County cricket September 22, 2013

Madsen wins first CMJ award for walking

ESPNcricinfo staff
42

Wayne Madsen, the Derbyshire captain, has been awarded the inaugural Christopher Martin-Jenkins Spirit of Cricket Elite Award, created by MCC and the BBC to acknowledge exceptional sportsmanship, for walking during a crucial County Championship match.

The award is bound to reawaken the debate over whether "walking" is to be regarded as a preferable form of behaviour in the modern game or whether the MCC, by championing the issue, is in danger of pushing the Spirit of Cricket to a point where it risks alienating majority support.

Walking has been uncommon in all forms of cricket in England for half a century or more, yet in a display of double standards which has long been accepted as inevitable, a failure to walk still ensures a batsman who remains at the crease is treated to ritual abuse.

The issue came back into the public eye when England's Stuart Broad failed to walk for an obvious edge in the first Ashes Test at Trent Bridge, his "sin" looking worse than it was as the ball deflected off the gloves of the wicketkeeper, Brad Haddin and was caught at first slip.

At Chesterfield, in July, chasing Yorkshire's first innings total of 617, Madsen feathered a ball from bowler Steve Patterson to the wicketkeeper.

With one lone appeal coming from the Yorkshire fielders, umpire Jeff Evans gave the Derbyshire captain not out, only for Madsen to walk back to the pavilion on his own accord. Saying that it was a matter of principle, Madsen went on to score a defiant 141 in the second innings, but his side still lost by an innings and 113 runs.

MCC president, Mike Griffith, said: "MCC is passionate about its role as Guardian of the Laws and Spirit of Cricket, and it is instances like Wayne Madsen walking when his Derbyshire side was in real trouble against Yorkshire, which set an example for everyone in the game to follow and must be encouraged."

The winners of the youth award were Alton CC under-13 girls' team who impressed the judges after lending their opposition players to field during a league match and also allowing some of the opposition to bat twice.

"Deciding on the winner of the Youth Award and the school beneficiary was simultaneously challenging and heartening," Griffith said. "We received so many wonderful examples of how the Spirit of Cricket is alive and kicking in the junior game at clubs and on school playing fields across the country. Congratulations to the Alton CC under-13 girls team who ultimately won the Youth Award. Their story really epitomises what the Spirit of Cricket means.

Broad was pilloried in sections of the media for dishonesty and his actions, in return, were passionately supported by other critics as well as the vast majority of those involved in the game who said decisions should be left to the umpires.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • on September 24, 2013, 8:43 GMT

    @legsidewide.

    Cricket is hardly the only sport where "unfair play" as you put it is encouraged. Footballers dive regularly in attempts to get other players booked, or to win a penalty. Rugby players will use just about any sneaky thing they can get away with to gain an edge in a game. Back on the cricket front it needs to be fair to all, players who claim catches knowing it bounced just in front of their hands or fielders who stop a boundary but touch the rope and no-one else notices. They don't get vilified like Broad did. A batsman only gets one chance in an innings so why should he throw away that chance so easily. On the other hand a bowler can have as many appeals as he likes. You don't see anyone having a go because they appeal for one that is clearly going down the leg side. On the Madsen front I disagree with what he did because he waited for the umpire to say not out just so that he could appear more sportsmanlike by then walking. All it would do is embarass the umpire

  • Rowayton on September 23, 2013, 21:20 GMT

    I will defend my position to a couple who have criticised me when I said Madsen showed dissent. As umpire, when there is an appeal for a catch, I wait a moment before making a decision to give the batsman a chance to walk. If he doesn't, then I make a decision and expect everybody to accept it. The article clearly said Madsen walked AFTER being given not out. To me, that's just showing off - look how virtuous I am. If you're going to walk, and I'm comfortable with that, do it immediately.

  • willsrustynuts on September 23, 2013, 18:51 GMT

    @ legsidewide

    Please don't attribute any of those things to me. I am saying remove the batsman from the equation and let the umpires rule if he is out or not, every time. The batsman should have no discussion with anyone. But it suits your argument to make my suggestion appear loony and left field. Well done.

