They went by the umpires decisons you ****, England lost at least 150 runs, thanks to the incompetent 3rd umpire, the Aussies lost around 50 runs

England won without playing well - meant to be sign of a good team isn't it?

The first innings batting was a disgrace and then allowing the Aussie tailend to score so many in both innings was simply inept.

The umpiring was shocking - and England were definitely more hard done by than Australia by the on field umpires - and but for the review system it could have been disastrous.

fantastic game of cricket, let's agree on that

lots of points to argue but mainly

how did both the on-field and 3rd umpires get so many decisions wrong?

gotta feel sorry for Aussie as things turned out

but if Agar had been given out on 6, as he should, England would have won by 200

Aussies are looking to strengthen their line up on Thursday and will bring in Nathan Lyon for Ed Cowan.

why is the frame rate on the hotspot replay terrible?  in others sports for unimportant replays they have proper high frame rate equipment.  I don't think the fact the camera is IR (i think?) affects it

There are no complaints from aussies tbf.  Not in their cricket camp at least.  A few mugs on here but they dont count cos they are idiots.

Broad was right not to walk

Play to the whistle, it's the umpire's mistake, not Broad's

Strangely our players didnt appeal so vociferously for that haddin wicket, almost like they didnt think it was out.

It hardly "spoilt" the ending of the test. Not for me anyway. It was probably the wicket I celebrated most of all time apart from Kasprowicz at Edgbaston.

Of course they didnt appeal massively because no one was certain but there was an edge.Technology proved it.

What a great match and either team deserved to win it.  England great 2nd innings partnership which set it up, but will always be remembered for the blatant cheat from Broad.  Australia just not good enough with the bat, can't rely on bottom order to make all the runs.
Just a great match and how can anyone say test match cricket is boring!!!!

>>but if Agar had been given out on 6, as he should, England
>>would have won by 200

As has been stated before, the decision was a close call and the
batsmen was given the benefit of the doubt, as he should be.

Prior heard it and said he def nicked it (according to Swann) which was why Cook referred - the players were prob so uncertain as a result of the strange 3rd ump decisions - not that they would ever say that in public of course! Dar prob heard it (if he didn't he needs a new job) but knowing that Eng had reviews left and confidence being low didn't give it (obv he would never say this in public!).

As has been stated before, the decision was a close call and the
batsmen was given the benefit of the doubt, as he should be.

============================================

total bollox, everyone could see he didn't get back

Hope to see Onions though if we get a  bit of rain as he would be ideal on `puddings`

Everyone knows how good Bresnan is, not least the Aussies. As for Finn he is short of confidence and needs to find some form with Middlesex but he'll be back.

The whole test was a shambles.  Sure the result was close, and there was enough swings and roundabouts for any average Joe to be able to make money off it, but the quality was way off for all involved.
The final wicket was probably there, but the way it was handled was ridiculous.  The third umpire should never have called for the audio if he was sure there was a nick.  It was simply not needed.  To ask for the audio because he wasn't convinced, and then claim it was out because it was clear hot spot proved it, is just ridiculous.

The umpires are clearly scared, and playing percentages with their decisions.  They don't like technology making them look stupid, and as a result, their reactions are proving to be counterproductive that wish, as they are made to look incompetent to umpire C grade bush cricket.

Did England deserve to win?  Not really.  But then neither did Australia.  Australia were woeful with the bat apart from a select few.
England, woeful also.  How in hell can a 19yo spinner on debut batting number 11 can nearly score a century, in apparantly the best contest in cricket?
Claim he should have been out on 6.  Personally I didn't see it.  But how did he then go on to score another 92?

Clearly England bowling is lacking, as is Australian batting.  England batting apparantly was decent, but yet to see anything more than capable, but then Australian bowling much better than their batting.

There were too many decisions in this match that were questionable.  Too many referred decisions that would have proven opposite given the opposite call from the umpire.  eg umpire calls out, DRS can't prove otherwise, yet if the umpire called not out, DRS wouldn't have been able to reverse that either.
Seriously, when an international batsmen has to ask what he was given out for, you know how bad it is.  That lbw/caught at slip decision of out was probably the craziest decision I have seen in cricket.  Umpires are confused as to their roles.

I get that cricket is trying to keep the tradition of the umpires and increase the accuracy of their decisions, but the reality is technology now shows up everything.  You can't integrate such technology on some decisions and not use it in others.
3rd umpire needs to be in total control of all reviews.  He should be the one. 

At the VERY VERY LEAST, a decision to refer a decision to 3rd umpire, should not be counted as wrong, unless proven wrong.  To lose a review for referring something to 3rd umpire that they can't determine either way should not be counted as a negative review.  They should get it over again. Only time they should lose 1, is if they are totally wrong and time wasting.

I don't believe the result of the test was due to the umpires.  It was a 50/50 game and the calls were that bad that they completely changed the scenarios so we really don't know what would have happened if the correct decisions were given at the start..  But I certainly don't believe in this day and age, that bad decisions averaging out over time, is any way to conduct a business, or play the game of cricket.  We have the ability to get it right, so lets just do that. 

For the record, I think Anderson is an outstanding bowler and England would be way down the ranks without him.

england have plenty of outstanding players other than anderson. at the very least cook, pietersen, prior, swann and anderson would walk into the best england XI since i've been watching which goes back to the early 80s

Draw backers on suicide watch