14, 2013, 16:42 GMT)

@ Aby Prasad :-

If a Test is drawn after a tense end or else one side won after a thrilling encounter means a good test match for spectators. Unarguably good for cricket itself. But as you mentioned it never says that they are the best teams in the world playing tests. ENG and AUS played well like champs.And Ashes is a true landmark in history of cricket.But SA is the team who is playing BEST test cricket since last 2 or 3 years .They occupy num 1 seat with a huge marging to the 2nd best.It shows how dominant they are. They finished the match on day 4 with innings in hand .Easy wins.No thrills or twists win was visible from day 1.Not exciting facts as today know.:) But SA has played dominant test one sided test cricket because they were so strong. No thrilling finishes does not mean they are behind aus or eng

Posted by Aussasinator on (July 14, 2013, 16:35 GMT)

A great Test match between the two age old rivals. Congrats to Michael Clarke for an inspiring team effort. Under Ricky Ponting this team would have lost the test in less than 3 days. Be sure of it. Clarke has brought wonders.

Posted by Greatest_Game on (July 14, 2013, 16:27 GMT)

@ Jose Puliampatta. Your claim that "As an ex- student of physics, i can vouch for the fact that ... even if the ball has not touched the bat, the friction of a thin layer of air in between two moving objects creates noise, which snicko picks up ..."

I understand why you are an EX-student of physics - you are simply wrong. Ball hitting bat will create a waveform with faster amplitude rise, greater amplitude, & different frequency spectrum from the "friction of a thin layer of air in between two moving objects." As a professional sound engineer (35 years) I don't "vouch," I simply report reality. Snicko will not register "thin air layer friction" - not enough amplitude, or volume, especially given inverse square law attenuation. The point at which an "air layer" is so thin that the "friction" compression is audible to snicko is called impact!

Posted by Herath-UK on (July 14, 2013, 16:27 GMT)

Congrats England! It was a thrilling win & again jimmy to the fore. However I think Aussies fared much better than expected of them at the beginning. Agar was a new find & his family interview was nice. If Warner & Hussey come to the team the series is going to hot up definitely. Ranil Herath - Kent

Posted by runout49 on (July 14, 2013, 16:26 GMT)

Australia can certainly take heart from this test more so than England.The home team has had a test series and ODI's against NZ to prepare while Australia had a couple of warm up matches. Certainly Agar's remarkable innings made the Australian second innings chase fewer than expected but then again if Broad had been given out it probably would have been a smaller total anyway. On balance Australia's attack was better all round. Apart from the wonderful bowling of Anderson the rest was pretty mediocre. Pattinson, Starc and Agar are in their early 20's and with the equally young Cummins on the recovery trail their bowling stocks for the future look good. The batting is a major problem but if Doolan, Sean Marsh, Kuwaja, Burns etc can be brought on the return Ashes series in Australia could well see the Urn return Down Under.

Posted by shillingsworth on (July 14, 2013, 16:19 GMT)

@jmcilhinney - Agree with all your points bar the last. To me, it has always been a fault of DRS that errors can't be rectified once reviews have been used up. Yes, Clarke erred in his use of the DRS but I'm uneasy when a contest of cricketing skill is in part decided by who best used their joker.

Posted by krishna_cricketfan on (July 14, 2013, 16:15 GMT)

it is a great test match. Although lot of ifs and buts scenerio were discussed by the fans, it is sad to see players not walking. Rather the proper DRS calls seems to come into play. In addition to playing the game, the plays and captains must now be very tactical about DRS as well. i did like the way Australians battled back and that is typical of them. Hope they start winning the close games and make this series a cliffhanger

Posted by 64blip on (July 14, 2013, 16:15 GMT)

Great entertainment - impossible to second guess and it went to the 5th day too. Felt like an entire series! Well played both sides. I don't see that this result is a positive for Australia as some are suggesting. England chose to bat first, made only 215 and still won. They also made the highest score of the match, 375, batting third. Australia's totals were competitive only because the last wicket added 228 over the two innings!! And decisions? OK, take Broad's extra runs off. But then take Agar's extra runs off too and you're left with a an even bigger winning margin. Ian Bell is going to be walking 10 feet tall after his innings made the difference, and he's a confidence player. I think we'll see Bresnan in for Finn, to offer more control. He can reverse it too. I'd think the Aussies would want to target him if he does play, to see if they can knock him out of the series and give England a selection headache. Roll on Thursday!

Posted by Crickethater69 on (July 14, 2013, 16:14 GMT)

Well it was an entertaining game but I will leave it only there. This is a predetermined script for the game. Every one involved in the game knew who was going to win and who was going together 10 wickets and centuries. After all cricket games are all fixed now a days and this game is no different. It is no more than like a movie that entertains the audience. No point in fussing about the winners and losers.

Posted by Bonehead_maz on (July 14, 2013, 16:14 GMT)

What an amazing match ! Once it settled down into two teams playing reasonably well (3rd innings). I thought Bell was outstanding. From our (Aust) point of view, we can take some heart in; never going away, bowling really well for extended periods (2nd time) and our younger members having contributed. Well played England.

Posted by shillingsworth on (July 14, 2013, 16:13 GMT)

@DC 75 - The 3rd umpire wasn't just going on Hotspot. He listened to the stump microphone too. The spot appeared at the time the ball in the vicinity of the bat. You couldn't possibly telll whether it was before or after ball passed bat. What else could have caused the spot? Snicko confirmed contact with the bat. Correct decision.

Posted by DeckChairand6pack on (July 14, 2013, 16:11 GMT)

Great match to watch, thrilling even if a bit low on quality. Effectively 10 versus 10 with Cowan and Finn gone for a burton.

Posted by shillingsworth on (July 14, 2013, 16:07 GMT)

@jackiethepen - If Cook persisted with Finn for too long in the first innings, he showed every sign of learning in the 2nd (Finn taken off after only 2 overs). You seem to be trying too hard to find fault where none exists.

Posted by AKS286 on (July 14, 2013, 16:02 GMT)

In my views DRS will be given to umpires instead of teams. Umpires are human so mistakes occurs. If any one is appealing then Umpires can use their DSS (decision support system). Cook uses DRS better than Clarke.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 16:00 GMT)

Yes, DC35 you were watching a different reply, what else was the obvious noise from? The bat was miles away from anything apart from....the ball!! Prat

Posted by ashes61 on (July 14, 2013, 16:00 GMT)

A great Test matcch - which depends on mistakes produced by pressure as well as on brilliant cricket - has demonstrated yet again (as if it were needed) that only 1st class cricket has the ability to feature every possible facet of the game in a single match. Pyjama cricket has its place but only as a much truncated, contrived, artificial and shallower format, never ever to be confused with the real thing. We've just had the real thing for 5 days. What a reminderof Edgbaston 2005! Surely, now, even the most one-eyed (or short sighted) fan of the pyjama stuff can see why 1st class cricket, and Test cricket in particular, is so far ahead as the pinnacle of the sport that its place in the hearts of knowledgable and true cricket followers is assured for ever. Indeed, for another 136 years of Ashes cricket! The wonderful, traditional fighting Aussie attitide - and a chap called Erasmus - kept them in this game, which could otherwise have been over inside 3 or 4 days.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 15:58 GMT)

Haddin knew he hit it, that was obvious but 99 per cent of pro cricketers do not walk, it's a fact. I wouldn't either if my livelihood depended on it. It was even worse in days of yore when umpiring wasn't as good and drs didn't exist.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 15:57 GMT)

gud innings bro!!!!

