First Test: What the newspapers said after day three at Trent Bridge
A look at what some of the leading writers in England and Australia said after day three in Nottingham.
Last Updated: 13/07/13 7:39am
Paul Hayward - Daily Telegraph
If there was ever a true Spirit of Cricket, it took the day off at Trent Bridge when Stuart Broad blatantly nicked a delivery to first slip but chose not to walk. Social media erupted with an amazing array of verdicts, ranging from cheat to sensible, from skulduggery to understandable opportunism. Not for the first time the argument veered off in the direction of moral equivalence. Would an Australian batsman say he would walk in those circumstances? If no, presumably, the problem goes away because we are all as cynical as each other. If yes, the Aussies are telling porkies. A vital moral question soon became another Ashes bunfight
Vic Marks - Guardian
Michael Clarke stood at slip like a puppeteer and for two sessions whichever string he pulled seemed to deliver the required outcome. But in the third session he ran out of strings, patience and reviews. His mind never rested in pursuit of wickets and that instinct became a hindrance. As his impatience led to some speculative reviews, the cupboard was bare when he needed one for what the DRS was designed for: to correct a blatant error by the umpire. Aleem Dar got it horribly wrong when Stuart Broad edged Ashton Agar. But so had Clarke in seeking to steal the odd lbw earlier in the innings. A good captain likes the insurance policy of keeping one review in his bag.
Mike Atherton - The Times
The irony will be lost on no one, of course, least of all the Australia team. Non-walking was introduced to cricket by the Australians, and yesterday they became a victim of its charms, when Stuart Broad was judged not out after a thick edge ended up in the hands of Michael Clarke at first slip. Few international batsmen, if any, walk these days. Adam Gilchrist, the former Australia wicketkeeper, might have been the last of them, but even he was not immune to appealing in his role as wicketkeeper for catches proved not to have come off the edge.
Chloe Saltau - Sydney Morning Herald
The International Cricket Council has been embarrassed by a diabolical umpiring decision that took cricket back to the pre-technology age and let England's Stuart Broad off the hook at Trent Bridge. Protocols for the use of technology were exposed as farcical when television umpire Marais Erasmus was powerless to change Aleem Dar's decision to give Broad not out when it was clear to everyone at the ground and watching the game on TV that he had thickly edge a ball from young spinner Ashton Agar. The ball flicked Brad Haddin's gloves and was caught by Michael Clarke at slip. Erasmus was unable to intervene despite having a range of technological aids at his disposal, and the incident during the tense final session of the third day handed England a decisive advantage in the game.
Greg Baum - The (Melbourne) Age
If there was a noble voice inside Stuart Broad, it must have been screaming at him to turn around and make for the pavilion. Or was it that it was shouted down by a baser, but louder and now more common instinct, which recognises no nicety except the distinction between winning and losing? Maybe there was no debate in Broad's mind; maybe nothing happened there. Ashton Agar had tempted Broad with a wide-pitched ball, and Broad had slashed at it and caught a decent, woody chunk of it, and it had flicked the fingertips of Brad Haddin's gloves and been caught by Australian captain Michael Clarke at slip, and Agar had his third Test wicket to augment his 98 runs, and the Australians had rejoiced, and the Trent Bridge crowd had groaned, and England was seven out with a lead of 232 and the first Test was still alive for Australia, just because it had been the sort of day on which every hard-earned wicket had restored Australia's position