The Ashes 2013-14 October 28, 2013

Broad still stands his ground

  shares 72

Stuart Broad, who has been presented as Australia's "public enemy No. 1" since his refusal to walk in the Trent Bridge Test proved a pivotal point in the last Ashes series, has wasted no time in informing his critics that if the circumstances were repeated he might do the same again.

England have indicated that Broad will have an extra security presence if there are signs of lingering aggression among the Australian public, but despite the personal pressures that puts him under, nearly four months later he is still determinedly standing his ground.

It was never likely that Broad would attempt to mollify his critics with a tactical expression of regret for the fateful moment when he nicked the teenage Australian spinner Ashton Agar off the gloves of wicketkeeper Brad Haddin to first slip and indulged in some red-faced gardening while the umpire Aleem Dar, seemingly confused by the deflection, adjudged him not out.

He will simply try to win them over with a searingly honest cricket assessment: he has never been a walker, he is not about to start now and, in that, he is no different to the vast majority who play the game.

The issue of whether Broad had any regrets was raised by a former England captain, Michael Vaughan, on BBC Five Live. It was a question he would have been expecting. "No, we would have lost the game," he responded. "I've never been a walker so why would I walk when the umpire's given me not out?

"I could name you 18 or 19 players who played in an Ashes series who nicked it and didn't walk. We could be here all day if I named players from the past. I am trying to think of someone in the modern game who is consistently a walker.

"It's a really interesting debate and something that got blown so out of proportion maybe because the Australians were frustrated they had wasted two referrals. It was an important moment in the game because, let's be honest, if Belly and I hadn't put on those runs, we wouldn't have won the Test match so we would only have won 3-1 or something."

As the debate raged about whether Broad had offended the Spirit of Cricket, England sneaked the Trent Bridge Test by 14 runs, the 138-run stand between Broad and Ian Bell proving decisive. Broad was pilloried by the media for his lack of moral self-policing but he was widely defended by those in the game.

On the surface, as he showed in that split-second at Trent Bridge, he is blessed with the ability to look a picture of serenity, but until Manchester gets its act together and drills bore holes into the underground Cheshire Basin reservoir he remains Britain's major source of geothermal energy with copious amounts of steam liable to bubble to the surface at any moment. His only sensible choice is to tell it as it is.

He would be encouraged to know of a poll taken in the Melbourne Age back in mid-July when Australia's resentment was at its highest. The case for Broad to walk was argued eruditely by the Age's respected columnist, Greg Baum, who termed his decision "unconscionable", but 40 per cent of respondents to a poll - presumably, even in this global age, predominantly Australian - supported his decision to await the umpire's decision. As anger has a habit of gradually subsiding, Broad can safely assume that as the first Test in Brisbane nears at least half of the Australian cricketing public has no issue whatsoever with what he did.

As it happened, he did walk later in the Ashes series, but that should not be regarded as a change of policy. "It happens in a split second," he said. "There are times when you nick it and you're so frustrated with yourself you get your head down and you storm off because you're annoyed."

Australia's coach Darren Lehmann later accused Broad of "blatant cheating" and in a laddish, none-too-serious interview on the Triple M radio station, exhorted the Australian public to "get stuck into him when he comes to Australia". The England team, and the ECB, were incensed with Lehmann's truculence and he was fined 20 per cent of his match fee for "inappropriate comments".

Broad revealed more details of his peace-making chat with Lehmann after the series as well as suggesting that Australia's players had also rebuked their coach for overstepping the line.

"Ryan Harris came over to me and apologised," Broad said. "First of all he said from the players we have given him a hard time and his comments were unacceptable. Then Lehmann came across and said: 'I meant it in jest'. I said that in black and white it doesn't look like jest to me. He said something along the lines of: 'Listen to the interview', and I said: 'I have far better things to do with my time', and that was about it. We shared a nice beer and I said: 'See you in November'."

But if Broad is relying on honest-to-goodness debate on to see him through the Test series unscathed, it is by no means certain that a section of the Australian media feels the same way. That has been interpreted by one Australian newspaper as a refusal to accept Lehmann's apology and described as "fanning the flames". When he asked for some interesting Australians to follow on Twitter, his attempt at bridge building was reported, quite outlandishly, as him "baiting" Australia fans on social media.

Australia has its public enemy No. 1 and they intend him to top the charts until the New Year. That he will receive a hostile welcome at The Gabba in little more than three weeks' time can be taken for granted.

David Hopps is the UK editor of ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY on | October 30, 2013, 12:10 GMT

    @yorkshire pudding - I am not talking about whether the incident was sporting or not. In fact I actually have no real problem with broad not walking (because it was within the rules), although my concern is why does a fielder get penalised then. I am comparing these 2 incidents to describe the sudden change in opinion of Andy Flower towards "spirit of game" which I find ridiculous. Had he opposed Broad then I would have no problem, because then he is sticking to one side of river. but here it is a case of using the definition of "spirit of game" to the way it suits him. In the bell incident, the 3rd umpire also made the decision, so why did coach fail to accept it then. It is the logic behind coach's (and players involved in that incident) support for broad that I find hypocritical. I support Jardine in this regard that while he felt nothing was wrong with 'bodyline' he wasn't complaining when on the receiving end against WI.

  • POSTED BY YorkshirePudding on | October 30, 2013, 9:51 GMT

    @Naman Gupta, in regards to Bell, I personally was uncomfortable about what happened, however, the Indian players in the deep were starting to congregate towards to pavillio and walk off, dhoni was taking off his gloves, and the slips had recovered the helmets from behind the stumps.

    this suggests that either the Indian players considered that it was lunch, or that they were deliberately attempting to mislead bell into leaving his ground.

    As others have stated India came out with a great deal of credit when they reversed their decision as witnessed by the applause of the crowd when it was announced they'd withdrawn the appeal.