    We have seen multiple examples in the last Ashes series alone of instances when the batsman has hit the ball but not known it (thought they hit the pad for example but Not Spot has shown an edge). Let the umpires do their job.

    PS 'Not Spot' is my term for a certain technology - can you guess which one?!

  • 200ondebut on September 23, 2013, 13:52 GMT

    Good on yer Wayne. It is of course up to the individual whether they walk or not -neither being right or wrong. Until such time that Captains start calling back the batsmen that were clearly not out then I don't think there should be any negativity attached to those who chose to let the umpires make the decision. Like @njr1330 quite rightly points out, anyone who has played cricket knows when they have hit it, and like wise the fielding side know when they have got one going their way. No doubt njr1330 would have dropped himself if he didn't call them back?!

  • ste13 on September 23, 2013, 13:13 GMT

    It's sad to find so many comments criticising Madsen. Then, if most of people start stealing, we we will steal as well. Then, I do not understand people cindemning Armstrong. All he wanted was to win. Win at all costs - and I thought we are movimg away from barbarian times.

  • itsthewayuplay on September 23, 2013, 13:02 GMT

    @jmcilhinney on September 22, 2013, 23:23 GMT. I have to respectfully disagree with you. The issue of the spirit of cricket is much wider than what Australia would have done and in fact the article is unfair in singling out Broad. On a more general note, whilst Masden's actions were encouraging and even more so at a junior level with Alton CC, the principle of fair play results in unequal competition between 2 teams if one those teams believes in walking and the other does not. I was never a win-at-all costs player and always followed the principles of fairplay but I was also fortunate that all my team-mates were of the same attitude. With so much more money in the game now increasing the stakes, and the Australians seemingly entrenched in their position of letting the umpire decide, in the future I hope we can see a solution where players give their all to win in a way that is within the rules and follows the spirit of the game.

  • wrenx on September 23, 2013, 12:08 GMT

    @willsrustynuts Good to see you're against playing a game that is about batting, bowling and fielding better than the opposition, and backing one that is about convincing an umpire that you're right. Tell you what, let's get rid of the bats, balls and helmets, the white clothes and the 22 yards altogether. Let's just have podium with 3 umpires seated, and the opposing captains can come up for a spirited debate, after which the umpires can decide who wins.

  • tauranga on September 23, 2013, 12:07 GMT

    Well done Wayne but.....what on earth is the Umpire's role in cricket to become?

  • wrenx on September 23, 2013, 12:05 GMT

    That line from "To Kill a Mockingbird" comes to mind. We could do with a lot more of Atticus Finch's attitude to the game. Just because the majority oppose walking doesn't make it fair or right. Good on Madsen for not playing like a cheat. Cricket seems to be the only modern sport that tries so hard to institutionalise unfair play. Broad is the most recent target, but he's by no means alone. In my opinion, anyone who stands their ground after knowingly hitting it is not playing fair. And for all those arguments about how "there's nothing in the laws" and how "umpires should make the call" are simply advocating a game which is no longer about playing better than the opposition, but about convincing the umpire that you're right.

  • DeckChairand6pack on September 23, 2013, 12:00 GMT

    Great to see a Durban bloke receiving plaudits. Would he have behaved the same way if the match situation had been different? Possibly. Still, it's nice to see an example of honesty and fair play in the first class game.

  • on September 24, 2013, 8:43 GMT

    @legsidewide.

