SO much for the bright new dawn, the cynics will say. Disappointing as the course of the match at Old Trafford was, let us suspend any such wholesale judgment and salute the prime occupants of Australia's victory, Steve Waugh and Shane Warne.

Those who have been following John Woodcock's estimation of The Hundred Greatest Cricketers Of All Time will have noted that Waugh (No 95) and Warne (No 13) (between Woolley and Trumper) are among the 10 contemporary cricketers among the hundred: the others are Tendulkar, Lara, Gooch, Wasim Akram, Ambrose, Waqar Younis, Donald and de Silva.

Warne, of course, spun the match inexorably Australia's way with that mesmerising spell on Friday afternoon. To see the prospect of the necessary first innings lead (at 74 for one) completely disintegrate in little more than an hour (to 123 for eight) was a performance to which, in my view, much critical opinion over-reacted.

Warne, it was said, should have been counter-attacked, and I found myself wondering in vain who of the old heroes might in the conditions have found the means of doing so. Men with the sharpest of reflexes -Bradman, Compton, Sobers -might well have maintained a successful defence aiming to make their runs mostly at the other end: but I doubt whether even they in the early stages of their innings would have attempted more against Warne.

The wettest of Junes inevitably limited the preparation of the pitch, which meant that the turf in the follow-through area became seriously scuffed as early as the second afternoon. The strength of Warne's spin landing in the rough as it did at least three times an over made forcing leg-side strokes a lottery against anything other than a rank long-hop. When he pitched straight the spin could only be scotched by getting right to the pitch, playing full forward. When he went round the wicket, of course, everything pitched in the danger area.

Though nowadays he seems chary of using the googly and the top-spinner, Warne is still a very fine bowler. This is not to say he cannot be contained, even possibly mastered by high-class batting on a true pitch. Let us hope for one at Headingley.

Meanwhile, the selectors will be happy at the conspicuous success of Dean Headley and, I trust, at being reminded that they have no better player of spin than Crawley. As to the attack, they had standing by at Old Trafford Michael Smith, of Gloucestershire, who easily tops the English averages with 45 wickets at under 15 runs each. The left-arm bowler of medium-pace or above who can swing the ball in from over the wicket, as Smith has been doing, is intransigently difficult to play as well as providing important variety. Moreover, his follow-through marks give increasing help to an off-spinner, for instance young Croft.

Spinning memories at Old Trafford are, of course, legion. Australians will wince still at Jim Laker's 19 for 90 in '56 and all present will recall how five years later Richie Benaud, going round the wicket with his leg-breaks as a last resort, snatched victory from the jaws of defeat and so preserved the Ashes for the duration of the 1960s. Back in 1930, Ian Peebles's leg-spin had put the only brake all summer on Don Bradman's triumphal progress (caught Duleepsinhji at slip for 14).

My most rueful recollection is of how England were cheated of victory against Bradman's great Australian team of '48. Thanks to Denis Compton's brave 145, made after being cut over the eye by Lindwall, England led by 145 on first innings then increased the margin to 316 by the weekend with seven wickets and two days' play outstanding. It was a cast-iron position which would have brought the series to 2-1. As it was, the Manchester weather closed in completely, England were robbed and the Australians became the only ones in this country to win 4-0.

I WROTE three weeks ago on the serious threat of noise on the field and especially talk round the bat directed at the batsman, and I thought that if captains regularly report on umpires they should likewise have direct access to authority. Tony Brown, the ECB administration manager, has since reminded me that umpires are required to report on every aspect of every first-class match including, if necessary, comment on the leadership.

There is, in fact, conspicuous evidence that the ECB are deeply anxious about behaviour in the strong letter received by all county chairmen from Gerard Elias, QC, chairman of the Board's discipline committee. ``Umpires are to be exhalted,'' he writes, ``to report players who show dissent or who participate in unfair and unreasonable 'orchestrated' appealing.'' The letter goes on to say that offenders should be punished not merely by fines but if necessary by suspension.

Mr Elias reiterates the importance of the right example coming from the top. As to that, Tom Cartwright, the national coach for Wales, confirms to me his experience when deputising as umpire in an under-16 match. After much shouting and appealing from distant fielders in the opening overs, he brought the captain and other culprits together, put the fear of God into them and then said: ``Let's now enjoy a game in peace.'' Thereafter, not a sound out of place. The ECB and the county boards might surely use distinguished old players of the right instincts not perhaps as umpires but as coaches to umpires and all concerned with the administration of cricket for the young.

Bad behaviour at club and school level stems, I am afraid, from the parrot-talk about English cricket needing to be more aggressive: Tough competition and good manners have gone together on the cricket field ever since the days of Hambledon.