  • POSTED BY JG2704 on | October 30, 2013, 9:32 GMT

    @ Chris_P on (October 30, 2013, 3:46 GMT) lol - I reckon your view is shared by most balanced people period. I'll admit I'd not be happy with any opposing player (at the time) but I'd be more livid with the umpire for missing such an obvious edge. What I like about Broad is that he told it as it was. I may be wrong but I seem to recall that Broad got a plum LBW as a bowler later on and it was not given and Eng had no reviews. So long as he doesn't squeal when he gets a bad one there's no huge issue for me

  • POSTED BY JG2704 on | October 30, 2013, 9:26 GMT

    @Naman Gupta on (October 30, 2013, 0:11 GMT) - As I said before , I think Flower/Strauss wanted to avoid future hostility and as I said before if Eng ran a player out who was walking off for tea , I'd be much more uncomfortable than I would be with a player standing their ground. To me one case was of a team (or maybe I should say a couple of players as Dravid said the team felt uncomfortable about it) trying to slyly get a cheap wicket while a player was walking off for tea and the other is of a player standing his ground in front of everyone , waiting for the umpire to give his decision Also Dravid (when interviewed re the Bell incident at the time) said the players felt uncomfortable about it and acc to this piece the Aus players had no issue with Broad not walking and on this thread the posts from Aus fans go along with this - end of matter.

  • POSTED BY Chris_P on | October 30, 2013, 3:46 GMT

    @JG2704. I reckon my view is shared by most Aussie cricketers and that is umpiring decisions are left to umpires. Maybe when I see an umpire playing some of my shots and scoring runs for me, I might think about helping him do his job by walking, but seriously, I won't be holding my breath for that to happen. Really, no serious Aussie cricket player is knocking Broad, it's a media beat-up, trust me.

  • POSTED BY on | October 30, 2013, 0:11 GMT

    @JG2704 - what u consider sporting or unsporting is ur opinion. But u have to abide by it. This was a case of flower demanding a withdrawal of dhoni's appeal under the name of spirit of game, but then defending broad when England were the beneficiary. So now with broad's case, this side were the ones benefiting from it so it was all fine and 'within the rules'. But when opposition did something similar against the same side, it was 'against the spirit of game'. Now don't u find this hypocritical. Douglas jardine employed body line, but he never complained when he was on receiving end against WI. U pick a side of a river u stay there, not switch sides based on when situation suits u.

  • POSTED BY njr1330 on | October 29, 2013, 23:55 GMT

    To change the subject slightly, the great 'walking' incident is the one involving Adam Gilchrist, when he was given Not Out but walked off anyway...I have watched that incident a dozen times on You Tube...and I am convinced that Gilly, in fact, DIDN'T hit it, but went off anyway!!

  • POSTED BY Biggus on | October 29, 2013, 23:46 GMT

    This is all white noise. I'm an Aussie and don't expect anyone to walk, almost no-one does anymore. Everything about this has been blown out of all proportion, from my countrymen who made such a big deal of it at the time to the English who got so stressed out about a few words Darren Lehman said in a radio interview when he was plainly mucking around with the host. Enough already, give it a rest.

  • POSTED BY JG2704 on | October 29, 2013, 17:23 GMT

    @ oscoli67 - Broad himself says in this interview

    "It happens in a split second," he said. "There are times when you nick it and you're so frustrated with yourself you get your head down and you storm off because you're annoyed."

    Maybe he walked 2nd time because he knew they had referrals left or maybe he just didn't have the wherewithal about him in that innings. TBH , I'd say the latter as I'm not sure a player coming in late order would know what reviews the other side had left and there's always the chance that the Aus players would not be 100% sure and choose not to review it and I'm not sure he knew Aus had no reviews in the 1st inns. I believe that Broad just doesn't walk unless he drops his guard so to speak

  • POSTED BY HumungousFungus on | October 29, 2013, 13:55 GMT

    All this fuss about something that has been a part of cricket for decades...I will point all readers and commentators towards Michael Hussey's recent autobiography. In it, the phrase "I nicked one but was given not out" or "[Batsman X] nicked one and was given not out" appears at least half a dozen times...This is professional sport, with professional decision makers. If the umpire makes a mistake, and there are no reviews left, then that, I'm afraid, is that. People can get on their high horses all they want about Stuart Broad, but what he did this Summer was no worse than any number of similar incidents that have happened in that and other recent series, and the fact that the ball went to slip (via the wicket keeper) is completely incidental. Broad knew he had hit it, gave the umpire the opportunity to give him out, the umpire gave him not out, Australia had no reviews left. End of story. Be in no doubt that Broad would NOT have reviewed it, had he been given out.

  • POSTED BY on | October 30, 2013, 12:10 GMT

    @yorkshire pudding - I am not talking about whether the incident was sporting or not. In fact I actually have no real problem with broad not walking (because it was within the rules), although my concern is why does a fielder get penalised then. I am comparing these 2 incidents to describe the sudden change in opinion of Andy Flower towards "spirit of game" which I find ridiculous. Had he opposed Broad then I would have no problem, because then he is sticking to one side of river. but here it is a case of using the definition of "spirit of game" to the way it suits him. In the bell incident, the 3rd umpire also made the decision, so why did coach fail to accept it then. It is the logic behind coach's (and players involved in that incident) support for broad that I find hypocritical. I support Jardine in this regard that while he felt nothing was wrong with 'bodyline' he wasn't complaining when on the receiving end against WI.

  • POSTED BY YorkshirePudding on | October 30, 2013, 9:51 GMT

    @Naman Gupta, in regards to Bell, I personally was uncomfortable about what happened, however, the Indian players in the deep were starting to congregate towards to pavillio and walk off, dhoni was taking off his gloves, and the slips had recovered the helmets from behind the stumps.

    this suggests that either the Indian players considered that it was lunch, or that they were deliberately attempting to mislead bell into leaving his ground.

    As others have stated India came out with a great deal of credit when they reversed their decision as witnessed by the applause of the crowd when it was announced they'd withdrawn the appeal.

