Should I stay or should I go?
A round-up of Australian and English perspectives on Stuart Broad's controversial decision to stand his ground despite an obvious edge to slip on the third day of the first Test.
13-Jul-2013
Writing for The Age, Greg Baum perceives Stuart Broad's refusal to walk, despite an obvious edge to slip, as having cast a dark shadow on what has largely been a charming few days of Test cricket. Baum highlights the fact that Broad's father, Chris, is an ICC match referee, and should have acted in a manner befitting of that title, seeing as he is his own flesh and blood.
But Broad did not walk, and umpire Aleem Dar did not give him out, and colleague Kumar Dharmasena did not intervene, and TV umpire Marais Erasmus could not, and the Australians were flabbergasted, and the Test match came to a screaming halt, and when it started again, the edge had come off the charm of the opening two days of this series, and it will take much diplomacy and graciousness to restore it, and there wasn't much of either around on Friday night.
Jonathan Agnew, in his column for BBC Sport, concurs wholeheartedly with Baum's sentiments, even delving as far as imagining what Broad must have been going through in the seconds after deciding to stand his ground. Agnew also speculates on whether this incident has caused a greater rift between the two teams, who are set to play ten Tests between one another in the coming six months.
Your mind is full of those things. In that instant, adrenaline running, fielders appealing, something inside of the head can just say: stay. Then it is too late. Even if you regret it a few seconds later, even if you then change your mind, the die has been cast. You stay, you get away with it. You might have done your team a favour, but you must then deal with the slating that comes with it. These sorts of things can scar a player for years to come, change their reputations within the game. Broad's body language afterwards told you all you needed to know - head bowed, shoulders slumped. He knew he had done the wrong thing.
Paul Hayward, writing for The Telegraph, draws comparisons between Stuart Broad's decision to stay put, and that of Adam Gilchrist, former Australia wicketkeeper, who famously walked during the 2003 World Cup semi-final against Sri Lanka. Hayward details Gilchrist's thought process during that match, and wonders if Broad, who was involved in an integral partnership with Ian Bell, could have been going through the same motions.
"Michael Vaughan, Nasser Hussain and other batsmen, both in my team and against us, who had stood their ground in those "close" catching incidents were definitely a factor in what happened in the following seconds," said Adam Gilchrist. "I had spent all summer wondering if it was possible to take ownership of these incidents and still be successful. I had wondered what I would do. I was about to find out. The voice in my head was emphatic. Go. Walk. And I did."
The Daily Mail's Martin Samuel weighs in with his thoughts on Broad's decision, saying he should have walked, but was probably swayed by two factors. The first being that this was an Ashes Test, the first of the series, and in a match that had wrung back and forth, Broad had to stand his ground, for he and Bell were involved in a partnership that could potentially be match-winning. The second, would be whether his Australian counterparts would have acted in the same regard, with history reinforcing this view.
Stuart Broad is not a bad lad. His behaviour wasn't extraordinary. He knows his Australian opponents would probably have behaved the same way, given the opportunity. Doesn't make it right, though. Doesn't make it a positive step for cricket. Maybe if Broad had walked it would have inspired sportsmanship in this Ashes series; maybe young cricketers would have watched it and taken note. We talk role models and leading by example, but these are just marketing slogans now.
While Stuart Broad garnered much of the attention on the third day, Ian Bell kept plugging away. Bell was involved in two crucial stands, first with Matt Prior, and then later with Broad. Scyld Berry, writing for The Telegraph, applauds Bell for the mental resolve and fight shown in this innings, and how the batsman has rarely played a match-defining solo effort without the assistance of another centurion in the lineup.
Bell has played Test innings that have been physically brave: when pounded by West Indies on a quick Oval pitch on his Test debut in 2004, or at the same ground in 2009 when he was pounded and hit several times by Mitchell Johnson. But that was physical toughness. This was mental resolve -- the resolve to hang in for the rest of the day, to be the specialist batsman that nursed England's tail, and to be the man who shaped the result of this critical opening Test.
Australia's disciplined effort with the ball didn't go unnoticed. Malcolm Knox, in his column for Sydney Morning Herald, saw their display as a good sign of improvement for the Australian bowlers, who have fallen a great deal from the heights of Brett Lee, Glenn McGrath and Jason Gillespie. Knox praised the ability of James Pattinson, Peter Siddle and Shane Watson to reverse-swing the ball, and believes that if the attack continues in this fashion, then an upturn in fortunes is not too far.
The Australian seam bowlers showed a great advancement in their understanding and practice of reverse swing. James Pattinson, Mitchell Starc, Peter Siddle and Shane Watson all achieved radical swing with the old ball. Sometimes too much: Pattinson's bent-like-a-pin inswinger to Jonny Bairstow deceived Australia into asking for a video review of a ball that would have gone well clear of leg stump. Watson suffered a similar disappointment, warping the ball's flight enough to deceive Ian Bell and umpire Kumar Dharmasena and miss the pegs. There were many other instances of savage reverse swing that didn't result in any excitement. The point is that two years ago, Australian bowlers didn't have this skill. They're nowhere near the James Anderson class yet in execution, but they have shown here that they are on the right track.
Malcolm Conn pushes back the issue to where it began: the institution of technology in cricket in order to remove umpiring howlers. Writing for Adelaide Now, Conn claims that adding technology can actually cause as many issues as its solves. Furthermore, Conn brings up the fact that in modern sport no one takes the high road and walks, therefore it would be hypocritical to admonish Broad for choosing to not do so either.
Players have rarely walked through history when it has really mattered and Adam Gilchrist's retirement in 2008 saw the departure of the only walker in the modern era. Sometimes technology creates as many problems as it solves. This was obvious on the second day when England was unhappy with two marginals calls which went against them.