    Cricket is hardly the only sport where "unfair play" as you put it is encouraged. Footballers dive regularly in attempts to get other players booked, or to win a penalty. Rugby players will use just about any sneaky thing they can get away with to gain an edge in a game. Back on the cricket front it needs to be fair to all, players who claim catches knowing it bounced just in front of their hands or fielders who stop a boundary but touch the rope and no-one else notices. They don't get vilified like Broad did. A batsman only gets one chance in an innings so why should he throw away that chance so easily. On the other hand a bowler can have as many appeals as he likes. You don't see anyone having a go because they appeal for one that is clearly going down the leg side. On the Madsen front I disagree with what he did because he waited for the umpire to say not out just so that he could appear more sportsmanlike by then walking. All it would do is embarass the umpire

  • Rowayton on September 23, 2013, 21:20 GMT

    I will defend my position to a couple who have criticised me when I said Madsen showed dissent. As umpire, when there is an appeal for a catch, I wait a moment before making a decision to give the batsman a chance to walk. If he doesn't, then I make a decision and expect everybody to accept it. The article clearly said Madsen walked AFTER being given not out. To me, that's just showing off - look how virtuous I am. If you're going to walk, and I'm comfortable with that, do it immediately.

  • willsrustynuts on September 23, 2013, 18:51 GMT

    @ legsidewide

    Please don't attribute any of those things to me. I am saying remove the batsman from the equation and let the umpires rule if he is out or not, every time. The batsman should have no discussion with anyone. But it suits your argument to make my suggestion appear loony and left field. Well done.

    We have seen multiple examples in the last Ashes series alone of instances when the batsman has hit the ball but not known it (thought they hit the pad for example but Not Spot has shown an edge). Let the umpires do their job.

    PS 'Not Spot' is my term for a certain technology - can you guess which one?!

  • 200ondebut on September 23, 2013, 13:52 GMT

    Good on yer Wayne. It is of course up to the individual whether they walk or not -neither being right or wrong. Until such time that Captains start calling back the batsmen that were clearly not out then I don't think there should be any negativity attached to those who chose to let the umpires make the decision. Like @njr1330 quite rightly points out, anyone who has played cricket knows when they have hit it, and like wise the fielding side know when they have got one going their way. No doubt njr1330 would have dropped himself if he didn't call them back?!

  • ste13 on September 23, 2013, 13:13 GMT

    It's sad to find so many comments criticising Madsen. Then, if most of people start stealing, we we will steal as well. Then, I do not understand people cindemning Armstrong. All he wanted was to win. Win at all costs - and I thought we are movimg away from barbarian times.

  • itsthewayuplay on September 23, 2013, 13:02 GMT

    @jmcilhinney on September 22, 2013, 23:23 GMT. I have to respectfully disagree with you. The issue of the spirit of cricket is much wider than what Australia would have done and in fact the article is unfair in singling out Broad. On a more general note, whilst Masden's actions were encouraging and even more so at a junior level with Alton CC, the principle of fair play results in unequal competition between 2 teams if one those teams believes in walking and the other does not. I was never a win-at-all costs player and always followed the principles of fairplay but I was also fortunate that all my team-mates were of the same attitude. With so much more money in the game now increasing the stakes, and the Australians seemingly entrenched in their position of letting the umpire decide, in the future I hope we can see a solution where players give their all to win in a way that is within the rules and follows the spirit of the game.

  • wrenx on September 23, 2013, 12:08 GMT

    @willsrustynuts Good to see you're against playing a game that is about batting, bowling and fielding better than the opposition, and backing one that is about convincing an umpire that you're right. Tell you what, let's get rid of the bats, balls and helmets, the white clothes and the 22 yards altogether. Let's just have podium with 3 umpires seated, and the opposing captains can come up for a spirited debate, after which the umpires can decide who wins.

  • tauranga on September 23, 2013, 12:07 GMT

    Well done Wayne but.....what on earth is the Umpire's role in cricket to become?

  • wrenx on September 23, 2013, 12:05 GMT

    That line from "To Kill a Mockingbird" comes to mind. We could do with a lot more of Atticus Finch's attitude to the game. Just because the majority oppose walking doesn't make it fair or right. Good on Madsen for not playing like a cheat. Cricket seems to be the only modern sport that tries so hard to institutionalise unfair play. Broad is the most recent target, but he's by no means alone. In my opinion, anyone who stands their ground after knowingly hitting it is not playing fair. And for all those arguments about how "there's nothing in the laws" and how "umpires should make the call" are simply advocating a game which is no longer about playing better than the opposition, but about convincing the umpire that you're right.

  • DeckChairand6pack on September 23, 2013, 12:00 GMT

    Great to see a Durban bloke receiving plaudits. Would he have behaved the same way if the match situation had been different? Possibly. Still, it's nice to see an example of honesty and fair play in the first class game.

  • Narkovian on September 23, 2013, 11:39 GMT

    @willsrustynuts.

    A lovely Freudian slip ?? Not Spot... love it.

  • on September 23, 2013, 11:26 GMT

    Wayne Madsen, captain of a team likely to be relegated this week, gets an "award" for walking in a game that his team lost. He has failed as captain this season.

  • njr1330 on September 23, 2013, 11:23 GMT

    'Walking has been uncommon in all forms of cricket in England for 50 years...' Which planet are you people on! Have you ever actually played cricket?! I was until recently the 3rd/4th team captain at a club in a tough northern league. I told the young players, that if they did not walk, they would not be selected next week. They all walked and said they felt better for having done it. Many opposition captains said: 'Wish my lads would do that' Is it worth scoring 100, if the opposition sneer 'Most of them came in his 2nd innings!' There are grey areas, where the batsman genuinely does not know if he has touched the ball, but they are rare!

  • JG2704 on September 23, 2013, 11:09 GMT

    Going back in time , I'm sure we all remember the incident where Dom Cork trod on his stumps and completed runs and then put the bails back on. It seemed at the time that the commentators were almost admiring the wherewithal he had to get away with it. I don't see that much difference here - just that Dom was seen as a charismatic cheeky chappy and Broad is not

  • JG2704 on September 23, 2013, 11:08 GMT

    @ Rowayton on (September 23, 2013, 0:26 GMT) How is walking when not given out dissent. The other way round (not walking when given out) and you have a point

  • Cyril_Knight on September 23, 2013, 10:11 GMT

    How on earth is walking after being given not out dissent? Lord! Please explain, the batsmen helps the umpire out, yet he's showing him disrespect. It is the ultimate form of respect to offer one's wicket when the umpire makes an error. What nonsense some of you write.

    Anyway if walking is enough to win this award then I suggest the award itself is nonsense.

  • on September 23, 2013, 10:11 GMT

    Glad to see it. If more people walked, there would be fewer bad decisions made. How many non-walkers have "got away with it" by not walking, only to be infuriated by getting a bad decision against them? Well if the umpire knows you'd walk if you'd hit it, then he knows that by not walking you haven't hit it. Pretty simple really.

    Other sports still retain a modicum of fair play in this respect. See for example Snooker players calling fouls on themselves when their clothing brushes the ball on the table. I love Cricket because it engenders fair play and respect - walking when you know you are out is part of this.

  • willsrustynuts on September 23, 2013, 9:44 GMT

    This award demonstrates almost perfectly how out of touch the MCC and BBC are. If he walked after the umpire gave him not out he should be reprimanded for bringing the game into disrepute...if...

    Ban walking. Make the batsman wait for the umpires decision. They have 2 umpires on the field, 1 or 2 in the box, Not Spot, Hawk-eye and a plethora of other tools to use. Walking is bringing the game into disrepute. BAN IT.

  • Nutcutlet on September 23, 2013, 9:32 GMT

    @ garibaldi on (September 23, 2013, 8:51 GMT): I was kinda waiting for that one! Of course, to be consistent, in my mind, Haddin just is as culpable as Broad. I think this award takes as its genesis & inspiration the inherent decency of CMJ himself. Now, everyone would agree that CMJ was 'old school' (something that I've been happy to have been accused of more than once, not least because it's good company to be in!) & these awards, year on year, are likely to highlight gestures like Wayne Madsen's that run counter the win-at-all-costs spirit of the modern professional game. And therein lies the flaw. What is the 'cost' of flouting the values that, were they the rule & not the exception to it, would lift cricket to the level of its reputation (now lost!) of 'It's not cricket.' Somewhere in all of this is the thin edge of the wedge. Who can remember the time when a gentleman's word was his bond? Ha! It comes down to an individual & his conscience, with or without God -- or umpires.