  • POSTED BY JG2704 on | October 30, 2013, 9:32 GMT

    @ Chris_P on (October 30, 2013, 3:46 GMT) lol - I reckon your view is shared by most balanced people period. I'll admit I'd not be happy with any opposing player (at the time) but I'd be more livid with the umpire for missing such an obvious edge. What I like about Broad is that he told it as it was. I may be wrong but I seem to recall that Broad got a plum LBW as a bowler later on and it was not given and Eng had no reviews. So long as he doesn't squeal when he gets a bad one there's no huge issue for me

  • POSTED BY JG2704 on | October 30, 2013, 9:26 GMT

    @Naman Gupta on (October 30, 2013, 0:11 GMT) - As I said before , I think Flower/Strauss wanted to avoid future hostility and as I said before if Eng ran a player out who was walking off for tea , I'd be much more uncomfortable than I would be with a player standing their ground. To me one case was of a team (or maybe I should say a couple of players as Dravid said the team felt uncomfortable about it) trying to slyly get a cheap wicket while a player was walking off for tea and the other is of a player standing his ground in front of everyone , waiting for the umpire to give his decision Also Dravid (when interviewed re the Bell incident at the time) said the players felt uncomfortable about it and acc to this piece the Aus players had no issue with Broad not walking and on this thread the posts from Aus fans go along with this - end of matter.

  • POSTED BY Chris_P on | October 30, 2013, 3:46 GMT

    @JG2704. I reckon my view is shared by most Aussie cricketers and that is umpiring decisions are left to umpires. Maybe when I see an umpire playing some of my shots and scoring runs for me, I might think about helping him do his job by walking, but seriously, I won't be holding my breath for that to happen. Really, no serious Aussie cricket player is knocking Broad, it's a media beat-up, trust me.

  • POSTED BY on | October 30, 2013, 0:11 GMT

    @JG2704 - what u consider sporting or unsporting is ur opinion. But u have to abide by it. This was a case of flower demanding a withdrawal of dhoni's appeal under the name of spirit of game, but then defending broad when England were the beneficiary. So now with broad's case, this side were the ones benefiting from it so it was all fine and 'within the rules'. But when opposition did something similar against the same side, it was 'against the spirit of game'. Now don't u find this hypocritical. Douglas jardine employed body line, but he never complained when he was on receiving end against WI. U pick a side of a river u stay there, not switch sides based on when situation suits u.

  • POSTED BY njr1330 on | October 29, 2013, 23:55 GMT

    To change the subject slightly, the great 'walking' incident is the one involving Adam Gilchrist, when he was given Not Out but walked off anyway...I have watched that incident a dozen times on You Tube...and I am convinced that Gilly, in fact, DIDN'T hit it, but went off anyway!!

  • POSTED BY Biggus on | October 29, 2013, 23:46 GMT

    This is all white noise. I'm an Aussie and don't expect anyone to walk, almost no-one does anymore. Everything about this has been blown out of all proportion, from my countrymen who made such a big deal of it at the time to the English who got so stressed out about a few words Darren Lehman said in a radio interview when he was plainly mucking around with the host. Enough already, give it a rest.

  • POSTED BY JG2704 on | October 29, 2013, 17:23 GMT

    @ oscoli67 - Broad himself says in this interview

    "It happens in a split second," he said. "There are times when you nick it and you're so frustrated with yourself you get your head down and you storm off because you're annoyed."

    Maybe he walked 2nd time because he knew they had referrals left or maybe he just didn't have the wherewithal about him in that innings. TBH , I'd say the latter as I'm not sure a player coming in late order would know what reviews the other side had left and there's always the chance that the Aus players would not be 100% sure and choose not to review it and I'm not sure he knew Aus had no reviews in the 1st inns. I believe that Broad just doesn't walk unless he drops his guard so to speak

  • POSTED BY HumungousFungus on | October 29, 2013, 13:55 GMT

    All this fuss about something that has been a part of cricket for decades...I will point all readers and commentators towards Michael Hussey's recent autobiography. In it, the phrase "I nicked one but was given not out" or "[Batsman X] nicked one and was given not out" appears at least half a dozen times...This is professional sport, with professional decision makers. If the umpire makes a mistake, and there are no reviews left, then that, I'm afraid, is that. People can get on their high horses all they want about Stuart Broad, but what he did this Summer was no worse than any number of similar incidents that have happened in that and other recent series, and the fact that the ball went to slip (via the wicket keeper) is completely incidental. Broad knew he had hit it, gave the umpire the opportunity to give him out, the umpire gave him not out, Australia had no reviews left. End of story. Be in no doubt that Broad would NOT have reviewed it, had he been given out.

  • POSTED BY JustIPL on | October 29, 2013, 13:21 GMT

    Hope broad will put it behind and continue his assault of the opponents as he did among others to pakistan, india and aussies. He is the golden boy of english cricket and has a bright future ahead of him. We should excuse him and back him for attractive cricket that he plays as a budding all-rounder.

  • POSTED BY JG2704 on | October 29, 2013, 12:41 GMT

    @maximum6 on (October 29, 2013, 12:01 GMT) To be fair , Agar's decision was pretty marginal. I genuinely could not see any batsmen walking for a stumping , especially after it was analysed and given not out by an umpire.

  • POSTED BY 2.14istherunrate on | October 29, 2013, 12:01 GMT

    If one attributes this to poor umpiring,given Dar was largely unsighted then we have to balance this with Erasmus' decision in favour of Agar where he was far from unsighted and had endless playbacks to use. Agar too, it should be said, could have walked and certainly should have been sent on his way. The best news is that the same preposterous imposters masquerading as umpires are to take centre stage again. Yipee! So we can expect a load more controversy downunder; that and Lehman's stand up comedy routine.

