The hypocrisy over Broad not walking is as bad as the original act

England won the first test by 14 runs, it was five absorbing days of test cricket which almost saw a remarkable victory for the men from Down Under.

Yet some in the media would rather keep focusing on an event on Friday night where Stuart Broad edged it to first slip and didn't walk after being given not out.

A crime against cricket, like father like son (a disingenuous reference to Chris Broad being ushered from the wicket in 1987) and just not cricket.

RUBBISH! Broad did what every cricketer would do given half the chance, put the blame back on the umpire and carry on.

The controversy was being whipped up, sports writers were desperate for Michael Clarke to have a go at Broad during his day four interview. His response? 'I certainly don't think any less of Stuart'.

Truth be told Clarke, for all his remonstrations in the aftermath, would have done the same as Broad and did do at Adelaide in the 2010/11 series – only an England review removed him from the crease.

But what is more galling is the hypocritical attacks on Broad and England and the praise lauded on Ashton Agar.

Agar made 98 on debut and yes was wonderfully entertaining, but amid the glowing tributes from the same writers who poured scorn on Broad was merely the briefest mention he was stumped and should have been given out when he had scored just six.

What's the difference? Is it not against the spirit of cricket that Agar went on to get 98? Oh wait he is only 19, on debut, Broad should know better and isn't Ashton's story so lovely.....

Again RUBBISH!! Agar would have seen the replay at lunch, he got away with it, so did Broad – the only difference is Broad had the brass neck to stand there.

He'll get it back at him, have no doubt, Broad will be public enemy number one in Australia this winter, if he has the brass neck to not walk he will need balls of steel to cope with the immense flak he will get from a 'passionate' Aussie crowd at places like the Gabba.

That's the choice he made on Friday eveningin 'waiting for the umpire' he will have to live with it, England had been wronged over Agar, Broad thought he would get one back.

We can either focus on the actions of one man or ask the real question, why was the umpiring for such a high profile test match so bad?

And late on Sunday night, hours after England completed the win, came the news three athletes had tested positive for banned substances.....

I know what I am more concerned about today...