  • Ralphy145 on September 23, 2013, 8:54 GMT

    Easy to walk when your chasing 617... Would he have walked with 10 to win?

  • garibaldi on September 23, 2013, 8:51 GMT

    @nutcutlet presumably then you would be equally morally outraged at Brad Haddin, who didn't walk on the final day at Trent Bridge, despite knowing that he had hit the ball (by his own admission)? If not, then your attitude is hypocritical- what matters is surely whether you as a batsman know you have hit the ball. Not walking for a thin edge could be argued to be morally *worse* in a way, because you are only doing it because you think there's a better chance of getting away with it. If you *do* think Haddin should have walked- fair enough! The point is the attitude has to be consistent. How "obvious" the edge was is irrelevant.

  • zoot364 on September 23, 2013, 8:45 GMT

    What strikes me as odd about the Madsen incident is that he walked after the umpire had given him not out. Surely you walk before the decision, not after. Afterwards undermines the umpire by drawing attention to his error. I really don't think the award should be given for this.

  • JG2704 on September 23, 2013, 8:32 GMT

    @John-Price on (September 22, 2013, 19:45 GMT) It's a case of walking because you think you have zero chance of getting away with it - simple as that. I wonder if Broad may have even set a precedent and other non walkers (of which there are many) may choose not to walk

  • JG2704 on September 23, 2013, 8:28 GMT

    @jmcilhinney on (September 22, 2013, 23:23 GMT) Pretty much spot on. While it looked bad because it was SO obvious , many batsmen have not walked when they have edged less obviously (but still knowing they edged it). I'm not sure if I've ever seen such an obvious edge not given by an umpire and most batsmen would have walked anyway , but the point is how many batsmen would have walked because they are doing the right thing as opposed to walking because they feel they have no chance of getting away with it. Incidentally Broad walked to a less obvious one - I think in his next inns

  • Narkovian on September 23, 2013, 8:08 GMT

    The problem with the Broad case is not what happnened . Its because its Broad. He has made himself into a figure who people now boo when he comes on the field( YB40 Final), because of his petulance, and his attitude. The batsman is always out when he is bowling and he is never out when he is batting ! Then to compound things, he lets everyone including the umpire know how he feels about it.

  • crickluv on September 23, 2013, 4:37 GMT

    Jonny Bairstow even walks when he is not out, as against India last winter. I didn't see Gambhir lambasted in the media back then for claiming a catch that obviously bounced off his grille.

  • landl47 on September 23, 2013, 0:57 GMT

    While I'm sure Wayne Madsen is a great sportsman and a fine person, to announce that he is being given an award for sportsmanship because he takes it upon himself to make a decision which should be left to the umpires is just head-in-the-sand foolishness. This isn't the pre-1963 era, when cricketers were divided into gentlemen and players. The necessary corollary of saying that a player is sporting for walking is to say that those who don't walk are unsporting. That puts pretty much every test player in the world in the frame. It makes MCC look out-of-touch and irrelevant.

    Congratulations to the girls of Alton CC. Now THAT is sportsman (or in this case sportsgirl) ship at its best.

  • Rowayton on September 23, 2013, 0:26 GMT

    As an umpire myself this award strikes me as nonsense. He has walked after the umpire gave him not out? That's dissent, not the spirit of cricket. My example of the spirit of cricket - a wicketkeeper in my local comp who on a very windy day told me I should call a batsman back because the wind had blown a bail off while the ball was coming down the wicket and before he played the shot he got out to. Law 23.4(b)(iv). (We did, by the way, much to the mystification of the batsman.)

