Ashes I - 2013 - In England

He cheated, no two ways about it. Umpire missed it. No thing more, nothing less. But thats the end of it.

Broad was quite within his right to cheat, he followed the rules of the game. Its not 'morally reprehensible' and 'the spirit of the game' died years ago.

As an aside, its hilarious watching Australia get so uppity about it.
 
Shame that walking isn't really part of cricket any more, it should be like Gold and cue sports for honesty and calling fouls on your self. It's sad that it's not like this any more

Broad in my opinion should have walked, as that's the 'spirit of the game' but when noone else is doing that - particularly the Australians, who have more or less to a man done what Broad has done and stood and waited for the umpire to make a decision, which by the way was inexcusable today, just simply not good enough

The only Australian I can think of who was really noted for walking was Gilchrist, and this is from his autobiography in which he said that he had

"zero support in the team" for his stance and that he felt that the topic made the dressing room uncomfortable. He added that he "felt isolated" and "silently accused of betraying the team. Implictly I was made to feel selfish, as if I was walking for the sake of my own clean image, thereby making everyone else look dishonest"

It's said really, but that's the way the game has gone, and it happens at all levels
 
Meanwhile, just to show how amazing well Pieterson's 're-integration' back into the England team has gone, he's sticking up for Broad.

Broad remember was rumoured to be one of the chief trouble makers which led to the team dispute which led to Pieterson being dropped 18 months ago.


 
I don't blame Broad for standing his ground.

This question always pops up every couple of years. Some players walk, some don't. Anyway, Australia have been known to stand their ground so it's good that they're getting it now.
 
By the way, hats off to Bell today.

Was fully expecting a spineless 25, but he showed real maturity and seniority today. More of the same please.
 
EdWeatherall said:
Shame that walking isn't really part of cricket any more, it should be like Gold and cue sports for honesty and calling fouls on your self. It's sad that it's not like this any more

Broad in my opinion should have walked, as that's the 'spirit of the game' but when noone else is doing that - particularly the Australians, who have more or less to a man done what Broad has done and stood and waited for the umpire to make a decision, which by the way was inexcusable today, just simply not good enough

The only Australian I can think of who was really noted for walking was Gilchrist, and this is from his autobiography in which he said that he had

"zero support in the team" for his stance and that he felt that the topic made the dressing room uncomfortable. He added that he "felt isolated" and "silently accused of betraying the team. Implictly I was made to feel selfish, as if I was walking for the sake of my own clean image, thereby making everyone else look dishonest"

It's said really, but that's the way the game has gone, and it happens at all levels
Click to expand...

100% agree.

The Aussies really can do one if they claim that they play 'within the spirit of the game'. Gilchrist was an exception to the masses, and even then, he did many dodgy things while wicket keeping.

And quite how 'mental disintegration' (also known as sledging) is within the 'spirit of the game' is beyond me.
 
The former West Indies bowler Michael Holding argued on Sky that Broad should be suspended for breaching the spirit of cricket, as the West Indies wicketkeeper Denesh Ramdin was during the Champions Trophy when he claimed a catch that had clearly not carried.

Embarrassingly for Broad, whose father Chris is an ICC match referee, he made a promotional video supporting the MCC's Spirit of Cricket campaign last October, saying: "As an international cricketer each time you pull on an England shirt you go out and give your all and you do play hard … there's a lot of passion out there. But it's important that you do play fair – you respect the opposition and you respect the umpires. At the end of the day you're there to entertain the crowd and they need to see cricket played in the right way."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jul/12/kevin-pietersen-stuart-broad-england-australia?CMP=twt_gu
 
NinjaFletch said:
By the way, hats off to Bell today.

Was fully expecting a spineless 25, but he showed real maturity and seniority today. More of the same please.
Click to expand...

Depending on the tail, hope he kicks on and converts it into a huge 100+ innings.
 
This test match is as good as over anyway IMO. Aus have no chance on that pitch.

I'm actually not sure who I want to win the series. On the one hand, an Aus win is better for our rankings. On the other hand, it's fecking Australia. They've been our nemesis in cricket for far too long. Come on England!
 
Anyway. Move on, he stood there. The scorebook says he is not out overnight, and it was a nice little cameo to a truly fantastic, game-changing innings from Bell - taking England from struggling to post a defendable target, they now have some real runs on the board. A real shame he couldn't go on and get 100 today, but at least he has the chance tomorrow, and with Swann, Finn and Anderson still to come there is a good chance of kicking on and posting a very challenging total

The highest ever 4th innings chase at TB is 284, and that was by England against NZ in 2004, so England aren't a million miles away from that and from setting 300, which with the way the ball has been reversing and the uneven bounce we have seen at times, combined with the skill of Anderson and Swann that will be an incredible get from Australia.

It truly can't be understated the importance of Bell's 95*, if England were to go on and win, and Anderson were to claim a 10 wicket haul, for me, this Bell innings is truly the difference
 
EdWeatherall said:
Shame that walking isn't really part of cricket any more, it should be like Gold and cue sports for honesty and calling fouls on your self. It's sad that it's not like this any more
and
Broad in my opinion should have walked, as that's the 'spirit of the game' but when noone else is doing that - particularly the Australians, who have more or less to a man done what Broad has done and stood and waited for the umpire to make a decision, which by the way was inexcusable today, just simply not good enough

The only Australian I can think of who was really noted for walking was Gilchrist, and this is from his autobiography in which he said that he had

"zero support in the team" for his stance and that he felt that the topic made the dressing room uncomfortable. He added that he "felt isolated" and "silently accused of betraying the team. Implictly I was made to feel selfish, as if I was walking for the sake of my own clean image, thereby making everyone else look dishonest"

It's said really, but that's the way the game has gone, and it happens at all levels
Click to expand...


