- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
The question of whether to walk, or not to walk, is an age-old conundrum for cricketers.
After Darren Lehmann labelled Stuart Broad a cheat for his actions in the first Test, I thought it would be a good time to delve into the walking debate.
Broad was public enemy number one in Australia after the first Ashes Test, where he stood his ground after edging a ball to first slip. He was given not out and Australia were unable to review the decision.
Australia ended up losing a tight match by just 14 runs. Social media exploded over the incident; many questioned his integrity and others pointed out that it’s an umpire’s job to make decisions.
Australians were equally shocked, two Tests later, when Broad decided to walk. His decision to walk may have had more to do with the situation, England had just avoided the follow-on and Australia had two reviews left, but it sparked another debate over walking.
Like every other passionate Australian, I was filthy when Broad stood his ground. I was ropeable.
I soon realised, though, that Broad wasn’t at fault. He had every right to stand his ground.
The person at fault was the umpire; a paid professional who makes decisions like that for a living.
That is an important point I make, walking can be dependent on the level of cricket you play at.
Walking, in lower grades of cricket, should be a mandatory practice.
I did not walk on one occasion and have felt terrible about it ever since.
When teammates are umpires, anything should be done to help them make the correct decision. Knowing that a teammate will walk if they edge it also prevents people being fired out incorrectly on the basis of a loud appeal.
International cricket is different though. Impartial umpires are paid good money to make the right decisions and are now backed by the, somewhat controversial, Decision Review System.
Shouldn’t a man that earns a living through the umpiring craft be held responsible for the decisions he makes? Common sense says yes, but cricket is a funny game.
For a competitive sportsman to walk and concede to their opposition would seem ludicrous to sports fans unfamiliar with the ‘gentleman’s game’. Yet walking has been common practice among some of the world’s elite cricketers.
One example is former Australian wicketkeeper, Adam Gilchrist. Gilchrist famously walked in the 2003 World Cup semi-final against Sri Lanka even though the umpire had shaken his head.
While his actions were admired and lauded by many, others questioned his competitive nature.
While I will admit that some cases of standing one’s ground are ridiculous (like the famous W.G. Grace awaiting an umpire’s decision after being clean bowled), I think an international player has every right to make paid umpires adjudicate.
While walking complies with ‘the spirit of cricket’, opposition teams are just as likely to use a man’s good nature against him, especially when big prize money and important matches are at stake.
It would be nice if everyone walked and played fair but it is not the way of the world.
So just remember, if you’re not playing professionally, get on your bike if you know you’re out. If you’re one of the lucky few that make it to international level, by all means let the man at the other end decide your fate.
Build your own fantasy cricket team and put it to the test with Draftstars daily fantasy competitions. Pick your match, pick your team and watch the points roll in to take out cash prizes on each match. What are you really gambling with? Set a deposit limit.