  • on September 22, 2013, 23:34 GMT

    To be fair Jonny Bairstow has normally been bowled, so he kind of has to walk.

  • alischeme on September 22, 2013, 23:29 GMT

    RESPECT to all these players who walk on their own accord.

  • jmcilhinney on September 22, 2013, 23:23 GMT

    I think that one question that needs to be asked regarding the incident involving Stuart Broad is what Australia would have done if the shoe was on the other foot. Many have said that Broad stood his ground because he knew that Australia was out of reviews. Let's imagine that it was England that was out of reviews and Broad had edged the ball onto his pad and been given out LBW. Does anyone believe that Australia would have recalled Broad under those circumstances? While it's certainly preferable that a batsman walks when he knows he's out, it's quite ridiculous to hold a grudge if they don't. I think one of the main reasons that people have an issue with Broad is that the ball ended up at first slip, even though they know that it was the deflection off Haddin's gloves that took it there. That's why what Darren Lehmann said on radio is so wrong. If Haddin had caught the ball then it wouldn't have been such a big deal because the edge wouldn't have appeared so obvious.

  • on September 22, 2013, 23:06 GMT

    oh who cares the umpires are there to make the decision and if they say not out and you have no reviews then oh well deal with it

    how many times are batsman given out when they dont hit the ball or get an inside edge but are out lbw???

  • on September 22, 2013, 22:47 GMT

    If you walk then walk, but dont walk for some and not for others if eveyone was consistent then surely it may rub off on others, do one or the other.

    I take my Hat off to Madsen, we know where he stands, every one else just be Consistent !!

  • Nutcutlet on September 22, 2013, 21:54 GMT

    Walking is such a contentious subject. Ultimately, it probably comes down the workings of an individual's conscience. I'm sure that Stuart Broad can rationise his decision (having anaethetized his conscience thereby) to stay at the crease and wait for the umpire to do his job, but to the onlooker it just looked like stretching a point past the point of absurdity and certainly he won no friends by his cynical attitude. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the England side doesn't have many friends round the world (even though many may admire the skills of many of the players) & with attitudes like Broad's it isn't surprising. I certainly would never defend Broad's attitude or action to anyone; it was the reverse of what I consider sporting. So, very well done to Wayne Madsen; he's in touch with his conscience & a clear conscience has no price on it. He is also likely to have fine friends with similar timeless & decent values - that comes with the territory inhabited by principled people.

  • on September 22, 2013, 21:51 GMT

    I don't see what the big fuss is about over this. I think it's perfectly correct to give a batsman credit for walking, but it's absolutely incorrect and shameful to demonise a batsman for not walking. What's so hard about that?

  • JG2704 on September 22, 2013, 21:00 GMT

    agree with Ohmatt that JB seems to have a good attitude towards walking. I think he walked in India where he may have got a reprieve if he stood his ground.

    Also why does the article author feel the need to go back to the Broad incident. Hardly anyone walks these days and can anyone tell me that if these batsmen don't walk for thin edges (where they knew they hit it) that (if they thought they might stay not out) they'd do different to Broad?

  • howdle on September 22, 2013, 21:00 GMT

    difficult not to walk when your stumps have been knocked over though

  • Iddo555 on September 22, 2013, 20:32 GMT

    I don't think anyone should walk, leave it for the umpire to give you out and look at it as some you win some you lose. There will be occasions when you know you haven't hit and are given out caught so let it even itself out.

    The individual in the article might have got an award but his team lost the game. You could actually look at his attitude as selfish, the team need him out there not back in the shed giving it the high and mighty attitude. it might be the difference between being relegated or not.

    The umpire is paid to do a job, let him do it

  • Munkeymomo on September 22, 2013, 20:18 GMT

    @OMM: He walks because he is generally clean bowled thanks to his awful technique.

    Also this is county cricket related so let's keep the test match talk out of this.

    Surprised Gareth Batty wasn't up for this award...