Posted by vildoc on (July 14, 2013, 15:57 GMT)

@DC75 I noticed the same too. Besides the spot shown by hotspot is above the trajectory the ball took. Didn't seem convincing. DRS has has not been such a huge focus in any other match as compared to the current test match and it has come a cropper. At its current capacity it prevents howlers but not convincing for close decisions. Clarke claimed he had not hit the ball which begets the possibility that the technology is not one hundred percent correct.

Posted by SamWintson92 on (July 14, 2013, 15:55 GMT)

Congratulations England. For 2nd test: For Aus: a) I want David Hussey in place of Ed Cowan. David Hussey has over 12000 runs averaging over 52. He's currently in Eng, run-machiene for Nottinghamshire b) If not D Hussey as he's not in the squad then it has to be David Warner. Warner's test average is approximately 40. For Eng: a) Steven Finn nearly cost the game for Eng with his sloppy fielding, missed catch plus his rubbish bowling. I like him as a bowler but he disappointed me greatly in the match. He needs to be dropped b) Chris Tremelett should be recalled. He has a test bowling average of 26, better than Bresnan & Onions c) If not Tremlett, please no Bresnan. Take Onions.

Posted by Broken_F-ing_Arm on (July 14, 2013, 15:53 GMT)

WOW wow, wow, wow, wow. What a match! Both sides showing patches of their best cricket, both sides showing gritt to fight back. I hope the way the Aussies finished that game creates some momentum and confidence going into lords.

On a sour note though, as an Aussie fan both Aus and Eng fans are really annoying me with some of their posts. Some Eng fans are dismissing the fact that Aus played very well and are just saying it was this close because of a fluke number 11 innings. This innings was not a fluke. Plus England also received a big contribution from one of their tail endears that turned the match on its head. To the idiotic Aussie fans who are still worked up over the Broad decision and somehow not only blame broad for it but call him unsportsmanlike, it was the umpires decision and broad should not be expected to walk. In a game of rugby league if you perform a head high shot on the opposition but you get away with it should you be expected to go tell the ref to penalise you?

Posted by jmcilhinney on (July 14, 2013, 15:52 GMT)

@Cpt.Meanster on (July 14, 2013, 15:18 GMT), nice try but let me save you the trouble of trying by telling you that you won't dampen the spirits of us England fans with your deliberate negativity. If you really couldn't care less then why do you feel the need to tell us again and again? As I've said before, the people who actually don't care are the ones not posting, not the ones posting telling us that they don't care. I think your real problem is that, no matter what anyone does ever, no India series is going to match the fervour that an Ashes series brings out in England and Australia fans. There may be a billion rabid cricket fans in India and I know that there's a big rivalry with Pakistan but they still can't match an Ashes series. A lot of people seem to be somehow offended by the fact that England and Australia always get more out of playing each other, even if they're not the top ranked teams. It's a fact and people just need to deal with it. At least you don't care though.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 15:50 GMT)

I am surprised that the Aussies are so upbeat about their performance. Their batting was mediocre with about 35% of the runs coming for the 10th wicket partnerships. The bowling is ok. Agar certainly isn't a fantastic spinner (yet). They were kept in the match by a freak innings and some terrible umpiring decisions. With England 1-0 up, there is little hope for them.

Posted by salazar555 on (July 14, 2013, 15:49 GMT)

There's been far too much chat about Agar. He's in the team to bowl and he doesn't look very good at bowling to me. If they wanted a batsman who bowls a bit then why didn't they pick a batsman.

He looks no different to Root who I actually thinks bowls better than Agar.

Is the media just setting him up to fail? let's wait and see.

He's got pressure on him now to perform, something he didn't have when he made 98

Posted by Front-Foot-Lunge on (July 14, 2013, 15:44 GMT)

Anderson, the famous flat-deck/green-top specialist showed us all why, whether it's on the sub-continent decks or a green top in England (not that those exist anymore), he is often called 'The difference between the sides', just like India's MS Dhoni said of him in the last series. He had had that reputation for years before that series though, after famously shaking off a brief stigma at the start of his career with triumphant acclaim. This Trent Bridge pitch was one of the worst ever produced at the ground, lacking pace and bounce from day 2. It was as flat as a pancake, which makes Anderson's achievements far greater. We knew Anderson was better than any of the Australian bowlers well before this series began. Here he was bowling not just better, but faster than the Australian bowlers, especially Patterson. Amazing bowling Jimmy, this series you could eclipse your 24 wickets in the last Ashes.

Posted by salazar555 on (July 14, 2013, 15:43 GMT)

I'm looking for a Bresnan for Finn switch in the next game. Bresnan is a better batsman so will add a few extra runs plus he's more consistent with the ball. He may not be an out and out wicket taker but he won't go for many runs and he will create pressure for the bowler at the other end.

Finn is all over the place and he goes for too many runs, plus he's a proper number 11 batting at 10. We don't need two number 11's when a few extra runs near the bottom could make a big difference.

Finn out and Bresnan in.

Posted by DC75 on (July 14, 2013, 15:41 GMT)

Was I watching different replays? There was a spot on the bat before the ball crossed the bat, the commentator, I think it was Mike Atherton, said so couple of times, how can that be out? Immediately after the on field umpire gave the decision, there is no more discussion of the event and the commentary by Atherton/Holding goes on avoiding the discussion and then it is declared as good decision by DRS system. I am not convinced at all, I think it is not fair to Australia.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 15:40 GMT)

Big difference between the Broad and Haddin issue. The former was blatant, visible to the eye and known to the batsman. the latter was none of these, in fact even the fielding side weer uncertain abut their appeal.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 15:37 GMT)

A few Aussies out there need ears syringing & eyes tested and stop being poor losers.......your team got beaten by a england team that refuse to die even when they're playing poorly....England will only get better as the series progresses so Australia are going to have to play out of their skins if they're going to compete

Posted by jmcilhinney on (July 14, 2013, 15:34 GMT)

I think that's it's a shame that a number of people are trying to blame DRS for something in this game or use it as an example of the deficiencies of DRS. As far as I'm concerned, there was only one potential issue with DRS in this game and that was Trott's dismissal in the second innings. That was due to operator error too, so even that would have been no issue if we had had the side-on HotSpot as we should have. Other than that, DRS worked correctly every time. On every LBW review it showed that there was no conclusive evidence that the umpire got it wrong except on two occasions. It showed that the ball was missing the stumps when Bell was given out and it showed the ball pitched in-line when Hughes was given not out. The Haddin dismissal was just as out as it gets and the fact that some people try to use that against DRS shows how desperate they are. The only other issue was Broad's reprieve and that was an umpiring error that DRS could have fixed if Australia didn't waste reviews.

Posted by darrenh on (July 14, 2013, 15:29 GMT)

Has anyone else noticed that none of those posters who criticized Stuart Broad has criticized Clarke or Haddin? No comments about how Haddin could have made himself an Ashes legend had he walked. However, as self-appointed guardians of "the spirit of the game" I'm sure they'll be on comms soon to congratulate England as to not do so would be unsporting!

Posted by jackiethepen on (July 14, 2013, 15:26 GMT)

Clarke gave a sporting generous speech afterwards. He said the difference between the two sides was Bell and Anderson. I think everyone who saw the five days of the game would endorse that. We needed the wickets. We needed the runs. We needed time (as Cook mentioned) to take the game to the last day. Everyone in the side contributed to those runs. All the bowlers took wickets. Finn had two off periods and was targeted. Cook needs to learn to remove bowlers when they are leaking runs. On both occasions it was disastrous. We lost a first innings lead. We need a batsman to prevent an early defeat. Bell led the troops. Anderson finished off the job. Splendid.

Posted by tests_the_best on (July 14, 2013, 15:21 GMT)

Especially feel happy for Cook as it would have been heart-breaking to lose after having pretty much wrapped it up. It happened with him just a few weeks ago in the Champions Trophy final where it was a case of so near yet so far. 2 consecutive heartbreaks would have been 2 bad. Maybe Clarke now deserves a reprieve in the next one after having come so close this time.

Posted by John-Price on (July 14, 2013, 15:18 GMT)

There were people saying Broad should be fined or suspended or shot for not walking. Presumably, they think the same about Haddin.

Posted by Cpt.Meanster on (July 14, 2013, 15:18 GMT)

I said it before and I will say it again. This test match had 'A G A R' written all over it. I care less of England's win and so will many other non-English cricket fans. There will be another thing this test match will be remembered for, the poor technicality of the DRS, and Stuart Broad's 'sportsmanship'. England were always going to win it and it would have been surprising only if they didn't.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 15:14 GMT)

I think the man of the match for England was Broad for his shameless act that won them a close match that they realy should have lost.

Posted by Jaffa79 on (July 14, 2013, 15:14 GMT)

Well played both teams. I certainly thought Aus were going to win. We should all recognise that technology has aided both teams this game and whilst it is by no means a perfect system, it is the same for both teams. Good to see Jimmy do what he does best and bowl all day with skill and a big heart; not bad for a 'trundler' who needs the conditions to help eh Aussies? England will win this series but if the Aussies can play as well as this again (and get rid of Cowan) they'll run us close.

Posted by Mitty2 on (July 14, 2013, 15:13 GMT)

@myself, meant "selection" not "decision"

@HZO, only an idiot would dispute the haddin edge, the root one I believe was out because he didn't feel it (that in itself is significant) and there was a definite sound (snicko), the trott decision was out, in my view, because when you see the overhead straight on view, there's not a deviation in sight, there's no sound (snicko) and it was completely plumb, Agar's non-paid stumping was undoubtedly out and an identical incident (Bell in CT) was given out... He had no part of the foot behind the line, gone! That decision is more significant that Dar's shocking howler based on resulting runs scored off it (although it is disappointing to see broad score 28 more when we lose by 14...), we can't complain about that. But if there was something to whinge about, it was about how lucky Broad's innings was! 4 dropped catches, edges every over, near chop ons, an unpaid catch and LBW off agar twice, and catches dropping short all in one crucial innings

Posted by Bogelking on (July 14, 2013, 15:11 GMT)

What an amazing way to kick start the Ashes series, and that too with a humdinger sort of display. Really pity that the effort of Haddin went in vain. But all is good, as KARNAWAT33 has mentioned that it is cricket that have triumphed. The crucial stand that England had of Bell-Broad was a turning point for them. Had the appeal against Broad been given out by Aleem Dar, the result would have been different. I am just mentioning this incident, not taking this as an opportunity to criticize Broad, for it would have been the same case if any Australian batsmen were in that scenario. But let us all set that aside. The first test match- which I am sure- would have reminded all the 2005 Edgbaston test where England won by two runs. Let us hope that the first test be the harbinger of a series that is well fought between two sides, rather being a one sided contest. Congrats to both England and Australia.

Posted by virendra_s on (July 14, 2013, 15:11 GMT)

what a cracker of at test match....long live test cricket....Next match Finn goes out Bresnan comes in!

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 15:11 GMT)

@Mitty2 - excellent comments. Good on Australia for giving the run chase a very good go. Australia don't have much of a tail, do they? More like a very competent middle order shunted down a few places! They've frustrated teams worldwide!

Our tail, by contrast, are like tenpins! :D

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 15:11 GMT)

Jimmy Anderson was the difference between the 2 sides. I'm pretty sure that these b2b ashes series will see him streak ahead of Siddle on the rankings and maybe even past Steyn on recent performances. His creativity and skill on what were featherbed pitches leaves everyone else for dead whereas Steyn; at least on the Oz tour was without a clue until the third match when conditions suited him. If Australia are able to get on top of Englands other bowlers; which they maybe starting to do, then Anderson may have to be bowled into the ground in consecutive tests (optimistically speaking of course ;). Some reeeaaasonable performances starting to pop up with the bat here and there for Oz.I would play Bird instead of Pattinson at Lords in the hope that his suffocating accuracy can put the squeeze on England which didnt quite happen in Eng's first innings. Starc started to look threatening with the new ball at Trent Bridge which is very encouraging and went for surprisingly few runs over all.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 15:07 GMT)

Terrific match. This os the real cricket. Congrats to qboth the teams. DRS clearly needs to evolve though. Umpire's call is a bad concept. If the hawkeye evidence is marginal, it should be one decision, whatever the Umpire's call. And the 3rd umpire should have the right to correct howlers such as the Broad decsion, irrespective of whether the suffering team has areview left or not. Its really awful when the whole world can clearly see that a batsman is out or not out, and the field umpire has given it wrong.

Posted by Herbet on (July 14, 2013, 15:05 GMT)

How about we don't let their number 11 score 123 and waste about 5 hours in the next game please?! However it is. Bresnan for Finn would be welcome too!

Posted by latecut_04 on (July 14, 2013, 15:05 GMT)

Now that we are all settled a bit after the nerve wracking climax let me add some pure cricketing thoughts.Engand definitely need to be concerned.10-0 definitely does not look likely to say the least.Their bowling barring Anderson would not have got he job done and with Swann in the line up that should definitey be a concern.Not convinced adding Bresnan for Finn will fix the issue either.(based on the performance in this test).On the other side Boof should take a bow and so should the Aus team.What a display from a unit which sacked a coach 2 weeks earlier.Opening combination worked as smooth as silk(although not great definitely much better than the starts Aus have been getting recently)and body langauge displayed the much missed AUSTRALIANISM.Agar's selection proved to be the masterstoke and i doubt even Boof expected this much from the lad...Bring on Lord's !!!!

Posted by Vivekaks on (July 14, 2013, 15:02 GMT)

English can celebrate as much as they wish to...but the margin of victory is only because Broad refused to walk...and not because aussies played bad cricket. For all those who said Aussies would crumble in this ashes...look at the scoreboard and you would realise how close this ashes is going to be. I feel rather bad for aussies...and the rules need to change about DRS...just take everything away...and let the third umpire decide all the disputed decisions...if they can call for no-balls...why not other decisions...trust me its gonna make hte game that much more clean....even if english deserved to win, the fact remains..broad's extra 30 odd runs decided the margin, thanks to a bad decision.... Let ppl not lament!!

Posted by Sadiq1952 on (July 14, 2013, 15:02 GMT)

Great match and a thrilling finish. The Aussies fought well. Better luck for the next round.

Posted by deeplongon on (July 14, 2013, 15:00 GMT)

Wasn't the DRS designed to get rid of howlers. It's not going too well then. A Pom is clearly out and not given cos the umpire was asleep while Haddin is given out by a microscopic review that was never before available in the history of cricket. May as well toss a coin.

Posted by Mary_786 on (July 14, 2013, 15:00 GMT)

Dissapointed with the loss, but our boys fought hard, especially the bottom 5 batsman, Haddin take a bow.

