Dear Editor,
England won the first Test of the Ashes series by a mere 14 runs. Accolades went to James Anderson for his bowling performances in both innings which, from the actual cricketing aspect of the match, made the difference between the two sides.
However, the critical point in the match which, arguably, swung the match England’s way was Stuart Broad’s non-sporting decision to walk when he was clearly out to a catch in the slips. If he had walked, as is expected in this gentleman’s game then Australia would have been chasing a much lower target and the result may have been different.
For a genuine sportsperson as myself, the most distressing aspect of Stuart Broad’s actions is the non-criticism by the cricketing journalists and match referee who jumped onto Denesh Ramdin a few weeks ago for a similar action which was deemed as “bringing the game into disrepute.” Why is there such a double standard in cricket? I am certain that if it was one of the smaller cricketing nations that had done what Stuart Broad did then the outcry would have been universal and the hypocritical condemnation likewise would have reverberated across the cricketing world.
Many will argue that Stuart Broad was within his rights to stay his ground if he wasn’t given out by the umpire. But taking into consideration the situation where Australia had used up its review, hence could not appeal the umpire’s decision, then Broad’s action must be viewed in a different light. It is clear that he manipulated the system to his benefit and herein lies the unquestionable evidence that he brought the “game into disrepute” by his actions.
Many will also argue that Stuart Broad felt that he did not knick the ball so he was right to stand his ground. But on the evidence it is crystal clear that he knew he touched the ball and was merely using the system to work in his favour. Denesh Ramdin argued that he genuinely thought he had held the ball long enough for his catch to be legal but no one believed him and he was duly reprimanded. So why is Stuart Broad being given the benefit of the doubt in this situation when television replays clearly showed that he knew he was out?
If the ICC, as it says, truly wants to cut out actions that “bring the game into disrepute” then Stuart Broad needed to be given the full brunt of disciplinary action for a very obvious act of non-sportsmanship. But everyone knows that the ICC does not have the courage to act against the bigger powerful cricketing countries, so it merely pounces on the weaker nations so as to give evidence that it is doing its work.
Such disciplinary action would not change the result from the first Test but a two match ban against Stuart Broad would at least increase Australia’s chance in the second Test and this should be the least they deserve for an unsporting decision against them which ultimately cost them a win. It would also deter other players who may want to manipulate the present system to their unfair gain.
The riveting first Ashes Test has brought back the spirit of Test cricket to the cricketing world and Ashton Agar’s performance lent further credence to this beautiful game being called “a game of glorious uncertainties.” However, Stuart Broad’s action left a sour taste in the mouth of us cricket lovers who would much prefer seeing the game played in the true spirit rather that the present win at all costs mentality of players like Stuart Broad.
Perhaps the most distressing thing is the deafening silence of the ICC and cricketing journalists on this situation when they were all up in arms and shouting condemnation from the rooftops against Denesh Ramdin.
Ramdin must be sitting at home and shaking his head at the obvious imbalance in the interpretation of acts that “bring a game into disrepute” and concluding that there are two different sets of rules for players like him from the small cricketing countries and players like Stuart Broad (who’s dad ironically cast the judgement on Ramdin) from the bigger more powerful cricketing countries.
Yours faithfully,
M Abraham