  • John-Price on September 22, 2013, 19:45 GMT

    What intrigued me was Tom Moody's reaction who said he was never a walker, but would not have hung around for a thick edge like the one Broad got. I found it hard to understand his logic - surely if you are happy to get away with a thin edge then the same would apply to a thick edge?

  • Stumay on September 22, 2013, 19:37 GMT

    I mean no disrespect at all to Wayne Madsen but it's a sad state of affairs walking is the best example we can find of The Spirit of Cricket in action.

  • OhhhhhMattyMatty on September 22, 2013, 16:40 GMT

    This should have gone to Jonny Bairstow who walks in a Test match every time without fail, despite not being a guaranteed starter! Wonderful attitude from a young man destined for greatness!

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • OhhhhhMattyMatty on September 22, 2013, 16:40 GMT

    This should have gone to Jonny Bairstow who walks in a Test match every time without fail, despite not being a guaranteed starter! Wonderful attitude from a young man destined for greatness!

  • Stumay on September 22, 2013, 19:37 GMT

    I mean no disrespect at all to Wayne Madsen but it's a sad state of affairs walking is the best example we can find of The Spirit of Cricket in action.

  • John-Price on September 22, 2013, 19:45 GMT

    What intrigued me was Tom Moody's reaction who said he was never a walker, but would not have hung around for a thick edge like the one Broad got. I found it hard to understand his logic - surely if you are happy to get away with a thin edge then the same would apply to a thick edge?

  • Munkeymomo on September 22, 2013, 20:18 GMT

    @OMM: He walks because he is generally clean bowled thanks to his awful technique.

    Also this is county cricket related so let's keep the test match talk out of this.

    Surprised Gareth Batty wasn't up for this award...

  • Iddo555 on September 22, 2013, 20:32 GMT

    I don't think anyone should walk, leave it for the umpire to give you out and look at it as some you win some you lose. There will be occasions when you know you haven't hit and are given out caught so let it even itself out.

    The individual in the article might have got an award but his team lost the game. You could actually look at his attitude as selfish, the team need him out there not back in the shed giving it the high and mighty attitude. it might be the difference between being relegated or not.

    The umpire is paid to do a job, let him do it

  • howdle on September 22, 2013, 21:00 GMT

    difficult not to walk when your stumps have been knocked over though

  • JG2704 on September 22, 2013, 21:00 GMT

    agree with Ohmatt that JB seems to have a good attitude towards walking. I think he walked in India where he may have got a reprieve if he stood his ground.

    Also why does the article author feel the need to go back to the Broad incident. Hardly anyone walks these days and can anyone tell me that if these batsmen don't walk for thin edges (where they knew they hit it) that (if they thought they might stay not out) they'd do different to Broad?

  • on September 22, 2013, 21:51 GMT

    I don't see what the big fuss is about over this. I think it's perfectly correct to give a batsman credit for walking, but it's absolutely incorrect and shameful to demonise a batsman for not walking. What's so hard about that?

  • Nutcutlet on September 22, 2013, 21:54 GMT

    Walking is such a contentious subject. Ultimately, it probably comes down the workings of an individual's conscience. I'm sure that Stuart Broad can rationise his decision (having anaethetized his conscience thereby) to stay at the crease and wait for the umpire to do his job, but to the onlooker it just looked like stretching a point past the point of absurdity and certainly he won no friends by his cynical attitude. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the England side doesn't have many friends round the world (even though many may admire the skills of many of the players) & with attitudes like Broad's it isn't surprising. I certainly would never defend Broad's attitude or action to anyone; it was the reverse of what I consider sporting. So, very well done to Wayne Madsen; he's in touch with his conscience & a clear conscience has no price on it. He is also likely to have fine friends with similar timeless & decent values - that comes with the territory inhabited by principled people.

  • on September 22, 2013, 22:47 GMT

    If you walk then walk, but dont walk for some and not for others if eveyone was consistent then surely it may rub off on others, do one or the other.

    I take my Hat off to Madsen, we know where he stands, every one else just be Consistent !!