Posted by 5wickethaul on (July 14, 2013, 15:00 GMT)

What an amazing game of cricket that was. A pleasure to watch. Match with lots of controversies. Trott's LBW, Broad's edge, and DRS at the end of the match, but The Trent Bridge was on fire, Atmosphere was insane, I love Trent Bridge..Standing Ovation, great reception. Haddin heroics not enough, Both Haddin and Pettinson played against the expectations….Well Played Haddin, Well played Pattinson, Well played Australia. Great Fight back, but England was edge ahead. Remarkable Bowled by Jammie Anderson. Difficult Match for Umpires…specially Aleem Dar and Erasmus (don't want to add the performance of this match his Resume…)..Many Positives came out…Fairytale of Ashton Agar, 5 wicket haul for Siddle and ofcourse Anderson. Jimmy Anderson rightful M.O.M…so the next Stoppage is The Lords…Good Luck England

Posted by DylanBrah on (July 14, 2013, 14:59 GMT)

Clarke and co. are going to have to learn from their mistakes with DRS. Clarke said something along the lines of "We use DRS if we think there is a CHANCE of getting a wicket." No, Michael, DRS is there to correct howlers like the Broad non-dismissal. It is a shame that we have to say Australia's poor use of DRS has cost them the match... Oh how cricket has changed.

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 14, 2013, 14:59 GMT)

@Mitty2 "complete article" eh? Thought he was overrated ;). You're right about the rest of the attack, though, Swann in particular. Thought Broad bowled well second innings. Finn, though, how bad was he? And you were worried about Starc leaking runs!

Couldn't believe the stick Haddin's gotten. I've said before that it feels like the theme of this Test match has been "redemption". Siddle on the first day, Bell when England most needed him, Haddin earlier today and Jimmy right at the death. All of them ridiculed by opposition fans, some even by their own fans, all of them proving their class. Hughes and Smith too.

Wouldn't be too devastated, mate. There's signs there that with some luck (Broad given out when he's hit the cover off it, maybe?) you'd have won this and if you can build from here you will give us some real trouble. You won't be giving this series up without a real fight and with the home series to come, the future's bright.

Posted by roook on (July 14, 2013, 14:59 GMT)

Great game I think Aussies are lacking one senior batsman to much pressure for Clarke, obviously missing hussey

Posted by Stark62 on (July 14, 2013, 14:59 GMT)

Everyone seems to be talking about DRS, Umpire's, Anderson, Siddle, Bell, Agar etc and rightly so, but I think people have forgotten about the WEATHER!!

England had been abysmal a few weeks back and a game like this would not have transpired.

Posted by 2.14istherunrate on (July 14, 2013, 14:59 GMT)

Congrats to England on their victory. Certainly defeat would have been a bitter pill to swallow, and 1-0 is a good place to proceed from. Nothing though really conveys what happened during that game with its peculiarly intense atmosphere. What will linger about it is the twists and turns and Aus's refusal to go down. Haddin is an old campaigner and justified his recall to the letter almost. Anderson certainly did not deserve defeat and had to do the work himself-he's extra special these days. Finn almost lost the game with his lack of nous-still too green, I think. Lords is another game though so he may survive. Just the fact that Aus got near 311 should worry England though this is the first game, and England always have to get through this one in order to do themselves justice. I am wondering if they need to start being more aggressive in their batting and hit Aus hard and early in the piece. Awesome cricket here and no doubt ahead.

Posted by shillingsworth on (July 14, 2013, 14:58 GMT)

Shame that a great test match was ultimately decided not by cricketing skills but by who was better at playing the joker.

@Mitty2 - Excellent comments. On the last sentence, everyone made their minds up long ago about whether Broad is hero or villain. The only thing that interests me is how many wickets and runs. His reputation there is intact.

Posted by Fan01 on (July 14, 2013, 14:57 GMT)

if the technology is used then use it fully..Why there is something call "On field umpires call"......ridiculous!!!

Posted by Chris_P on (July 14, 2013, 14:55 GMT)

Is it me or the only comments coming in bagging the test are from non English/Aussie posters? This was a great test & perfectly illustrates why test cricket is the pinnavcle of the game. This is the sort of game that you remember 10, 20, 30 or more years down the track. The simple fact is, England scored more runs than we did over 2 innings, ergo, they deserved to win, what is so difficult to understand about that? Despite what some think, this is a very simple game.

Posted by Sarfin on (July 14, 2013, 14:55 GMT)

A really important and exciting test. It has shown us a few things: 1. Test cricket is the best. Nothing beats the excitement or drama of a test match. One test match can give you the thrill of an entire T20I tournament! 2. You can never label any Aussie team as weak, especially in Ashes! 3. DRS is there to stay. The Broad incident is the final proof required for DRS. If Clarke hadn't wasted his review, we could have a different result. 4. Two (or may be three) reviews are enough. Otherwise captains will take 50-50 chances and will make a mess. 5. Captains need to understand that DRS is meant to reduce howlers, not to be used as a gambling tool. 6. ICC need to ensure the consistency while using DRS. Without consistency you'll never be able to avoid controversy, no matter how improved technology you use. The last and only thing we need to know whether the DRS should be left to umpires. Congrats England!!!

Posted by cloudmess on (July 14, 2013, 14:54 GMT)

It was a great game of cricket, high entertainment. There needs to be more intelligent use made of DRS - I mean by the umpires and referees etc - but Aussies should also quit squealing about being 'robbed' of Broad's wicket. It cost them 60 runs at most - Agar should have been out for 6 on Friday morning, which in turn cost England about 150. And I didn't see Aussies enacting the spirit of the game by recalling Trott when he was wrongfully given out 1st ball on Friday. Let's have a bit of perspective, lads.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 14:52 GMT)

England has won a test thanks to the DRS rules and Broad's lack of sportsmanship !!!!!!!! I used to have great admiration for Broad but after his conduct in this test I have lost all respect for him. I don't want to hear about what the other sides might have done in the same situation. Used to be that England, even in the face of crushing or embarrassing defeat, stood for fair play. But it seems that this modern crop of English cricketers are solely about victory by any means necessary. I once thought of England as one of my favorite cricket teams. But from now on I'll be cheering every time they lose a wicket and a match !!!!!!!

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 14:50 GMT)

Dont know why all aussie fans are talking about poor umpiring... I think they all need to be reminded of Sydney 2008. This match had one blunder and to be fair even england got a tought one of trott. India got 10 blunders in that match thats when u call umpiring has cost the match such incidents happen every now n than so stop sulking on it be better prepared for the next u were almost at finish line in next match u should pass it. Being an indian i hate aus more than most of the english but to give some credit aus really played out of thier skins. If anyone is to be blame it has to be the batsmen bowlers bowled thier heart out just like they did in indian summer

Posted by punter-gilly-haydos-mcgrath-warne on (July 14, 2013, 14:50 GMT)

I loved the test and I'm looking forward for the other ones coming up.Here are the lessons learnt from this test 1. Agar is very good he can bat and his bowling was good and looks like it will get only better. 2. Mitchell Starc is good and a big swinger but very expensive too, I think Australia will be better of with Jackson Bird. 3. Ed Cowan needs to go and they must get Khwaja in, he is better at judging the ball especially when swinging and is a good batsmen when going gets tough. We saw what he did in Tasmania when he almost outscored both teams combined. The wicket ws like a cobble street and he did an amazing job at judging the ball and got 160+ then which I watched and it was amazing, simply amazing. 4. The ICC must do something about the umpiring standards it is on a downhill and looks like it will continue that way. I think Australia won't be a pushover as suggested before the series and BOOF IS THE MAN!!

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 14:48 GMT)

Its a wonderful victory for England, they have shown to the world that they have palyed all better criclet then Oz. Better in every department. I can see a more brutal win for England. England game plan will be more accurate in next Test match. Oz is not showing any big batting or bowling sign, they will definitely have to show 200% to beat England at their Home. Best of Luck for the Teams. But I am a England Suppoter.