  • POSTED BY it_happened_last_in_2001. on | October 29, 2013, 10:05 GMT

    Why was it that Broad tucked his bat under his arm and marched off when he had played a much thinner nick than at Trent Bridge to Haddin off Lyon at Old Trafford? Does he like Lyon but not like Agar? Nope! The simple fact is that he was smart enough to know there were no reviews left at Nottingham. Australia wasted their reviews and paid the price for it. Haddin admitted knowing he edged to Prior in the 2nd innings - England had a review left and the rest is history. Neither Broad nor Haddin cheated. They both waited for the umpire's decision. The key difference was one team managed their allocation of reviews better than the other. Lessons to learn for Clarke & Lehmann.

  • POSTED BY JG2704 on | October 29, 2013, 9:28 GMT

    @Naman Gupta -) Personally , I think India were unsporting to begin with in running out a player who (albeit naively) didn't realise the ball was still live and it was obvious to anyone watching that Bell was walking off for tea. Dravid (when interviewed) said that the dressing room felt most uncomfortable about it. And I thought Indian players came out with credit afterwards I think another point why the Broad issue has caused more discussion is that in the India test the Bell incident was unlikely to affect the result as I don't remember too many runs were added before he was properly out. In this game , the runs Broad/Bell put on after the incident were crucial to the result

    @Alexk400 - But that's not morality is it? If you know you've got the thinnest of edges and you don't walk then you're no better morally speaking than someone who who gets a solid edge and doesn't walk.

  • POSTED BY on | October 29, 2013, 9:16 GMT

    Remember Clarke not walking and tweeting about it the next day. Is it better to know you've nicked it and not walk because it's a less obvious edge. Isn't that just being sneaky? What's worse, sneaky or blatant? I prefer blatant every time.

  • POSTED BY on | October 29, 2013, 9:00 GMT

    @5womats - 3rd umpire gave bell out aswell.So whats ur point. But did the Aussie cricketers come to broad and ask him to change the decision.No.So why was't the 'great umpire's' decision accepted then.Why did England come to Indian dressing room to have the appeal overturned in their favour.Explain?And lets face it - it was hypocritical for Andy flower and the English cricketers involved in that bell incident to support broad for not walking.@jmcilhinney - so one incident is less common than another another, means it is not as bad. Go back to the middle ages-more men abused their wife than fail to attend church on a sunday. Does this mean that the bible suggests that abusing ur wife is not as bad as failing to attend church on a Sunday. Point is just because crime A is more common than crime B , doesn't mean it is worse. Regarding fans - that I agree. But I am not talking about fans. What I am talking about of the approach of THIS current team towards the spirit of game.

  • POSTED BY Vleis on | October 29, 2013, 8:28 GMT

    To say that the walking incident has been blown out of proportion, is the understatement of the century. However, Broad is a unlikeable chap, so he should not be surprised when the opposition fans/media take a dislike to him. For example, despite having a pathetic bowling average of 40 against SA (and no major 'walking' incident to speak of), he nevertheless copped more abuse from the fans than any other English cricketer when he visited our shores...apart from Pietersen maybe!

  • POSTED BY satishchandar on | October 29, 2013, 7:28 GMT

    Even in that famous edge to slip instance, i wouldn't blame Broad completely.. If a umpire is not able to detect that thick edge, there is some big problem with the system.. Broad didn;t do anything but to simply wait for one person to do his job.. When that guy didnot do it well, Broad just felt luck is smiling at him and continued.. There are 100s of batsmen who wait for umpire to give them out when edging the ball back.. Broad is one of them and not the ONLY one..

  • POSTED BY Woody111 on | October 29, 2013, 7:19 GMT

    To put in perspective; Broad's non-walking was more about icing on the cake for a player we decidedly dislike here in Aus. He has never endeared himself to the Aus public and he has no need to - he's English! The fact that on his day he can run through our batsmen doesn't help but clearly he doesn't care what we think of him, and nor should he. He'll cop all kinds of grief here but anyone that goes to test matches views such behaviour every day. Whoever is the poor bloke fielding on the boundary knows what to expect. The only thing that remains to be seen is how Broad handles it. He should take a leaf out of KP's book who dealt with it perfectly in Adelaide last time; granted he'd made a double ton though!

  • POSTED BY 5wombats on | October 29, 2013, 6:28 GMT

    This whole "Broad not walking" thing was a load of drivel at the time and it is an even bigger load of drivel now. Its only been brought up again because there is nothing to talk about. Which is odd because this is nothing as well, so I am not going to talk about it except to point that I am not. However, @Naman Gupta on (October 28, 2013, 20:40 GMT) - what could this incident possibly have to do with India and the Bell affair? In fact - @Naman Gupta, why are you even here? The umpire gave Broad NOT OUT. That means he was NOT OUT. I always was brought up to believe that the Umpires decision was final. End of.....

  • POSTED BY jmcilhinney on | October 29, 2013, 6:00 GMT

    @Naman Gupta on (October 28, 2013, 20:40 GMT), you're wrong about Australia because their coach and many of their fans ARE talking about sportsmanship. You're quite right about England though, at least in regards to many of the fans. While it was a highly unusual set of circumstances, Bell was out fair and square and for any England fans to boo India or call them cheats was a disgrace. Had India refused to reinstate Bell, I very much doubt that any of the England team or management would have complained but many fans would have. That said, had the situation been reversed then I've no doubt that many Indian fans would have acted the very same way. I'd not be surprised if Strauss and Flower would have done as Dhoni did in the same circumstances. Unlike Ian Bell's run out, which was pretty close to unique, Broad's non-dismissal was quite ordinary and we've seen with our own eyes various Australian cricketers, their current captain included, behave exactly as Broad did.

  • POSTED BY GlobalCricketLover on | October 29, 2013, 4:52 GMT

    Remember symonds nicking Ishant sharma to the keeper? the nick that everyone else in the stadium heard even in the real time? it is ok for a batsman not to walk whether it is symonds or broad.. let's give it a rest and enjoy the game..When a batsman doesn't nick but is given out do we ask him to stay back??? If a batsman walks well and good, but if he doesn't, let's not complain.

