Ashes 2013: Adam Gilchrist agrees with Stuart Broad's decision not to walk
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Stuart Broad's much-debated decision not to walk during the first Investec Ashes Test has been supported by former Australia wicketkeeper Adam Gilchrist.
Gilchrist was famed as a 'walker' during his career, most significantly during the 2003 World Cup semi-final.
Despite that Gilchrist believes the Englishman was well within his rights - and the rules of cricket - to hold his ground after he got a thick edge to to slip on day three at Trent Bridge.
"My view on the while incident is Stuart Broad has clearly made it evident that he is not a walker and I don't think anyone needs to look too much deeper into it," Gilchrist told BBC Radio Five's Sportsweek programme.
"Stuart or anyone who has stood before has not broken any laws of the game. He's just simply waited for an umpire to make a decision and then accepted that decision.
"That's up to him. In this day and age it is no surprise to see a batsman not walk."
The incident has prompted fierce debate about whether Broad contravened the spirit of the game, if not the laws, but Gilchrist believes it ought not to have.
"The spirit of cricket and the spirit of the game can mean different things in different parts of the world and cultures," he said.
"Certainly you don't need to judge someone's character. It's one of those anomalies around cricket that will go on forever.
"The big question now is you have to be careful, if you play like that, when one goes against you with ball in hand - please don't carry on too much about it. You do have to move on."
Gilchrist was himself criticised for choosing to walk during his career, with his decision to walk off in that World Cup semi-final against Sri Lanka stirring emotions Down Under.
"It's an individual choice. That was where I was at," he said.
"I felt players should be and can be in more control of the match in the way it is played.
"Anyone who plays the game needs to be comfortable with the way they go about it."
Gilchrist also confirmed reports he had questioned Broad's character after the incident on Twitter were erroneous.
"I want to clarify I am not on Twitter and never have been," he said.
"There is a few fake Adam Gilchrist Twitter accounts functioning at the moment. One particular gentleman is claiming to be me and gave some pretty damning comments relating to this incident - calling Broad and the England team cheats.
"That is not me. A few news agencies in a few countries picked that up and ran articles on the back of that. That's disappointing and frustrating."
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments