Or what Vela said.

I'm personally of the opinion that all technology should be kept out of test cricket. It's not going to happen of course, but even this test shows that on average things are pretty damn good just by the umpire's call.

Benefit of the doubt and all that, where needed. All these calls have been very close and the umpire's initial calls are all justified even with the analysis at super slow-motion level showing some of them may have been technically wrong.

Hahaha. Hussain just asked Botham how his breakfast at the hotel was... apparently he had ordered two poached eggs, grapefruit juice and black coffee. Someone had taken his order form and ticked every single box on the menu so he ended up with two trayfuls.

EDIT: Pieterson out. Less humorous.

I love cricket commentary.

Massive wicket. England's average middle-order exposed.

Reliable its not 1 nil Aussies.

Finally get a decision our way.

EDIT: Urgh.

Bit of a scare earlier but this is looking better.

Should've walked there.

And now a drop. Funny though it is, not great from Broad.

EDIT: Awful umpiring though.

Spirit of the game is all well and good when the series is done, not on the third day of the first test.

Someone -I forget who- was saying how most cricketers careers are defined by how well they do in the ashes. I don't blame him for not walking in the slightest.

Boycott's reaction.

I said the other night that it all evens out. Cant complain about one and not the other.

As I said though, I'd much rather umpire's word and no review system, and walking if you know you're out. But the stakes are high and few people ever do that.

What a game.

Yep, they were pretty optimistic to review a blatant legside ball earlier in the day.

I dont blame the batsman for not walking, but I do believe more batsmen should walk especially with camera scrutiny. I still think the proper review system is yet to emerge and what we have now is just a compromise.

But at the end of the day you get bad and good ones all the same.

I'm not sure of the relevance to Agar and walking. Agar knew at one point his foot was in the air, but not relative to when the bails were off. Broad knew he nicked it (presumably). Some people can carry on knowing they got away with a blatantly bad decision (most players, not singling out Broad here), some can't (Gilchrist - a rarity).

A better example would be the LBW of Trott. He knew he (most likely) hit it, but had no option but to walk when told. Broad knew he hit it and had the option to stay. It evens out.

In the end, I'm not complaining because there have been bad decisions both ways. It's just how the game is. I've seen Australia lose series (notably vs West Indies, Adelaide Oval, 1991-92, Craig McDermott given out caught behind when it hit his helmet) on wrong decisions. It happens.

I just think wrong decisions will be more tolerable if there is no technical replays/reviews and an honour system will naturally emerge as more detailed replays become available. We have T20 and ODI cricket - use the high tech there. Test cricket has an opportunity to position itself as the purists form of the game even moreso if they abandon reviews and just select umpires based on accuracy.

I always used to walk, because I had to be honest with myself. I understand that this doesn't bother everyone, but for me it's the only thing that matters. It might well be the umpires decision, but if I thought I'd nicked it and stayed where I was then that's all I'd be able to think about. Better to have a clear conscience.