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.
JGK
Roar Guru
What about on catches to gully?
swerve
Guest
+1
swerve
Guest
Entirely up to him.
SiW
Guest
I don't believe a batsman should walk, I think an umpire should do there job. Nice and clear rules for everyone to follow... I believe that the spirit of the game should kick in at the point the umps makes a call... you walk or stop appealing with no argument.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Simple, if the opposition still has both their referrals left then you walk, because you know they'll just refer it and it'll be obvious, but if they've run out then you hang around and hope the umpire gets it wrong and the opposition can't do anything about it. That seems to be the way it's being played anyway. The English have walked when they know Australia had two reviews still, and hung around when Australia are all out of reviews...
Steven McBain
Roar Guru
100% agree fadida.
Steven McBain
Roar Guru
Cricket is a fully professional sport nowadays and that comes with 'professionalism' which bascially now means win at all costs. Cricket has for a long time survived as more of a 'gentleman's sport' but it's like anything else, it will catch up with other sports. Once upon a time you didn't bowl at people's bodies, for a long time now it's been acceptable to try and take someone's head off, things change. Footballers dive, claim goals that aren't, rugby is rife with all sorts of cheating, hands in the scrum etc. Atheletes and cyclists take drugs. Cheating or at least bending the rules or using them to your full advantage is the reality of professional sport. Sad as it may seem. I think it's naive to expect batsmen to simply walk when bowlers and wicket keepers are continually claiming LBWs that they're not sure about yet look like the umpire has just shot their mother when it is not given out. Fielders often claim catches that aren't, you can't even trust fielders to say whether it went for 4 even anymore, that goes to the replay also. Cricketers these days play to win, there are win bonuses, contracts, endorsements, all sorts of reasons to want to win and the difference from it being an amateur game now is that it is people's livelyhoods. It is the umpire's decision to give a batsmen out, no one else's. I know it sounds callous and cold and hopelessly unromantic but that part of the game went a long time ago in the same way that sledging was taken to new levels, it is win at all costs now. I'm afraid and if everyone just accepts that then it is the same for everyone and we carry on.
JGK
Roar Guru
So, if the ball HAD gone straight to slip should he have walked?
JGK
Roar Guru
Meh. I don't care either way because he had no obligation to walk but check it out here at about 40 sec. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=y4GrObQnaDI
Steve
Guest
Not even that: there was a lot of gamesmanship, 'shamateurism' and general shenanigans in the old days too. Just look at WG Grace!
JimmyB
Guest
Swerve to be fair, I thought that was priceless from Harris and the England team, it sort of summed up Tony Hills series. It was so clearly out, yet the 3rd ump looked at it for about 5 minutes, almost making it worse for Hill. My own personal view is that it would be nice if everyone walked, the same way it would be nice if players took each others words for the low to the ground catches which always look dodgy when slowed down, however it doesn't happen, therefore I would recommend that players leave it up to the umpire. There is a couple of specifics regarding the Broad dismissal. Firstly it shouldn't matter, if it's a feather through to the keeper or as in Broads case a thick edge, every player knows if they have hit it. So you could argue that the real " cheating" is when it is the tiniest of knicks and it's really hard for the umpire. I mean Broads was so blatant he might as well have been caught on the boundary and it should never have been missed. It was a howler, which brings us to the crux of the matter IMO. The DRS was brought in to redress the obvious howler made by the umpire, however Clarke and Australia had used both of their precious reviews on frivolous challenges in an attempt to buy a couple of cheap wickets. So in the end it was almost poetic justice that Australia had no reviews left in order to correct the aforementioned howler. One might assume that Australia would learn from this frustrating experience and hold back their reviews for when they really need them but no, in England's first innings of this current test match. Clarke and his chums did exactly the same thing again and wasted their reviews on very speculative chances. It is said that Clarke is a gambler, I wonder what odds he might get on history repeating itself in this innings and would anyone feel sorry for him if it did?
fadida
Guest
Is not walking any worse than bowlers appealing when they know it's not out? Surely both aren't in the "spirit"?
swerve
Guest
Spot on! SiW we wouldn't be having this discussion if an Australian player had done the same thing and in fact they did. Warner nicked and stood his ground and later admitted he nicked it. JGK claims the front on angle is an "optical illusion" LOL and he bases his opinion on a side on angle (strange to say the least) The only optical illusion is the Green and Gold eye patch he's wearing. To be honest I found what Ryan Harris did more offensive by not allowing the umpire to make the decision after a review. The review showed he was out but he and the England players walked off (as it was the last wicket) leaving the umpire to make the revised decision to an empty wicket. I think it might be time for reviews to be done for the third umpire only.
swerve
Guest
Rubbish.
SiW
Guest
how many times do i have to say this... the ball hit hadins gloves first... any one who says otherwise is either lying to make it seem worst than it was or they just didn't watch it in the first place... bottom line is that broad did not do anything that many many many other player have not done in the past.... if you say it went to slip you are grasping at straws because you are so desperate to hate broad and/or England.... call him a cheat by all means just don't say the ball went to the slip because that is just pathetic!
JGK
Roar Guru
The camera at third man for that dismissal suggested that he CLEARLY did edge straight to first slip. The front on angle is an optical illusion.
jimmy
Guest
The ball was edged to the keeper first before being caught by slip.. Why does everyone say he edged to slip when CLEARLY did not???
RobRoy
Guest
Don't walk till the umpire says so at international level. The "Spirit of Cricket" is some dewy-eyed, nostalgic thing from the distant past with the odd death twitch emerging here and there to remind us of possibly better bygone days. International cricket has moved on and involves big bucks, huge rewards and has unfortunately edged closer to other sports were professionalism prevails. Sad maybe but a reality.
JGK
Roar Guru
Not.