Posted by bajanborn on (July 14, 2013, 14:47 GMT)

This match should be remembered for the dominance of poor umpiring even taking into consideration the tenseness off the finish .Australia suffered because of poor captaincy(1) clark must learn to use the DRS wisely (2) he should have placed a third man when Bell was batting .even before australia had scored 150 runs in the second innings cook had one in place(3) he should not had taken the second new ball in the second innings .from then england became free . Now as television viewer i hope for an australian commentator and another neutral one .i am neutral but an avid cricket fan who is forced to tolerate too much bias commentaries .

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 14:47 GMT)

1 Ashes Test > all editions of IPL. And I am an Indian

Posted by Chris_P on (July 14, 2013, 14:44 GMT)

@reddawn1975. "get Mitchell Johnson & Shaun Marsh into the side?" You do realize we are trying to win these games, don't you?

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 14:43 GMT)

For the first time ever found yours truly rooting for an Aussie victory.

The Ashes this year has the makings of becoming the series which emphasizes why Test Cricket is the "Real Thing".

I don't remember ever having supporting Australia to win in the last two decades maybe because somewhere I knew they wouldn't lose easy. This Aussie team is more humane I guess and prone to error, no wonder the SuperMen (predecessors) were more envied than loved.

Somewhere there was a regret that I always wanted them to fail so much that I never noticed the greatness of their game. If you have to enjoy a game I guess one has to be neutral.

Posted by salazar555 on (July 14, 2013, 14:42 GMT)

Aussies are still doing a lot of moaning. If it wasn't for the unpire not giving Agar out stumped on 6 then they wouldn't have even been in with a chance. They would have been all out for 139 instead they were all out for 280. That's 141 runs.

They also seem to forget that Trott was given out when he shouldn't have. Personally I think they were lucky to get close.

Yes Broad should have been given out but that's what the reviews are for, learn to use them properly and you wouldn't need to moan.

Whinging Aussies are 1-0 down and deserve to be, they are the facts.

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 14, 2013, 14:42 GMT)

The Aussies can take a lot from their performance, though. Had Broad been given out, and he should have been, the match could well have ended with an Australian victory. There's enough to suggest they could win this series, but at the very least I would all-but guarantee that it will be a closely fought one and England will have no "easy" victories against this side. They've found a bit of that old Aussie fire that seemed to be missing under Arthur, and not a moment too soon. Fans of hard-fought Test cricket should be in for a thrilling few weeks.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 14:41 GMT)

This is called "THE ASHES"..

What a remarkable win by England..

Posted by phaedrus81 on (July 14, 2013, 14:41 GMT)

Damn... so the aussies did come close to pulling off a victory :)

I guess from a different perspective OZ were the rightful winners of this test if you take into account the ill-gotten runs. This test will go down in history as Broad's test!!! Doesn't have the same ring to it as Flintoff's Ashes though :P

Posted by skilebow on (July 14, 2013, 14:41 GMT)

@calcu - No one including a number of ex australian players seem to agree with you about the last wicket. Are you David Icke in disguise?

Posted by Chris_P on (July 14, 2013, 14:39 GMT)

@Wombats. So the twists were there until the end! Although slightly deflated, I take nothing away from you Poms as 2 weeks ago we were a rabble that was ready for a complete flogging. The series is afoot! And yes, working nights I get to watch it over here so bring on the next test! Good stuff.

Posted by Gopies64 on (July 14, 2013, 14:35 GMT)

England and Broad showed Australia how to use the DRS. Never, ever, walk when the other team has run out of reviews, make the umpire give you out even when you hit the cover off the ball. You never know how 'lucky' you might get.

Posted by Cpt.Meanster on (July 14, 2013, 14:35 GMT)

The only thing that stood out for me from this match was Agar's debut. I could care less about the rest. Nothing surprising here as far as England winning. It was a regulation win. However, in history, this game will go down as a BITTER one for Australians, and neutral fans thanks to the DRS, and Stuart Broad's appalling moral sense. This game won't be remember for anything else. Perhaps, the English fans will remember this game because they won. The rest of the world could care less.

Posted by Mitty2 on (July 14, 2013, 14:32 GMT)

Words can not describe how good this test match has been, and how devastated I am right now. When I saw that spot on Haddin's bat, the feeling was incomparable, I think I died a little inside... But, as other have said test cricket won out, what a match!

Jimmy, you have got that average under 30, you have won England that test match when every other of your bowlers were failing (including swann who was supposed to win the match), and performed memorably, brilliantly done and brilliantly bowled. Not sure what type of pitch I'd like to face him on to be honest! He's the complete article.

Haddin brilliant, I supported the decision from the start, and despite a tough test for keepers and some missed chances, he, like Bell, performed superbly and did what he has often failed to do in the past: score needed runs under pressure. Great effort, just bad luck

We have proved so many wrong to a huge extent, let's build it further lads!

Broad certainy hasn't done much to enhance his rep has he?

Posted by tests_the_best on (July 14, 2013, 14:32 GMT)

As much as this might sour an otherwise great match, I can't help but agree with some of the comments that it's poor umpiring which might have ultimately cost Aus the match. The moment Aus got near 250, you couldn't help but think that if Broad had been given out, Aus would have been home by making 250-275. Maybe there should be a way of overturning obvious blunders without the need to resort to reviews.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 14:30 GMT)

A bitter pill to swallow that last dismissal in the light of everything else that has occurred in this match. I dont think Broad, the Poms or the officials are cheats or anything of the sort, and Haddins dismissal was a legitimate wicket for sure. I just wish the umpire had given it out on the field and not gone to DRS. In fact i would rather the last wicket was clean bowled then what happened. But thats sport. Heads up boys, believe in yourselves , keep playing this sort of cricket and you will start winning!

Posted by Iqbal_Hasan on (July 14, 2013, 14:29 GMT)

@Calcu. Did you actually see the camera shot from the bowler's end? Haddin's bat was absolutely MILES from the pad! DRS worked and the decision was, ultimately the right one

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 14, 2013, 14:27 GMT)

Whingeing poms? Not a word of it. Whingeing Aussies more like! They kept telling us the lack of a mark on hotspot for Root wasn't conclusive evidence he hadn't hit it. There was a noise, they said. He should have been out lbw a few balls earlier, granted, but they said we were wrong to claim Root hadn't edged that one.

Likewise Trott's lbw. The ball seemed to move from front-on. The lack of a clear noise from the bat and snicko only registering the ball hitting the pad, both suggested he hadn't hit it. Side-on hotspot wasn't available. But he was out, they said, the lack of noise and a front-on hotspot without a mark were "conclusive" enough.

Now we have noise, snicko and hotspot from side-on showing Haddin hit that. But they say he didn't. "Not conclusive" they say. What would be? There was no evidence of Haddin not hitting that. Every piece of evidence suggested he did.

The Broad howler cost them dearly, but the Haddin decision was spot-on. Well played, though, and well fought.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 14:27 GMT)

I love test match cricket and woe to the test nations that neglect it for pyjama cricket including my team the windies. it was riveting , unmissable and dominated my life for a week.congrats england however I thought agar changed the course of the game. desmond

Posted by batman_gothamcity on (July 14, 2013, 14:25 GMT)

Superb test got very close in the end , England were favorites and they won on a superb Bowling attack with Anderson the deserving MOM . Aussies will also be proud of their efforts .For me they should stick to the same batting line up rather than changing after one test . For Bowling both teams need to add one more spinner feeling that all wickets could be slow and helpful to spinners . Eng have Panesar an automatic choice . Aussies could get or ask Smith and Clarke to bowl more if they dont want to add Lyon . This series could be very close with Australia could be the surprise winners .