  • POSTED BY Alexk400 on | October 29, 2013, 4:41 GMT

    This is a morality issue. There is no reason to stand ground when there is a .00001 doubt. But when you knick the ball and wicket keeper catches , you should better walk. Its like thiefs continue to steal infront of you because there is no cop coming. :)

    I could give worse example . its R rated.

  • POSTED BY on | October 29, 2013, 2:49 GMT

    To those of you talking about putting a line under this, you might try talking to the scores of Indian fans still angry about the Sydney test.

    For those of you prattling on about umpire's opinion. That's rubbish, batsmen deliberately try to mislead the umpire when they stand their ground.

    NOTE: batsmen don't always know if they've hit the ball, they can hit their shoe or pad & think it's the ball or hit the ball & think it's shoe/pad/ground. if you're uncertain, fair enough.

    If someone is brought up believing that no ethical standards apply to on field actions what do we expect?

  • POSTED BY Chris_Howard on | October 29, 2013, 1:36 GMT

    Whoa! The Aussie players were embarrassed and apologetic of their coach. That is a bigger story than Broad not walking. Lehmann was meant to be the saviour, but instead he is just an embarrassing Boof.

  • POSTED BY kapsy on | October 28, 2013, 22:38 GMT

    I have always walked and I always will. That's my choice. It irks me when somebody doesn't. Most Aussies don't walk. That's their choice. Hence, they lose their right to whinge when other follow suit. Broad was well within his right to stand his ground. In the same match, Brad Haddin did exactly that. Local Aussies don;t think any less of Broad.

  • POSTED BY landl47 on | October 28, 2013, 22:03 GMT

    This is simply a load of nonsense about nothing at all. If anyone is complaining, then they should remember that Brad Haddin nicked the ball to the keeper to end the game. He didn't walk and it took an England review to get him out. Haddin KNEW he'd hit the ball and admitted it afterwards.

    When Australians give Haddin a hard time because he didn't walk then I'll believe this is about sportsmanship. If they don't (and you know they won't) then it's not about sportsmanship, it's about gamesmanship- trying to put an opposition player off. That's fine, the Barmy Army have been doing it for years. Let's see whether it affects Broad. I'm guessing he'll love it.

  • POSTED BY JG2704 on | October 28, 2013, 21:24 GMT

    @The_other_side - The problem is that you're then entering grey areas if you give the 3rd umpire more responsibility. IMO one thing DRS has done has reduced excessive appealing. If a batsman feels wronged by a bad decision he can review it and if a bowler thinks he has a wicket , likewise he can review it, Reviewing it is a legal , above board way of querying an umpire's decision. You could give a team more reviews but that adds to the stop/start issues which folk are trying to avoid. I genuinely believe that if you gave the 3rd umpire licence to overturn decisions you would have a team using their reviews speculatively - knowing that if they get one later on which should be overturned it doesn't matter that they wasted their reviews. And then what if the 3rd umpire misses something which could be overturned? He'd surely be accused of favouritism. At least - as it stands - each review is decided by the teams and if the reviews are wasted , that's their problem

  • POSTED BY JG2704 on | October 28, 2013, 21:24 GMT

    @xtrafalgarx on (October 28, 2013, 15:10 GMT) S1 is correct. Many teams have speculatively used reviews and there is a gamble element on those which you think are tight. Sometimes a team may try one of these if it is a key batsmen and hope the marginal decision goes there way - eg on a marginal decision Eng might for example take a risk on a marginal call on someone like Clarke but not on a similar marginal call for a lower order batsman because Clarke is such a huge wicket I'm convinced that England weren't at all convinced on the Haddin wicket and had they used the reviews for marginal decs as did Aus (on one of theirs) they'd not have won that game.

    @Nathan Cramb on (October 28, 2013, 16:55 GMT) Don't see walking as anything but exemplary behaviour and certainly not disrespecting the umpire's decision. I'm sure most umpire's would see it as helping them out.

  • POSTED BY py0alb on | October 28, 2013, 21:23 GMT

    Good. He shouldn't apologise, he did nothing wrong. I would be dismayed to see an England player show up the umpire by walking off after being given not out. The umpire's word is final, no player has the right to overrule him.

  • POSTED BY on | October 28, 2013, 20:40 GMT

    "Australia shouldn't be talking about sportsmanship". But they don't England does that. Remember the Ian Bell run out. England motto on spirit of game: don't follow it but cry foul when on the receiving end.

  • POSTED BY oldfart on | October 28, 2013, 20:40 GMT

    Your'e all missing the point. Who cares if it's an Englishman or an Australian walking or not walking, two wrongs don't make a right. Broad, by his body language and the look on his face knew he had hit it. (Not a faint edge as one person put it) And knew he could get away with it. He states " IF I HAD WALKED WE WOULD HAVE LOST THE MATCH". This is what modern day cricket has come to. What if England had lost? So what. There are no points there are no league standings it's one match. I know some will argue "But it's the Ashes" again so what.

  • POSTED BY skilebow on | October 28, 2013, 19:46 GMT

    @Nathan Cramb - Well no it isn't. The umpire declared him not out, so how can you say he disrespected his decision?! But anyway the rights and wrongs of this incident have be debated to death

  • POSTED BY whatawicket on | October 28, 2013, 19:11 GMT

    not even sure why its been brought up again.we have had numerous items on the same incident on here making this the 4 th time, talk about overkill i know topics are slim on the ground during this time of the season.the biggest culprits are the Aussies in tests and state games. will he get some stick, maybe, will lit bother him, maybe.do we care not a jot. bring on the ashes.

  • POSTED BY 2.14istherunrate on | October 28, 2013, 18:07 GMT

    It's no good the Aussies whingeing about this. I suppose they happily believe that the English should walk while they do not.Typical Australian! Quite frankly for them to complain, since I have never seen an Aussie walk since 1968 apart from Gilchrist, shows just how soft in the head they are now. Pathetic! I hope there are few more of these episodes to really get under their skin.And while we are about it should not we be trying to get into Johnson's mind a bit just to show his rehab is only half successful?

