New ball nonsense and inflatable distraction... ASHES TALKING POINTS

NICK HOWSON AT OLD TRAFFORD: Unused hospitality, Ben Stokes upholds the spirit of cricket and fans need to turn up on time

Inhospitable Old Trafford

Old Trafford's three red 'letter-boxes' are among the most defining features of any cricket ground in England and Wales.

While one is dominated by hotels rooms and another by the world's media, the third is dedicated to hospitality.

On a typical day of Test cricket that stand holds many hundred people, providing a terrific experience and view for those who are willing to pay a premium.

But for one of the defining days of the series, the stand is empty. An area of the ground densely populated for the first four days of the Test is suddenly a barren wasteland.

Lancashire simply do not sell hospitality tickets for day five. And that is understandable. The provisions involved are significant of course and cannot necessarily be arranged at the 11th hour.

However, it does seem slightly baffling that any area of the ground is unpopulated on a day such as this. It isn't a good look.

Many will have missed out on a ticket for day five. Others meanwhile will have been to the previous four. Perhaps they deserve to be rewarded.

Three-course lunch and canopies are not necessary of course, but if it allows more people into the ground then surely there is plenty to be gained.

Tardy cricket fans

Given how Australia made the new ball tick on the fourth evening, they could easily have breezed through England in double-quick time on day five.

As it was, the hosts showed decent resilience to take the match into the afternoon.

But had Pat Cummins and Josh Hazlewood indeed torn through the middle-order then many will have missed it.

Day five at Old Trafford was sold out, with tickets being snapped up as it appeared clear the match would slip into Sunday.

It ensured that the scenes from 2005 when 10,000 fans were turned away were not repeated.

However, despite having parted with their hard-earned cash and full in the knowledge the game could be over before midday, the ground was only half-full.

There were travel issues around Manchester with the Metrolink only running a bus-replacement service in certain areas across their network. But last I checked that wasn't the only way of getting to Old Trafford.

Indeed, tardiness is something that cricket has a problem with. I appreciate individuals have other, often unavoidable, pressures but empty seats at the start of play are a regular occurrence.

A day at the Test is a long one, and missing 30 minutes or so isn't significant. But tickets are rare and expensive. It seems like a waste to turn up late when there are many less fortunate who would jump at the chance of attending.

Deflate the sideshow

Air horns, fireworks, laser pointers and klaxons.

Apart from being among the list of items you would typically find on a night out with Andrew Flintoff, these are all banned from Old Trafford and cricket grounds up and down the country.

Crucially, however, it does not include inflatables - but this has to change.

Watermelons, bananas, lilos, flip-flops and beachballs have been launched around the party stand throughout this Test and others, this summer.

Indeed, at stages during this game, it has seemingly been the main attraction. It has meant that stewards have been moonlighting as pitch cleaners with some fans getting plenty of enjoyment out of flooding the pitch in these items.

At times, spectators have turned their backs on the play to follow attempts to keep the items away from security, who themselves are being distracted from keeping people safe to having to deal with these imbeciles.

Imagine paying through the nose for a ticket for a key day of Ashes cricket, turning up late, only to then throw children's swimming pools toys around. Have attention spans really shrunk that much?

^{Ben Stokes was dismissed for just a single}

Stokes eclipses Headingley century

The Test match is on the line. The Ashes are on the precipice. Ben Stokes produces a moment of astonishing brilliance. You've seen it all before.

Well not in these circumstances. Stokes made just a single during his 17-ball innings before edging behind off Cummins.

Not given out by umpire Morais Erasmus, the Durham allrounder marched from the field at his own accord, walking at the pinch point of the summer.

Given what was at stake, how many other players would have done the same thing? They should not be criticised for not doing so - many perceive it to be exclusively the umpire's job to dismiss batsmen - but such acts of sportspersonship should be celebrated.

Stokes' innings at Headingley is one of English sport's most cherished moments of the 21st century. It has filled front pages, back pages, websites and social media feeds ever since.

But in many ways, Stokes' fourth innings act in Manchester was even more impressive. Several players would gamble on their opponent not using their review. Australia's record with the technology has of course been pretty shoddy.

Instead, Stokes had the awareness to see the bigger picture. The spirit of cricket has always had a varied and fluid definition. Some even perceive it to be a myth. In a society where results define our existence, it has arguably become more peripheral than ever.

This series has been played in a great spirit - highlighted better than ever when Stokes and Lyon embraced in Leeds a fortnight ago - and he opted to preserve that rather than give his side a better chance of saving the game.

There are things that are more important than winning and losing.

Time to change the ball rule

Australia's attempts to dismiss England on day five were reinvigorated by the change of ball after 57 overs of the fourth innings.

Pat Cummins immediately had the ball hooping around and it gave Jos Buttler and Craig Overton plenty of problems.

Attempts to change the ball is now a regular occurrence during a day of Test cricket. Anything to get the edge over an opponent.

Umpires use a piece of apparatus to determine whether the ball has gone out of shape, and can order for a replacement of a similar age.

There are several issues with this piece of protocol. The first is that any 'new' ball cannot be compared to the one it is replacing. Surfaces and bowlers will be different. Batting teams will have varying approaches, too. And that is before you consider whether it has been bowled for exactly the same number of overs under identical weather conditions.

Additionally, is it conclusive that the way the replacement ball is stored does not make a difference to how it responds in the hand of a bowler? It has always been the fielding team's responsibility to look after the ball. They can't keep it in shape of course, but the point remains.

There aren't many ways the ICC can change some of these practices. That is, apart from blocking the ball being changed at all.

If you need any convincing that changing the ball gives one team a major advantage, just look at Steve Smith's reaction to the decision. He bounced away with the new nut like a kid from a candy shop.