Take sides on the hot topics of the day

ODI cricket

July 12, 2013

Should Stuart Broad have walked?


It was a blatant nick and everyone in the ground, except Aleem Dar, knew he'd edged it. It wasn't very sportsman-like to stand his ground.


Walking is a personal choice, and has nothing to do with how blatantly 'out' it actually was. Australia had only themselves to blame since they were out of reviews.


© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

. Your ESPN name '' will be used to display your comments. Please click here to edit this.
Comments have now been closed for this article

July 17, 2013, 15:38 GMT


Broad had some gumption and his decision and Aleem Dar's mistake likely led to England winning a match that was poised on a razor's edge. How can that possibly be declared 'just part of the game' by anyone? It's unfair, nasty and no one should be rewarded for it. If the shoe had been on an English foot, the English press would have crucified the Australians. But we all know the English press has a double standard miles wide. Yes, unless you're Gilchrist, an Aussie only walks when he's run out of petrol. But if you can say that with a straight face, what does that make an Englishman who doesn't walk? Certainly not a hero in my book. Two wrongs do not make a right. Honesty demands you walk when you know you're out. If you're not sure, stand your ground. But an edge like that doesn't fall into the 'leave it up to the tech' argument. And if you think it does, I hope you're ready to be as magnaminous the next time your team loses to such a situation.

July 16, 2013, 7:26 GMT


Some time before , Alim Dar made same sort of mistake and Ojha of India did not walk away , in fact he was about to walk but then he returned to crease , in test series in India

July 16, 2013, 4:56 GMT


Not bothered about Broad's decision, If the same have been a Aussie player then the entire scenario would have been changed....I appreciate Clarke's decision for not commenting on the controversial dismissal......whatever the win England is celebrating is a Dummy One....

July 16, 2013, 1:52 GMT


It is absolutely correct decision the he is out and he also visibly understood it. Then why the fun in waiting for the Umpire's decision. There is no right for him to wait for Umpire's nod. When he is out he must quit the crease. Continuing and staying and waiting for somebody else's recommendation is ridiculous. Broad should be broad enough and should not be narrow and mischievous. He must be penalized for such action

July 15, 2013, 19:33 GMT


Well if you think in the heat of moment that A) The Ashes is on line B)Australians on other side who are not known as walkers(excption: Gilchrist) you may give him benefit of doubt.But on terms like sportsmanship,spirit of cricket it is a let down.It sets a bad blood to start of series and on longer note it will only encourage young cricketers to not walk even when they know by heart that "man I nicked that"

July 13, 2013, 9:22 GMT


It is not necessary to walk. The situation warranted that Borad give as much support to Bell possible as they were staring at defeat if the remaining batsmen do not do that. So Broad was right to stay put. I am sure he will be feeling guilty some day, but at that moment, he just wanted to stay on and help Bell extend the lead. I think the third umpire should be given the powers to over rule such decisions as it was very much evident that Broad nicked it. ICC needs to take all this into consideratin before imposing DRS on all the teams.

July 13, 2013, 8:56 GMT


It seems the discussion is all about "personal choice" whether to walk or not. I think it's about following the laws of the game. There are two people who's job it is to adjudicate the rules. The Umpires. If they say you are out, then on your bike or you get fined for dissent. If they say you're not out then lucky you, you get a free life, make the most of it. Staying when you're given out and walking when you're not are both ignoring the decision of the umpire. No football player would tell a referee/umpire "no I'm not taking that free kick because you got the decision wrong, he didn't push me over". The UMPIRE decides if you're out or not - and you respect the umpire's decision - isn't that what we teach our children?!

July 27, 2013, 11:00 GMT


not vs australia he should not have since no one form aussie team would have walked .

July 16, 2013, 4:13 GMT


Speaking as an Australian, Broad did nothing wrong. English discipline over use of DRS won the game -- they had two left when Haddin feathered one, Aussies had none left when Broad snicked one. Walking is wrong since it undermines the umpires and breeds inconsistency. Will a player who walks a few times in non-critical or obvious circumstances get a 'good' reputation then not walk when things get tight? It is easier for the player to be honest all the time by not walking all the time.

And opposition captains don't call guys back when they are given out wrongly, so why should batters walk when they are given not-out wrongly? It is nothing to do with being a gentleman. It is fairest if nobody walks, since that is the easiest way to obtain consistency -- leave everything up to the umpires (and nowadays, the technology), and leave it up to them all the time.

July 15, 2013, 21:06 GMT


No broad should definately not have walked doesnt anyone remember when smith of south africa not just nicked the ball hit it hard was caught behind everyone including myself heard it that was viewing on sky but the third umpires gave him not out the excuse was they didnt have the mike turned up I didnt blame smith and i dont blame Broad i dont blame anyone if everyone walked thats different but these days if u did a census of modern day walkers about 10% at the most would walk and do walk