Fiery Hot Ashes

Brad Haddin made 71

England won an epic First Test at Trent Bridge, not surprisingly with an unconvincing shout for unlikely dismissal which the third umpire ruled on following the smallest of indication from technology. Technology had played far too central a role in the match and for all the insistence from TV media that their latest developments in technology be employed for the sake of accuracy, the reverse was again the case in cricket's most important arena.

Brad Haddin, who had pleaded with the tail to stay with him and fight and then had added 65 for the last wicket with a willing James Pattinson, was caught behind to the heroic James Anderson. He was out. The naked eye and a listening ear could tell you that. Not that the umpire could tell, because watchers ears have the unfair advantage of a stump microphone.

In the end, it probably didn't matter. Lehmann's Australian's have proven their point. They will be competitive but the top order is going to have to contribute more consistently. Four of them did some but not enough in this match, with Michael Clarke and Ed Cowan being the men who did little. Cowan's place in the side must no come under serious question, especially given the sporadic fielding display in England's second innings. He looks to be a man preoccupied and as harsh as it seems, there can only be room for men who have their mind totally on the job.

Usman Khawaja may not have to wait long for that recall and most likely to the spot his is best suited for, No 3.

Phil Hughes was a first innings hero and as usual, he has quirky stats which keep him in the side. He head the batting averages despite getting a second innings duck. He often looked like a wild animal caught in the headlights but survived in a fine display of grit in the first innings but was removed quickly in the second in one of the two ways the English have planned for him.

Shane Watson and Chris Rogers looked up for the task but it was Haddin's dogged aggression that pushed Australia so close to a win. His assets harnessed with his pivotal roles in this team, give Australia a much greater robustness.

Ian Bell was superb

The difference between the teams was Ian Bell century and Anderson's ten wickets. Both rose above the circumstances and conditions and performed like the mature Test cricketers they are. Its that very point that exposes the real difference between these sides. You can buy experience. Australia have tried by bring Rogers into the side but even his wealth of runs isn't the same as 70 Tests. Bell showed the rest how to bat on a slow and increasingly low track. Certainly had no spinner to make his task difficult but played back more than forward, "sniffed" the ball as we used to say and when bowlers lost their length, he pounced. For a man Shane Warne condemned by word and action early in his career, his mental strength is a credit to him.

James Anderson was
Man of the Match

On the final day, Anderson rose to a new level, even for him. Like Lillee, he
bowled an inordinately long spell to snare the first three wickets of the day, rest for half an hour and came back at the death to finish it. He has learned that pace isn't everything and his subtle variation using new ball swing, old ball reverse swing and now new tricks of cutting the ball off the track, probably make him the best bowler of his type and perhaps the deadliest bowling opponent in the world.

That Australia lasted so long in this match has been remarkable.

Ashton Agar's debut Test was certainly memorable but after the boys own heroics on the second day, the rest of his match was a steep learning curve.

When the realities set in, Lehmann and Clarke must come to terms with surrendering an improbable first innings lead by being unable shut down Stuart Broad and allowing England to set them too big a lead. The fact they got close is a huge positive but it would be fatal to bask in that achievement and not look at the failure of the bowlers to break through and crucial dropped catches.

For the ICC, the heat generated over the technology debate will go on. Certainly, claims made on the last morning by several Australians, including Chris Rogers, that Australia came off the worst of the umpiring were spurious and in flagrant disregard for the second and the decisions made for Agar (stumping), Joe Root (caught down the leg side) and Jonathan Trott (lbw). Australia didn't lose because of DRS or because Stuart Broad stood his ground.

Too much faith is being placed in technology and too much pressure placed on captains and umpires as a result. Perhaps the Indian approach of refusing to play with DRS until its more consistent, more accurate and a better system of referrals is put in place, starts to look a little more sane and less self-serving than it once did. Let's get the players out of the equation and give the technology back to umpires, in much the same way as Australia does with rugby league referees.

Whatever we do with cricket, whatever changes we make, it should make the game better. Currently, DRS doesn't fulfil that criteria.