  • POSTED BY ladycricfan on | October 28, 2013, 18:01 GMT

    I don't think there is any definite answer for it. If batsman walk it is fine. If batsman doesn't walk, he thinks it is fine. Known walkers sometimes don't walk. Non walkers sometimes walk. Some batsmen sometimes don't know if they have hit the ball, specially when the pad is also involved. Sanga even walks when not a single creature in the world thinks he feathered it. Whatever batsman decides at the moment just take it and move on.

  • POSTED BY willsrustynuts on | October 28, 2013, 17:43 GMT

    Broad is a hugely talented cricketer and Australians that love the game will come to admire him for that.

  • POSTED BY NadeemAbbasi on | October 28, 2013, 17:39 GMT

    Walking and not Walking is a Personal Decision. But I don't understand why if a fielder takes a bumped ball and appeals for catch is penalized while it is perfectly OK for batsmen to rub his hands or arms to distract the umpire while he clearly knows that the ball had hit his gloves.

  • POSTED BY hhillbumper on | October 28, 2013, 17:37 GMT

    Hope the Aussies give him grief.He needs a gee up some times and we all know what he did to their batting line up.Of course if you can call it a batting line up.

    I have enjoyed the Aussies taking the moral high ground.Maybe they should win some tests and gain some real high ground

  • POSTED BY bobbysimpson on | October 28, 2013, 17:21 GMT

    Thing is, he didn't nick it to first slip - he got a faint edge to the keeper who parried it to slip.

    Also Aussies had used up their reviews, plenty of them didn't walk during the series. I think it's high time to move on

  • POSTED BY on | October 28, 2013, 16:55 GMT

    I was brought up being taught to always respect the umpire's decision even when you think he is wrong. Surely walking is disrespecting his decision.

  • POSTED BY itsthewayuplay on | October 28, 2013, 16:31 GMT

    I'm no fan of Broad and whatever anyone thought of the incident back and the issues it raised, that was then and this now. A line really has to be drawn under the issue and the talk should be about hoping that this series will be better than the last one (which was good).

  • POSTED BY on | October 28, 2013, 16:16 GMT

    @Keith Godwin Chapman on (October 28, 2013, 13:33 GMT): You said:

    "...In the past (When DRS was not in place) walking was the right thing to do. But in the modern era a player should not be forced to walk to be a gentlemen..."

    Let me give you an analogy, and see how you would react:

    "Modern day Banks have all sort of of tight security systems -- both human & technological. So, it is OK to try a bank robbery, and don't try to avoid it and be a gentleman. If the Banks are smart, let them catch you. In the old days, when most banks had just a famished looking guard with an archaic shotgun which is not even loaded, it would not have been gentlemanly to commit bank robberies"

    That seems to be an agreeable statement for you, at least for a post in a popular public domain like Cricinfo. Perhaps, hopefully, not in real life! :-)

  • POSTED BY Front-Foot-Lunge on | October 28, 2013, 16:15 GMT

    The umpire made a mistake. Australia and Lehmann can't stop whinging for the rest of time. Meanwhile England keep winning Ashes after Ashes. Nothing new to see here, move on please...

  • POSTED BY DylanBrah on | October 28, 2013, 16:13 GMT

    It will be fun to give him a little bit of stick at the Gabba this summer, but nothing overboard. At the end of the day the umpiring was absolutely atrocious throughout the series, so you can't blame Broad for taking advantage of that. I'm sure if Watson blatantly nicked it to first slip he'd stand his ground too. Fairs fair.

  • POSTED BY Insainity on | October 28, 2013, 16:01 GMT

    Walking was NEVER in fashion. There was a video on YouTube of even gilchrist blatantly edging and not walking. Plus, who remembers the Sydney test. Symonds and Ponting not walking when edging. Clarke standing there when he edged a huge one to slip. Honestly, Australians should be the last one to complain. On second thoughts, Australians should not complain.

  • POSTED BY jackiethepen on | October 28, 2013, 15:56 GMT

    It wasn't a blatant edge to the slips, Fletcher Wilkinson. It went to the keeper who failed to collect the ball and then the ball was deflected, or knocked, to the slips. This confused the umpire. For the ball to go straight to the keeper, it has to been a thin edge. Otherwise there would be a big deflection. At the opposite end Bell who had the best view alongside the umpire said he couldn't tell because it was the deflection that was caught. If Broad had missed the ball it could still have been fumbled by the keeper and knocked to and caught by the slips. They probably would all have gone up as well.

  • POSTED BY SICHO on | October 28, 2013, 15:53 GMT

    Well its not like any of the Aussies would've walked, let's be honest here. I don't see anything wrong with not walking if the umpire doesn't give you out. But the there's something that really suprises me, Alviro Peterson nicked it and didn't walk during his innings of 182 @ Headingly last year, England reviewed it and was given out afterwards, the crowed booed him until he reached the pavelion, and some even suggested that he was a cheat

  • POSTED BY on | October 28, 2013, 15:50 GMT

    Don't ever walk until given out. Then walk without dissent. You do not want technology in the game, fine, let's have the umpires do their job

  • POSTED BY whoster on | October 28, 2013, 15:29 GMT

    It was a non-issue back then, and it's a non-issue now. By all means criticize the actual decision as being very poor, but not Stuart Broad for having the presence of mind to wait like a statue for the umpire's verdict.

    Perfectly understandable for the Aussies to have been angered at the time - but any lingering resentment aimed at Broad is hypocritical sour-grapes. Broad did absolutely nothing wrong regarding either the laws or spirit of the game.

    Test cricket is a highly professional game, and until Darren Lehmann comes out and tells the public that every one of his players will walk whether they get the thickest or thinnest of nicks, nobody has the right to villify Broad.

    As a point of interest, does anybody remember Adelaide 2010 when Michael Clarke stood his ground after hitting the ball with the face of his bat into his pad? Would it be right to label him a cheat? No it wouldn't, because he's a fair bloke whose reaction was down to momentary disappointment.

