Everyone cheats. Lehmann shouldn't single out Broad simply because he thinks it was blatant. He ought to stop trying to play mind games and focus on his own work. Thats the gist of Brydon Coverdale's argument about the most recent episode in the Ashes. To call that an argument is generous, for it implies a measure of reason, as Coverdale put it.
But first, lets get rid of the silly idea that Broad's edge was not thick and blatant. He edged it to slip, and it would have carried to slip's right hand even if it hadn't caught Haddin's glove on the way. The fact that it caught as little of a deflection as it did despite a professional first choice wicketkeeper going for it should indicate how thick the edge was. The edge for which Broad eventually walked was thinner than the one for which he stood. That second edge carried low between the wicket keeper and slip, both of whom were standing back to a ball delivered by a right hander from over the wicket. The first edge, for which Broad stood, would probably have gone along a line somewhere between second and third slip if we imagine the slips standing similarly back.
Quite apart from that, its one thing for Lehmann - who is a member of the touring party and is clearly a partisan observer - to say that Broad cheated (he did, if words in English still mean what they are supposed to). It is quite another for Coverdale to argue that Lehmann shouldn't say what he did simply because he is one. Coverdale himself thinks that what Broad did at Trent Bridge was "wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. He shouldn't have done it." So why does he have a problem with what Lehmann said? Especially since he's a journalist, and not a partisan observer. What interest is served by arguing that a person in Lehmann's position of authority shouldn't come criticize something which was "a misjudgement that cricket could have done without." in Coverdale's words?
Coverdale brings up Lehmann's hypocrisy in his piece. Lehmann doesn't advocate walking, but he thinks Broad was wrong. Its fairly clear from the report on Lehmann's interview that he was incensed about the way Broad had "carried on and the way he's commented in public about it". The same story quotes Broad saying that he knew he had hit it.
When batsmen have reviews in hand, they cannot ignore the laws of the game as they can when they have no option but to accept the umpire's decision. When a batsman has reviews in hand, not walking is not a sin of omission. In Broad's case, England did have reviews in hand. I know it is a complicated concept for some people, but the point about blatant decisions is of central importance. Anybody who has played cricket, or has even participated in an activity that involves conventions being followed, knows how important it is that those conventions be respected. Even Michael Clarke, who has previously stood for similarly blatant edges, has publicly apologized in both cases. Broad not only didn't apologize, but justified his actions by saying that he has a "win at all costs mentality".
Coverdale asks whether Flower or Kirsten would have been similarly critical. Flower is the author of the win-at-all-costs mentality in England - he's a slick operator who protects his players when they do bad things. It probably is the same win-at-all-costs mentality which caused Stuart Broad to step on the ball against South Africa, and then made Flower coolly describe it as Broad trying to stop the ball with his boot. Kirsten would probably not get involved, at least publicly, in any such spats. Cricket is worse off because people in Andy Flower's (or Gary Kirsten's) position behave the way they do and either actively condone or ignore sharp practice from their team or the opposition. It is also worse off because Darren Lehmann didn't make a charge against Stuart Broad after Trent Bridge. Coverdale should know that. After all, he agrees that what Broad did was wrong.
So what if it was a "blokey" interview? Lehmann did not abuse Broad. He called Broad a cheat. This is accurate given that Broad admitted that he cheated and justified his cheating. The comparison with Hayden's comments about Harbhajan Singh and Andrew Symonds' comments about Brendon McCullum is sloppy.
The worst thing about Coverdale's article is that it reveals that he really doesn't care about right and wrong. Its predictable that an Australian writer should criticize Lehmann when Australia are down 3-0 in the Ashes in England. Sadly, it is also a entirely predictable that most of this criticism is poorly constructed.