Posted by CaptainPedant on (July 14, 2013, 14:25 GMT)

What a Test, what a nailbiting finish, what a fightback by Australia when they were dead and buried - not once but again and again. Brad Haddin shouldn't be allowed to buy a drink all night; who could possibly have believed Australia could be nine down and eighty-odd short and still go to lunch with an excellent chance of winning? One for the archives and no mistake.

Posted by AussieSam on (July 14, 2013, 14:24 GMT)

Wow!!! What a match! Easily one of the best I've ever seen. And I'm proud to say I saw almost every ball of every day (only missed half of two sessions due to working til 9pm)

What irony that the wicket that won England the match was given not out by Dar then overturned! I think there was an edge personally so I have no problem with it. What made the dismissal he missed so terrible was that I thought it would have been a huge wicket for Aus at the time since it was near the end of the day and the pitch was hard to get in on. I'm very much over it now though. As all wise heads have offered, bad decisions are a fact of the game.

Winning the match from that position would have been amazing, but in the end England deserved to win. They would have been very disappointed to lose, which is what makes the result so crucial for both sides but I am just happy that this Aussie team has proved they are a side not to be underestimated. It will be very hard, but we can still get the Ashes back!

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 14:24 GMT)

What a magnificent start to this Test series, England just about did enough to warrant the win. Superb effort by Anderson to take 10 wickets in the game, but a bit of thinking to do for England prior to Lord's on Thursday. Great effort by Australia, I did comment yesterday that a replay of Edgbaston 2005 could be on the cards, but with 70/80 or so to win when Pattinson walked in, I didn't think it would happen...how wrong was I! Test cricket at it's very best, roll on Thursday.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 14:23 GMT)

I have said this before; and am saying it again. As an ex- student of physics, i can vouch for the fact that, in marginal cases, snicko favours the bowler and hot spot favours the batsman.

SNICKO: even if the ball has not touched the bat, the friction of a thin layer of air in between two moving objects creates noise, which snicko picks up, thus favouring the bowler.

HOTSPOT: Even if the ball had a feather touch, the impact has to be strong enough to leave the hot spot; thus favouring the batsmen.

Let me make it clear; I am not against use of technology. but three things need to be re-stated... again... again... and ... again.

1. The technology is still under evolution and is not perfect yet.

2. Meanwhile, ICC have to make up their mind, as to which one they will use and which they will not.

3. Whichever technology they decide to use should be used consistently; by all umpires and in all matches, and in all situations.

Posted by thebeardedblunder on (July 14, 2013, 14:22 GMT)

I've just watched that bit again where our proud boys are leaping about with unadulterated joy at the moment of victory....IT MADE ME CRY! for Heaven's sake...i'm a grown man! I think my nerves are jangled, but PHEW!...what a Test Match! WHAT A TEST MATCH!!!! LONG LIVE TEST MATCH CRICKET!!!!

Posted by jmcilhinney on (July 14, 2013, 14:20 GMT)

What a truly magnificent game. The standard of the cricket wasn't always as good as it could be but the game was enthralling the whole way through. Despite having won the game, which is obviously the point and the most important thing, I don't think that anyone can really claim that England were significantly superior. The game really could have gone either way so Australia were as in the game as they could be and still lose. Both teams will be looking for improvement for the next game and, if they achieve it, we may get an even better game. Test cricket... yeah!

Posted by 214ty on (July 14, 2013, 14:20 GMT)

A win is a win, but England needs to thank Aleem Dar for that victory. He was the main difference in that game. Australia on the other hand never learned anything from Mike Hussey on how to leave balls alone outside off stump. They are so vulnerable, once you keep bowling outside the off stump they must fish. Their lack of discipline in batting also contributed to their demise. By the way, why isn't Siddle batting at No. 11?

Posted by Pyketts on (July 14, 2013, 14:20 GMT)

What a great game!

Tainted by some poor sportsmanship from BOTH sides (Broad didn't walk but neither did Haddin, etc) and poor umpiring but it was entertainment at it's highest.

Worryingly Eng look like a one man attack at the minute but that might not matter as Aus look like a non-batsman team.

@Shaggy076 I suggest you get your eyes and ears tested, @Dazako you only need your eyes looking at...

Posted by Gopies64 on (July 14, 2013, 14:19 GMT)

DRS is an appalling system. The team whose player hits the cover off the ball and just stands there is rewarded with a 'win'. England did not use the DRS system better, they just got lucky. If Watson was given not out LBW, England would have wasted a review on that decision. What sort of a system it that ? You get different results for the same review. Unbelievable.

Posted by coldcoffee123 on (July 14, 2013, 14:16 GMT)

How to bat, How to bowl, How to field. That is not enough to win matches anymore. Now, cricketers need to learn How to use DRS properly. Shame. Cricket does not need this.

Posted by whoster on (July 14, 2013, 14:16 GMT)

I'm a very happy and proud Englishman, and although the Aussies won't be quite as ecstatic, they should feel immensely proud of their side's incredible fighting qualities. The real winner today was the wonderful game of Test cricket, and both sides have provided it with the most magical advertisement. Every true cricket fan should take their hat off to both sides. England and Australia - thank you very much indeed.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 14:14 GMT)

the drama of cricket started its was a contest to watch out for first peter siddle the work horse for aussie strikes 5 wicket, ashton agar saving aussie to down fall and getting lead, great display of english batting. later the twist of bad umpiring. again master of swing bowling gave break through threw new ball. claiming 4wickets then. this has lifted the spirit of test cricket. what a start to ashes.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 14:14 GMT)

Hey! I'v fall in love after this TEST! I love AGAR, ASHES & TEST CRICKET! And BROAD & ALEEM DAR must b D Anti-Hero IN my love! :P

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 14:13 GMT)

Great test match from both teams except for the bad decisions by umpire Dar match was great and Anderson deserve Man of the Match.

Posted by AKS286 on (July 14, 2013, 14:11 GMT)

1-0 the counting continues..... till 5-0. As usual again the excuses & blames are coming from Oz side but CONGRATS ENGLAND for Victory.

Posted by Shan156 on (July 14, 2013, 14:10 GMT)

@ raj877, why don't England deserve to win? We scored more runs than Aus. and bowled them out twice. Surely, that would suffice to win?

"if australia bat properly what can england do," you think this was Eng's best with the bat? What will Aus. do if Eng. bat to their potential? Remember, Cook and Trott, two are of our main batsmen, failed in one innings and Root, our most promising young player, failed in both. If they all come to the party in the next test, Aus. will have no hope. The fact is, both teams played well but England was better. Anderson was brilliant. My only worry is, he looks like he is carrying the bowling. He cannot do it every test. He needs support. Also remember that this was a pitch where Swann has always returned ordinary figures. He will get better as the series goes on.

@RandyOZ, yeah yeah, if Clarke used the reviews properly, Eng. would have lost by an innings. Keep believing that. Eng. have recently had the first test bug. They will only better from hereon.

Posted by abhiyog on (July 14, 2013, 14:10 GMT)

Was indeed a heartbreak for myself and 10 odd friends rooting for the aussies in a bar here in Bengaluru but to be frank credit should be given to the aussies for not getting thrashed but now i feel Aussies will win the Ashes after showing great character in this match....

