Michael Atherton wasn’t a pleased man. After all, the players of his nation got battered by the Aussie bowlers and batsmen left, right and centre. The Australian players, especially, used brutal bodyline tactics against the tailenders of England—something that didn’t go down too well with former England wicketkeeper, Mike Atherton.

In his column for The Times, Atherton explained in details as to how the England bowlers should have been protected by the umpires because of their incompetence to play with the bat.  

"I did wonder aloud at the time why the umpires were so reluctant to act to protect Ball," Atherton wrote about Jake Ball, who was given a torrid time by the Aussie bowlers.

"Test cricket or not, the Law and the playing conditions are there to protect batsmen incapable of protecting themselves.

"Cricket is an odd game in that it has three distinct disciplines and, within that, you have the unusual situation where someone who is totally useless in one area, can face a world-class performer in another -- with potentially harmful consequences.

"Batsmen who cannot bowl are not required to bowl to great players, but the opposite is obviously the case -- precisely why the Law is framed as it is, as built-in protection for the incompetent. No one wants to see the game sanitised, but the Law is there for a reason. The umpires should make use of it."

Australia captain, Steven Smith, however, wasn’t all too convinced by Atherton’s claims, saying that they are a bit out of proportion and was convinced that England would have done the same thing if their bowlers had the pace of their Aussie counterparts.

"It's a bit over the top," Smith said at a New Balance event in Melbourne.

"We obviously had a plan from the start of the series that we were going to bowl a lot of short stuff to those guys, much like we did back in 2013. No doubt if they had the kind of pace that our bowlers can generate, they'd probably do the same thing. So I think it's a bit over the top."

Meanwhile, Mitchell Johnson also wasn’t convinced with the claims of the Englishman, stating that that the game is already favoured in the side of the batsmen and further limiting what the bowlers could do would only just make the whole scenario lopsided.

"I don't think it's a fair comment [from Atherton]," Johnson told Fox Sports.

"Isn't it two short balls in an over? That's the rule. If it's not over their heads or the shoulder restriction, how is it dangerous? I'd be very disappointed if it [the law] got changed because wickets are flat in general, and the bowlers need some sort of assistance.

“If they take everything away from the bowlers we're just going to see bowling machines. I wouldn't go into a game and be told 'well you can't bowl two bouncers now, it's one'. And if they change it to that, then what? You can't bowl above waist-height? How far do you go?"