  • POSTED BY xtrafalgarx on | October 28, 2013, 15:10 GMT

    @Selassie: Absolute rubbish. You don't save reviews for howlers because they mightn't happen! You use them when you think you have got someone out. Simple as that, end of. They weren't trying to gamble, when you review a decision then you are convinced it's out, you don't go by guesses.

  • POSTED BY on | October 28, 2013, 14:55 GMT

    Gilly himself said that his habit of walking made him look in bad light amongst his team mates. If any Aussie batsmen had walked at such an important juncture of the game, he would have gotten the same amount of stick for walking from the same fans who are against Broad for not walking. I remember not too long ago Clark did not walk in a test against India and next day he apologized on twitter for not doing so, the Aussies told him to stop apologizing cuz "that is not how they play the game"

  • POSTED BY FreddyForPrimeMinister on | October 28, 2013, 14:42 GMT

    The only reason this story became such an issue is because of the accusation that Broad didn't walk when he nicked it to first slip, as if there are degrees of not walking - a nick to the keeper is fine for not walking but Broad's "so blatant"... The fact however is that Broad DIDN'T nick it to first slip, he nicked it to the keeper, whose gloves then diverted it to first slip. If Haddin had held onto the catch, no-one would have batted an eyelid had Broad stayed put. I'm actually a believer that you should ALWAYS walk but in this case it's the hypocrisy of people that annoys me. That and either the blindness or stupidity of suggesting the ball was nicked to first slip....

  • POSTED BY Selassie-I on | October 28, 2013, 14:30 GMT

    The point of having only 2 reviews are you save them for howlers, not opportunistic marginal decisions like Australia did earlier, if they had been more prudent then they would have had a review left. Just as England did at the end of Australia's innings.

  • POSTED BY CricketMaan on | October 28, 2013, 14:08 GMT

    This whole walking business is height of hipocracy. On one side ICC talks of spirt of the game on the other side its about 'Rules of the game'. The rules state wait for umpire decsion, if he says out..its OUT..simple. So what this talk about walking here? If Umpire says its not out its not out, now that we have DRS just challenge it..period. Other the other hand, England have no buisiness to talk about 'spirit of the game' for they dont know anything. Remeber the 'Bell run out' incident..that was stupid of Bell as he himself admitted and they made all sorts of noise, so if Aussies and thier fans make nosie about Board, take it on your chin and move on.

  • POSTED BY Dadders on | October 28, 2013, 14:03 GMT

    Broad didn't walk. The umpire didn't do his job right. The game moves on. The worse thing was how much Broad was pilloried for his actions (or inactions). At a time when very few walk, and Aussies especially do not, that was unfair. Lest people forget, Aus almost won that test match and tried to do so when vice captain Hadden didn't walk and tried to pretend he hadn't feathered a nick through to the keeper that lost the match. THE VERY SAME GAME! Just makes the furore, especially of sections of the Aussie media/public, so ironic and two-faced

  • POSTED BY The_other_side on | October 28, 2013, 13:54 GMT

    ICC have made the primary blunder here! How can 2 reviews be sufficient! In any case Broad is being talked about because, the situation in the match was close and he had a big nick!! A system should be in place that allows third umpires to talk to the on field colleagues in obvious mistakes like this. As simple as that. What exactly third umpire is expected to do!!! Not just wait for reviews. Please ICC, wake up, let common sense prevail.

  • POSTED BY on | October 28, 2013, 13:33 GMT

    In the past (When DRS was not in place) walking was the right thing to do. But in the modern era a player should not be forced to walk to be a gentlemen. If the opposition was smart enough they would have had their reviews in hand so that they could use it in a obvious situation. So asking a player to walk in the modern era is not fair. So IMHO Broad was right to stand his ground.

  • POSTED BY JG2704 on | October 28, 2013, 13:32 GMT

    Decent interview and like or loathe him , you can't fault his honesty re the issue.

    If I was an Aus fan - at the time - I'd be particularly annoyed about it but I like to think I'd be more annoyed with the umpire's for the howler than Broad for not walking. I also think that walking - when obviously out - is instinctive and I'm sure there would be many players who would do the same if they had their wits about them. I thought at the time that Broad walked in the next game because he felt embarrassed but he admitted that it was more instinctive than anything else. The Aus fans/media will get on his back for sure but I think Broad is mentally strong enough to deal with it - he has to be

    PS - Just one thing. I think he could touch up on his maths. If Aus had won that game it would have been 2-1 to Eng and not 3-1

  • POSTED BY Narkovian on | October 28, 2013, 13:20 GMT

    The only problem I have with what Broad did was that it was HIM. If he had been the bowler he would have been stamping up and down,waving his arms about, mouthing all sorts, arguing with the umpire, and generally being obnoxious. Very few do it better. It is unpleasant to watch.

  • POSTED BY PrasPunter on | October 28, 2013, 13:05 GMT

    Not sure why this should even be an issue. Its a pity that the edge was missed by one of the best umpires of recent times , Aleem Dar. However, there is this precedence when back in 2007, Dhoni took a bump-catch off Pietersen, KP was stopped on his way back after the 3rd umpire looked at the visuals. When the tv umpire can point to the tampered ball upon looking at the visuals, not sure why the same can't be done for each dismissal.

  • POSTED BY on | October 28, 2013, 13:02 GMT

    The Australian spectators are more or less obliged to indulge in some light hearted heckling, but if it persists it will just sound like cheap thrills from the lower classes, which is something they are traditionally good at.

  • POSTED BY on | October 28, 2013, 12:56 GMT

    Not walking when you get a feather to the keeper vs not walking after a blatant edge to slips.

    If you don't walk for the first (99% of batsmen) then why should you walk for the second?