Posted by The_bowlers_Holding on (July 14, 2013, 14:09 GMT)

What a great advertisement for proper cricket played on a pitch that offers something for everyone. There is nothing like Ashes cricket for me and ODI v Ozzie aren't Ashes. I truly felt England were going to lose after Finn got belted around, he seemed to lose his head somewhat but Broad bowled beautifully and Anderson is Anderson. So many similarities to Edgbaston 05 but I thought the result would be the other way round and much as it would have hurt I would have accepted it ps. Kasperowicz's glove was off the bat in that game so the catch was not legit, but Aussies accepted it. This could be a classic series ala 2005, I'm not sure if my old ticker could take that!!

Posted by page8383 on (July 14, 2013, 14:07 GMT)

bouncedout: What are you talking about? Australia didn't play that well apart from 2 last wicket stands and a decent 1st wicket stand in the 2nd inns. I, for one, would be hoping and expecting improvement from Australia, whilst England have scope for improvement too. Namely, bowlers apart from Anderson. To get that close with Cowan in the team is a fair effort. Its a long series and both teams need to focus on the long game.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 14:03 GMT)

wooooo..... just awsm....... gr8!dats y its ashes... really a memorable match! (ehem ehem! also 4 d umpires :) ) grb job aussies..... they r really unlucky! anyway this ashes might giv me d relief 4m d dull high scoring death draws.... (where scrbrd is jst lyk 600/4 0r d 1st 2 ings took 4 days)... nd another thing, surely aus need 2 make sm chng.... (drop cowan.. plzzz)

Posted by salazar555 on (July 14, 2013, 14:01 GMT)

Fantastic game. Almost a shame to have a loser. Both teams put their hearts into it and Australia showed they don't do poor teams. They always fight until the end even though they might not have the greats of old. The real winner of this game, it has to be test cricket. This game has shown just how wonderful test cricket is and for me, one day cricket, whether it be the 50 over or the 20 over style, will never come close.

Well done England, Unlucky Australia, Can't wait until the next one.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 14:01 GMT)

One word for Anderson -- You are the Best. I love to See Anderson Bowling

Posted by Night-Watchman on (July 14, 2013, 14:00 GMT)

Jimmy Anderson went out of the ground five ours before lunch. Isnt there a rule somewhere that he is allowed to bowl only after he waits for same amount of time? He started with the very first over after lunch.

Posted by calcu on (July 14, 2013, 14:00 GMT)

AUS deserved to win. Haddin and pattison batted superbly. The mark on the hotspot was when the bat touched the pad!! Awful end to a great match :(

Posted by Long-Leg on (July 14, 2013, 13:59 GMT)

Well done Jimmy Anderson. The best bowler on either side and the difference between the two teams. I have been quite impressed by Australia though. They have played much better than I thought they would and gave us (England) a real scare. There is no doubt in my mind that this is the highest form of the game. No other sport and no other version of cricket can keep fans in such a heightened state of excruciating tension for four and a half days.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 13:58 GMT)

@Biggus, well said mate!

I find it hard to decipher what results may have come if any number of decisions had been reversed through the match, as such you can only really say, cop them all as one and get on with it. Both teams showed continual courage and skill right throughout the four and a half days and look pretty evenly matched.

Now then lads, go and have a few warm pints, forget about cricket for 24 hours and then build yourselves up into a frenzy for thursday!!! I have zero doubt we can still win the next test and fight our way into the series, game on!!!!!

Posted by whatawicket on (July 14, 2013, 13:57 GMT)

maybe now people can understand why England and Australia and ashes mean so much, at the moment, i cannot tell you how happy i feel to win and can commiserate with the Aussies who will feel distraught. maybe other countries will still not understand how we feel. put England and Australia in a tiddlywinks competition and sparks will fly

Posted by tests_the_best on (July 14, 2013, 13:57 GMT)

Congrats England on a thrilling win! Credit to Aus as well for fighting till the end mainly Haddin, especially audacious were those 3 consecutive fours off Finn. Cricket was the true winner. The Ashes has come alive, I am a neutral fan but I'm already gearing up for the Lords test and the rest of the summer. It's tests like these that make my username proud lol!!

Posted by bouncedout on (July 14, 2013, 13:53 GMT)

Jimmy Anderson-magician

The first test was always going to be tough for England. Aus can't play that well again.

But for a once in a lifetime innings from Agar this game would have been over yesterday.

Great match

Posted by spindizzy on (July 14, 2013, 13:53 GMT)

A bad joke with poor umpiring - Dar determines another match through incompetence, exactly as in 2005.

Why should we pretend this is a good result, grow a spine Cricinfo and start reporting with a bit of courage.

Cricket lost in this game, it was a result manufactured by the umpiring and poor sportsmanship.

Posted by EnglishCricket on (July 14, 2013, 13:52 GMT)

Brilliant Ashes match. Both teams played fantastically well and even as an English fan, for some strange reason wanted Australia to take it as close as possible even win it because of the way they have played. Australia shouldn't feel hard done by because its not exactly the best Aussie line-up compared to previous years but yet you guys showed excellent fighting spirit. Congratulations to both teams especially England for keeping your cool and winning it in the end and hopefully this is just the beginning. Epic game!!!

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 13:50 GMT)

@RJHB: a bit bitter by any chance?

Posted by YorkshirePudding on (July 14, 2013, 13:50 GMT)

This has set up the series, as an england fan I hope the rest in the series are as close, however as a cricket fan i want more games like this.

Shame Ashton Agar didnt get the man of the match but there where a couple of other contenders, with Siddle, Jimmy and Bell being the others.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 13:48 GMT)

great Test match cricket;) suck on that limited overs! however, with only twenty runs to get, a delayed lunch break might have seen a different result?

Posted by raj877 on (July 14, 2013, 13:47 GMT)

Eng dont deserve to win today only 1 patnership from both innings always took away from england....if australia bat properly what can england do,,,dont give any chance to australia if u give u like this they will dominate will soon

Posted by RandyOZ on (July 14, 2013, 13:43 GMT)

Well this will go down as the first wni via DRS. Clarke certainly needs to learn how to use it properly. If he did we wouldve won easily.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 13:42 GMT)

What a game of cricket hope we don't get bogged down in a load of "Ifs" and "Buts" about umpiring decisions, we've had an excellent contest that has ebbed and flowed that could have gone either way right up to the end, you just don't get that with the hit and giggle stuff....... Who says test cricket is boring?!?

Posted by reddawn1975 on (July 14, 2013, 13:42 GMT)

Get Mitchel Johnson and Shaun Marsh and Usman Khawaja Into this side there the key to a very very strong side and maybe George Bailey

Posted by raviraash on (July 14, 2013, 13:41 GMT)

Unfortunate ending to an exciting test match.....! Technology is going to be a big killer.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 13:40 GMT)

What a Test Match!!!!!! No one and simply deserved to lose this one. Real glory of Test Cricket. Well done both sides.

Posted by 5wombats on (July 14, 2013, 13:40 GMT)

WOOOOOOOOW......!!!! BRILLIANT BRILLIANT BRILLIANT!!!! WHAT A GAME!!! O.M.G!!!!! Superb superb Test Match cricket! Wonderful fight from Australia - wonderful wonderful stuff from Haddin & Pattinson. Everything that is Australianism was in full effect here. BRAVO well played Australia! GREAT GAME! But unbelievable tension. MAGNIFICENT JIMMY ANDERSON!!! 10fer on that flat pitch in hot sunshine. Superb. What a bowler. WHAT a game. Fantastic..... Thank you Australia & England. Brilliant... OMG.... I'm breathless....I'm going to go away now and fall into a heap somewhere now!!! OMG....!