Cricket's a bit of an odd one though. It's pretty hypocritical and conflicting in its expectations of players, I mean its accepted that players appeal for LBW and caught behind when often they know its not the case (which isn't as much a problem these days due to the review system, but how many wickets have been lost to LBW for example when the bowler knew the batsmen got some bat to it?) and sledging is widely accepted as part of the game even though all it basically is, is abusing the opposition batsmen.
 
EdWeatherall said:
It truly can't be understated the importance of Bell's 95*, if England were to go on and win, and Anderson were to claim a 10 wicket haul, for me, this Bell innings is truly the difference
Click to expand...

All true, but I'd still award MoM to Agar, no matter what else happens in this test.
 
Broad should have walked but any talk of suspension is ridiculous. You can't be suspended for being a dick, and let's be honest, there's only a few good eggs who walk in cricket anyway. Disappointing day for us, we're going to have to skittle you in the morning to stand any chance of getting a result.
 
well thats that then. Only one win result possible here.

Why should anyone walk?!
As I say in the sunday twonk league "You get just as many shit decisions given out as you do given not out".

However this is International test cricket iwth so much on the line.
That pesky Bell though - like him, well played champ.
 
Why are people saying the Aussie players moaning about the not walking? Yes they were angry, but they were angry at the right person - the umpire. From the interviews I heard they seemed to take it very well.
 
Red Pavan said:
Makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Makes perfect sense to me, you're telling me that you aren't influenced by prior decisions? If you feel hard done by then your actions will be altered. Most people would have walked if there was 1 referral left.
 
Aussies wasted their DRS on two calls that were both blatantly going down leg side. How he thought either of them were out beggars belief.

DRS is there for exactly these sort of howlers. It's not like tennis when you can use them 'tactically', you have to be 99% sure. Clarke needs to ask his bowlers and WK to be honest with him.

The only person really at fault here is umpire Dar, closely followed by Clarke. Hopefully Clarke has learned his lesson because no-one likes to see this sort of thing.
 
ArmchairCritic said:
Makes perfect sense to me, you're telling me that you aren't influenced by prior decisions? If you feel hard done by then your actions will be altered. Most people would have walked if there was 1 referral left.
Click to expand...
Absolutely - Agar was out for 6. If given England would be home and hosed by now.
 
ArmchairCritic said:
Makes perfect sense to me, you're telling me that you aren't influenced by prior decisions? If you feel hard done by then your actions will be altered. Most people would have walked if there was 1 referral left.
Click to expand...


The umpires shouldn't be. If they are then they should not be umpiring at all. Each decision should be given or not given on it's merits, that is how they should be umpiring (however it is totally feasible to subconsciously get 'deer in the headlights' syndrome as mental toughness effects umpires as much as it does the players. In the end they are utilizing a skill out there just like everyone else on the field). Plus I don't buy into this 'evens up in the end' bullshit. At the end of the day bad decisions are bad decisions and change games.

Should he have walked for something as blatantly obvious as that? Sure, why not? But should he be castrated for not walking? Not a fecking chance. It's up to the umpires to get decisions right at the end of the day. If they don't then it's only them that we have to blame. DRS only goes so far and some have even suggested the 3rdy getting on the radio and saying 'mate that was out' and having him reverse the decision. Broad is sky high on the punchable-face-o-meter as well so fair play to him putting his balls on the line over it.

The umpiring has not been all that great in general and I think DRS would be a very intimidating tool in assessing how your own umpiring is going. Giving decisions wrong and seeing them overturned there and then would certainly put doubt in anyone's mind. I certainly couldn't stand out there having made the wrong decision and being told about it, then continuing on. I've done it a few times in park cricket and felt like an absolute cretin watching the batsman blow up as he's walking off and the teams talking shit at the drinks break.
 
Doesn't it all lead back to the Victorians being right about the ref/umpire's call being final. Cricket has hotspot, snicko, 3rd umpire, hawkeye and video replay and they still feck it up (in a game that's staccato).
 
Even if they reviewed it, the incompetent 3rd umpire would probably not have noticed the edge.

The Ramdin comparison is interesting. I don't expect a ban for Broad as too often players don't walk, but this was clearly 'conduct that is contrary to the spirit of the game'. So on that basis, if Ramdin got a fine and a ban just a few weeks ago, the ICC should be consistent and do the same with Broad.
 
When did waiting for the umpires decision become an offence? Don't be silly.
 
ha_rooney said:
Even if they reviewed it, the incompetent 3rd umpire would probably not have noticed the edge.

The Ramdin comparison is interesting. I don't expect a ban for Broad as too often players don't walk, but this was clearly 'conduct that is contrary to the spirit of the game'. So on that basis, if Ramdin got a fine and a ban just a few weeks ago, the ICC should be consistent and do the same with Broad.
Click to expand...

As much as I agree that both are guilty of 'conduct that is contrary to the spirit of the game', Broad can always lie and say he didnt realise he nicked it but Ramdin cant say he didnt realise he picked up the ball from the ground. He Ramdin had taken the catch on the half volley he could have lied but his act was a bit too obvious and that is why it was hard to defend.
 
I can't believe how much this has blown up, next time I see a footballer foul someone but the ref not giving a free kick I'm gonna call the player a cheat for not owning up
 
vanthaman said:
I can't believe how much this has blown up, next time I see a footballer foul someone but the ref not giving a free kick I'm gonna call the player a cheat for not owning up
Click to expand...


That's an awful comparison.

Don't think Broad is a cheater btw, he's entitled to wait for the umpire's decision. But as said, Ramdin's decision is going to be the sticky point, if he was banned then surely Broad should've been banned aswell. ICC's spirit of cricket is a farce.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.