JULY 14 ― The opening encounter of the Ashes series between England and Australia, which will be resolved today with England closing in on victory, demonstrated once again that when it comes to slowly unfolding yet absolutely gripping drama, there is nothing quite like test match cricket.

Cricket may not quite enjoy the universal appeal of football and I’m sure many readers are relatively unfamiliar with the sport. But if you have any interest in introducing yourself to the game’s many intricacies and subtleties, today is the day.

Australia need another 137 runs for victory, while England require just four more Australian wickets on a wearing pitch that is starting to offer more and more assistance to bowlers. England should win, but the Ashes taught us long ago that nothing can be ruled out.

From Wednesday’s opening overs onwards, the twists and turns have been unrelenting. First, England collapsed from a promising position to register a poor first innings total of 215, before fighting back with a burst of wickets from the outstanding Jimmy Anderson to leave Australia in a precarious position early on day two.

Then came the Aussie response thanks to an astonishing spell of batting from the last man in, teenage debutant Ashton Agar. The 19 year old wasn’t even included in Australia’s original squad but he proceeded to do something never before achieved in the long history of the game by racing to, and well beyond, an exhilarating half-century until he was caught by Graeme Swann on 98, agonisingly short of a dramatic debut century.

Agar’s miraculous and unprecedented innings gave Australia a healthy first innings lead of 65, and England were soon fuming and under further pressure when key batsman Jonathan Trott was wrongly given out leg before wicket despite appearing to hit the ball.

However, England got payback ― and more ― for that misfortune in the final session of day three, when Stuart Broad clearly edged the ball, via the gloves of wicketkeeper Brad Haddin, into the grateful waiting hands of Aussie skipper Michael Clarke. However, umpire Aleem Dar somehow failed to notice the big deflection off Broad’s bat and, to the astonishment and dismay of the Australians, allowed him to remain at the crease.

It was an enormous let-off, and Broad took full advantage by continuing his long and patient partnership with Ian Bell to take England into their match-winning position, setting Australia an extremely challenging target of 311 to win.

It also sparked a fierce debate about the rights and wrongs of Broad’s behaviour. Historically, batsmen who knew they had hit the ball into the hands of a fielder didn’t wait for the umpire to give them out. Instead, they gallantly “walked”, acknowledging their dismissal without the need for official confirmation.

That has all changed in the last few decades, though, and it’s now commonplace for batsmen to stand their ground, wait for the umpire’s decision and hope that he makes a mistake. That is exactly what Broad did, and he will have scarcely believed his luck when the normally reliable Dar rejected Australia’s appeals.

Predictably, the incident enticed hordes of traditionalists to crawl out of the woodwork and condemn Broad for failing to walk, arguing that he was effectively cheating by deciding to stay in the middle when he knew that he should have been out.

They were countered by the modern realists, who pointed out that Broad did nothing unusual. Nearly every batsman in the contemporary game would do exactly the same thing: stand there impassively and allow the man who is paid to make decisions ― the umpire ― to do his job. The batsman is there to bat, not to give people in or out, and if the umpire happens to make a mistake, so be it.

The argument transcends the confines of sport and reveals a great deal about differing views on life and society. Did Broad cheat or was he justified in taking advantage of his piece of fortune?

His advocators would probably ― or should logically, anyhow, if their opinions are consistent ― also argue that tax-dodgers are doing nothing wrong and that the chief responsibility lies with the relevant authorities to close loopholes and prevent the opportunity for evasion to occur in the first place.

Broad’s critics, on the other hand, would place the onus on the individual, contesting that tax-dodgers (or cricketers) should accept their wider responsibilities to society (or their sport) without being forced to do so by authority.

Simplified, you could say it’s an example of the age-old dispute between free-market capitalists who believe self is king and public-minded socialists who believe all actions should serve the greater good.

My own opinion? Well, I do believe batsmen should walk when they know they are out. A victory gained by dishonest means has a hollow ring and perverts the true purpose ― “may the best man win” ― of the sport.

However, I don’t believe Broad should be criticised because he was simply doing the same as nearly every other player in the modern game ― there’s little point in one batsman walking when hardly anybody else does.

Instead, it would be nice if honesty became the standard mode of behaviour at the crease. That could only happen (but, being realistic, won’t) with a radical change in mentality from players all over the world ― the various players’ associations coming to an agreement that they will heavily lobby their members to starting “walking”.

And it would have to work both ways: if a player, like Trott on Thursday, knows he got a feint touch on the ball before it crashed into his pads, he would have to be allowed to inform the umpire, who would then accept his claim without question.

The only demand that should be made of Broad, I believe, is to accept umpiring decisions that go against him. The next time an appeal for a catch off his bowling is turned down, it would be hypocritical if he fails to respond with grace and dignity. If he takes advantage of errant decisions in his favour, he must also be stoical when he’s the victim.

And in the crazy world of the Ashes, there is every chance of exactly that happening today. Tune in ― more drama lies in wait.

* This is the personal opinion of the columnist