Posted by perl57 on (July 14, 2013, 13:38 GMT)

Well done England. No wonder India does not believe in DRS, especially the HotSpot to be honest judge. Whoever the third umpire was, need to be questioned by ICC. Snicko was shown after 15 mins. Why? Is the loss of one test so easily taken? Hence still better bet, trash this DRS but this is only a personal opinion with hopefully many believing the same.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 13:37 GMT)

Top knock by Aussie tail plus Haddin - don't rate his keeping but he showed the top 6 up today .. Mrs H should be proud Anderson ... stonking performance, was he MoM??

Champagne moment ??? Finns face when Haddin slapped him for 15

1 up to Eng - nothing between the teams really

Finn to play Thursday?? I think Brez will oust him if its still dry

Posted by coldcoffee123 on (July 14, 2013, 13:35 GMT)

The team that won was the one that used DRS the best. That is a shame. Cricket does not need "how well a team uses DRS".

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 13:34 GMT)

I love Test Cricket, am disappointed Australia lost, but just an absorbing contest throughout. Can't wait till next week and the second Test. Congrats to England, hopefully Australia's top and middle order lift their game next time.

Posted by RJHB on (July 14, 2013, 13:33 GMT)

Well couldn't have scripted it better, a remarkable end decided by a dodgy DRS review. Australia never wins the close ones anyway so I'm not surprised. Oh well, it was good to make the Poms change their shorts a few times! Well done Australia, just needed one batsman to go on like flat track bully boy Bell did and we would have rubbed their arrogant noses in it. Better hope your boy Anderson doesn't get injured in the next six months England, cos your overblown attack looks pretty average without him!

Posted by heathrf1974 on (July 14, 2013, 13:33 GMT)

I almost picked it. I said the Aussies would lose by 10 runs, instead it was 14.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 13:31 GMT)

Well England held their nerve but what a fantastic showing by Australia. Don't really know why England were tentative with their appeal or review, that was a pretty loud snick as it went by the edge. Shows the value of keeping reviews for when they really count and Clarke needs to reflect on that.

Posted by Munkeymomo on (July 14, 2013, 13:30 GMT)

Australia were fantastic, showed their fight to the end. A proper, hard fought test match. Kudos, and unlucky lads. Great job from Jimmy, some great stuff as usual.

Posted by Biggus on (July 14, 2013, 13:29 GMT)

Well done England for your win, but I do trust we put you off your lunch at least. As for Haddin's dismissal I thought it was out as soon as it happened and was in no doubt that the review would favour the home side. It's been a great series opener and augers well for the remainder of the England leg. I'm even starting to think we might be a chance to win the urn back once we move down under, just maybe.

Posted by Dazako on (July 14, 2013, 13:29 GMT)

What about the clear gap between bat and ball on the Haddin dismissal?

Posted by page8383 on (July 14, 2013, 13:29 GMT)

England by 14. Well played both teams. Celebratory DVD and knighthoods being lined up for players, drinks carriers and bus driver associated with the England team for Trent Bridge 2013

Posted by pat_one_back on (July 14, 2013, 13:28 GMT)

What a cop out, awesome cricket but we deserved a better finish than that surely, ah well looks like Broads heroics have proven the difference between these 2 teams. Huge effort from Aust to chase so hard, Eng proven very vulnerable, a cracking series underway.

Posted by Shaggy076 on (July 14, 2013, 13:28 GMT)

What a tort. This has become a farce. The umpire gave it not out and there wad no defining evidence to overturn his decision. A disgraceful way to end a controversial match.

Posted by Harlequin. on (July 14, 2013, 13:27 GMT)

WHAT A MATCH! One of the greatest! Didn't watch much of it (the sun was out and in England you can't waste such precious times inside!) but I was listening to it on the radio in the park and i must have looked like a nervous wreck. Agar's knock, Jimmy's ball to Clarke, Bell's ton and then this last wicket partnership - utterly brilliant, and that is what we should stick in the mind and not he various umpiring/drs errors.

Long live the Ashes!

Posted by darrenh on (July 14, 2013, 13:26 GMT)

James Anderson -you beauty!

Posted by R_U_4_REAL_NICK on (July 14, 2013, 13:20 GMT)

This would never have been possible if Aus. had insisted on using Wade! What a relief they had the sense to bring back a proper wicket-keeper/batsman in Haddin.

Posted by H_Z_O on (July 14, 2013, 13:15 GMT)

Momentum with Australia. They've got to win from here, haven't they? Haddin's a top batsman and Pattinson is no mug. Finn has looked woeful all match and has to make way for Bresnan at Lords, surely? I know it's his home ground, but in this form he's a liability. Bresnan at least dries up the runs and with Anderson bowling brilliantly and even Broad bowling well in the second innings, Swann lacking control, but still taking wickets, Cook could do with having a bowler who just keeps things steady and gives him control.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 13:15 GMT)

a game like this. test cricket has it all over 20/20.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 13:10 GMT)

Two gaints fighting like some heavyweight champion of world... going for puches after punches. ... n still standing tall.... absolutely epic... Ashes rivalry has lived upto its utmost expectations. ..

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 13:09 GMT)

come on england win the match

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 13:04 GMT)

4.5 million toilets around australia collectively flush # ashes

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 13:01 GMT)

Heartbreaking game!!, finish this game before I need go to doctor for blood pressure control

Posted by 2MikeGattings on (July 14, 2013, 13:01 GMT)

What an amazing game. For the record, I don't think Pattinson's 6 off Swann was a slog. I'd have been proud of it, anyway.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 13:00 GMT)

What a fabulous morning session!

Posted by TheBigBoodha on (July 14, 2013, 12:57 GMT)

What a great test match! Even though I suspect Australia will fall just a couple of runs short (same recurring story in so many series in recent years - SA, 2nd last series in IND, 2009 Ashes...), the team has shown a lot of fighting spirit. England are a bit of a two-trick pony in the bowling dept., and it's a pity a few more batsmen couldn't see out a few more overs. Mind you, it has to be said that quite a few were very unlucky in the 2nd dig. Still, 300-odd in the 4th innings of a test match is a notable achievement. We do have great tail-end batting there, and I mentioned this before the series started, and how it will probably help us get plenty of big scores this series. Hopefully the side will take heart from this, even though they are going to lose narrowly.

Posted by   on (July 14, 2013, 12:56 GMT)

I have been watching Test Cricket forever, and I really just want to see Australia win a tight one with 9 wickets down. I remember the losses - 82-83 vs Eng = vs West Indies - Pakistan 94-95 - and so it keeps going on. Please win this one for us.

Comments have now been closed for this article

TopTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
David HoppsClose
David Hopps David Hopps joined ESPNcricinfo as UK editor early in 2012. For the previous 20 years he was a senior cricket writer for the Guardian and covered England extensively during that time in all Test-playing nations. He also covered four Olympic Games and has written several cricket books, including collections of cricket quotations. He has been an avid amateur cricketer since he was 12, and so knows the pain of repeated failure only too well. The pile of untouched novels he plans to read, but rarely gets around to, is now almost touching the ceiling. He divides his time between the ESPNcricinfo office in Hammersmith and his beloved Yorkshire.
Tour Results
England v Australia at Southampton - Sep 16, 2013
Australia won by 49 runs
England v Australia at Cardiff - Sep 14, 2013
England won by 3 wickets (with 3 balls remaining)
England v Australia at Birmingham - Sep 11, 2013
No result
England v Australia at Manchester - Sep 8, 2013
Australia won by 88 runs
England v Australia at Leeds - Sep 6, 2013
Match abandoned without a ball bowled
More results »
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days