  • POSTED BY on | October 28, 2013, 12:49 GMT

    Broad is a decent guy. I'm an Aussie, and was annoyed he wasn't given out. But I'm not against his decision not to walk. I mean come on - so many cricketers don't walk in the modern game. They have to go when they get given out wrongly (if there are no reviews left), so it's only fair if they get to stay when they get given not out wrongly. The only different element here is that the decision cost Australia the game, but how is that anything to do with Broad? Is he supposed to say "Well, if I don't walk, then we might beat Australia, so I'd better walk? Is he supposed to be trying to help us win? Of course not! So let him stay. But let our guys stay if they get a let off from the officials, too. Broad can do it if he wants, but he can't complain if we do too. And I'm sure he wouldn't complain, as he seems like a good guy.

  • POSTED BY ScottStevo on | October 28, 2013, 12:47 GMT

    I've got no problems with Broad not walking - the umpires are there to decide who is out and who isn't. Still, any excuse to have a chirp at Broad or any of the English players is welcome!

  • POSTED BY Juiceoftheapple on | October 28, 2013, 12:44 GMT

    The difference between this and the Warner punching incident is that every tier of Australian cricket, including the media, has decided to try and single out Broad to try to unsettle him. Basically, since the Australians are no longer able to bully teams on the field, they are falling back on a tactic to try and single out and unnerve an individual. It's not big, its not clever, its collective bullying. It's a nothing issue, because in the majority of cases most players go with the Unmpire. It was a rediculous thing to get wrong and its the ICC that needs to sort its umpires/DRS system. The fact 50% of Australia is trying to collectively intimidate an England player will just make it so much more enjoyable when we hammer you. Perhaps if the Australians concentrated more on their cricket than firing their mouths off they might do better.

  • POSTED BY Yevghenny on | October 28, 2013, 12:42 GMT

    The australians dropped Bell the very next ball which was a much bigger wicket

  • POSTED BY Front-Foot-Sponge on | October 28, 2013, 12:41 GMT

    Old news. Rather than blame Broad I think the question is how on earth did the umpire miss it? Anyway, it's done now.

  • POSTED BY nursery_ender on | October 28, 2013, 12:36 GMT

    Posted by Mike_Tyson on (October 28, 2013, 12:10 GMT) Nothing wrong with what Broad did, happens all the time especially by Australians, lets move on.

    Indeed. Not least for the final Australian wicket in the same game. The only difference was that England hadn't wasted their referrals.

  • POSTED BY tamperbay on | October 28, 2013, 12:17 GMT

    I hope the Australian public doesn't give him a hard time. In my opinion he doesn't even deserve to be noticed, let alone get any attention.

  • POSTED BY Mike_Tyson on | October 28, 2013, 12:10 GMT

    Nothing wrong with what Broad did, happens all the time especially by Australians, lets move on.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • POSTED BY Mike_Tyson on | October 28, 2013, 12:10 GMT

    Nothing wrong with what Broad did, happens all the time especially by Australians, lets move on.

  • POSTED BY tamperbay on | October 28, 2013, 12:17 GMT

    I hope the Australian public doesn't give him a hard time. In my opinion he doesn't even deserve to be noticed, let alone get any attention.

  • POSTED BY nursery_ender on | October 28, 2013, 12:36 GMT

    Posted by Mike_Tyson on (October 28, 2013, 12:10 GMT) Nothing wrong with what Broad did, happens all the time especially by Australians, lets move on.

    Indeed. Not least for the final Australian wicket in the same game. The only difference was that England hadn't wasted their referrals.

  • POSTED BY Front-Foot-Sponge on | October 28, 2013, 12:41 GMT

    Old news. Rather than blame Broad I think the question is how on earth did the umpire miss it? Anyway, it's done now.

  • POSTED BY Yevghenny on | October 28, 2013, 12:42 GMT

    The australians dropped Bell the very next ball which was a much bigger wicket

  • POSTED BY Juiceoftheapple on | October 28, 2013, 12:44 GMT

    The difference between this and the Warner punching incident is that every tier of Australian cricket, including the media, has decided to try and single out Broad to try to unsettle him. Basically, since the Australians are no longer able to bully teams on the field, they are falling back on a tactic to try and single out and unnerve an individual. It's not big, its not clever, its collective bullying. It's a nothing issue, because in the majority of cases most players go with the Unmpire. It was a rediculous thing to get wrong and its the ICC that needs to sort its umpires/DRS system. The fact 50% of Australia is trying to collectively intimidate an England player will just make it so much more enjoyable when we hammer you. Perhaps if the Australians concentrated more on their cricket than firing their mouths off they might do better.

  • POSTED BY ScottStevo on | October 28, 2013, 12:47 GMT

    I've got no problems with Broad not walking - the umpires are there to decide who is out and who isn't. Still, any excuse to have a chirp at Broad or any of the English players is welcome!

  • POSTED BY on | October 28, 2013, 12:49 GMT

    Broad is a decent guy. I'm an Aussie, and was annoyed he wasn't given out. But I'm not against his decision not to walk. I mean come on - so many cricketers don't walk in the modern game. They have to go when they get given out wrongly (if there are no reviews left), so it's only fair if they get to stay when they get given not out wrongly. The only different element here is that the decision cost Australia the game, but how is that anything to do with Broad? Is he supposed to say "Well, if I don't walk, then we might beat Australia, so I'd better walk? Is he supposed to be trying to help us win? Of course not! So let him stay. But let our guys stay if they get a let off from the officials, too. Broad can do it if he wants, but he can't complain if we do too. And I'm sure he wouldn't complain, as he seems like a good guy.

  • POSTED BY on | October 28, 2013, 12:56 GMT

    Not walking when you get a feather to the keeper vs not walking after a blatant edge to slips.

    If you don't walk for the first (99% of batsmen) then why should you walk for the second?

  • POSTED BY on | October 28, 2013, 13:02 GMT

    The Australian spectators are more or less obliged to indulge in some light hearted heckling, but if it persists it will just sound like cheap thrills from the lower classes, which is something they are traditionally good at.