By Peter May

England could never have believed that their fortune would change so abruptly on day four of the decisive Ashes Test but they cannot have taken too much satisfaction in the origin of the turnaround.

The weather dominated matters for the third successive day of the Ashes decider, this time the light rather than the rain taking centre stage.

It is undesirable in itself to be so reliant on the elements but worse still was the heavy-handed involvement of umpires Rudi Koerzten and Billy Bowden.

The hosts were the sole beneficiaries, Andrew Flintoff and Matthew Hoggard enjoying a seamers' paradise in the morning to share eight wickets for just 86 added to the Australian total.

Both bowlers revelled in quintessentially English conditions, thick cloud cover and heavy atmosphere encouraging outswing in poor light.

Flintoff claimed the first three, pinning centurion Matthew Hayden and Simon Katich with almost identical deliveries which pitched on middle and straightened to hit the left-handers' pads.

Hayden even had the grace to reciprocate the England all-rounder's congratulations for reaching three figures, departing with a respectful “well bowled”.

That moment highlighted just one aspect in this special series, a level of sportsmanship and mutual respect under such intense pressure which invites comparisons with last year's Ryder Cup and all but mocks football and rugby union.

It only made what was to follow all the more disappointing.

While Flintoff charged in from the Pavilion End, stopping only to exchange occasional pleasantries with the batsmen, Hoggard was beavering away from the Vauxhall Road.

The Yorkshireman has worked long and hard to be unobtrusive, carefully cultivating the impression of being a mentally negligible farmhand who has won a competition to open the bowling for England.

He was unable to hide behind anonymity at Trent Bridge and again here, claiming the prized scalp of Adam Gilchrist before lunch and wrapping up the tail soon after with clever use of lateral movement.

So far, so much by the summer's lack-of-form book.

England had previously looked well beaten but this series has not so much made fools as imbeciles of those seeking to predict what happens next.

The home win was therefore back on the betting boards and that was all to the good, but an Australian win loomed large too with the tourists' seamers practically salivating at the chance to respond.

A fitting finale through four breakneck sessions looked assured until the umpires, possibly to meet the approval of the ludicrous ICC, intervened.

Glenn McGrath and Brett Lee hardly had a chance worth the name, Koertzen and Bowden insisting initially on the introduction of first Shane Warne, then the use of Michael Clarke and finally the suspension of play.

Michael Vaughan was in a position to twice accept bad light from the middle after Andrew Strauss fell to Warne in the legspinner's first over and did so with understandable logic.

It has been said well and often this weekend that a genuine result is the least this series deserves but even worse than a result dictated by rain is one by umpiring involvement.

If it was considered too dangerous for McGrath and Lee to bowl then it at least looked more than fair to allow Warne and Clarke a crack.

The explanation from Koertzen and Bowden, that “it was difficult to pick up the flight” to a spinner and “unfair” on the batsmen seemed vague indeed under a law predominantly defined by player safety.

The umpires are only doing their job in protecting the well-being of those involved, but the subjective notion of fairness is something else altogether.

Play was suspended twice and each time that decision was met by a loud cheer from a crowd desperate not to see any play for their gate money.

England fans of course want their team to win and the reaction is as understandable as that of Vaughan.

But the result of the fifth Test, whatever it may be, will be a great moment and as such deserves a great build-up.

This series has earned the right to a fitting conclusion after magnificent contributions from both sides, there was a profound sense of disappointment that is was denied such a prelude by over-zealous opinion.