In the 1970s, there was no more influential cricketer than Ian Chappell.
As a captain his record is superb, winning half of his 30 Tests in charge of Australia, and never losing a series.
Chappell had a hard, tough side. After being part of a 4-0 drubbing at the hands of South Africa in 1969-70, Chappell developed a competitive edge to the Australian team that would define itself by good, successful cricket and a new word, ‘sledging’.
Chappell had an influence on how cricket was played then and for the next 45 years. Specifically, to walk or not to walk.
If Chappell knicked the ball through to the keeper, he decided it wasn’t his problem whether he should walk off the field or not. According to Chappell, the umpire was there to do a job, and he wasn’t going to make it easier for him to do it.
So Chappell decided that knowing he hit a cricket ball that was caught and stand his ground was not cheating. It was just ‘part of cricket’. You get some bad decisions, so you are entitled to get some good ones.
But what is the difference between edging a ball to the keeper and being caught, and hitting a ball to cover and being caught? The answer is absolutely nothing.
However the answer according to Chappell is you could get away with one and not the other, so stand your ground, and take your chances.
It set a culture that still stands in cricket – when Adam Gilchrist decided to walk it was considered amazing; that playing fair was an incredible, new way to play the sport.
The correct culture to have set would have been if you knew you hit the ball and it’s caught, you walk off the field. To set a culture of cheating was a great disservice to the sport.
When Tierry Henry knowingly used his hand in an international football match against Ireland to help France to a 2010, he correctly copped a load of criticism from all and sundry. However when Ian Chappell decided to hit the ball and stand his ground, it became known as playing tough cricket. Both were cheating.
When Nathan Lyon knew he hit the ball against New Zealand, he should have walked off. Whether the video umpire wanted to make a complete hash of the decision was none of the spinner’s business. He knew he hit the ball.
Ian Chappell did cricket a disservice with the idea of not walking.
Clavers
Guest
It's news to me that sledging and not walking was all started by Ian Chappell. Is there evidence to support this?
Andrew
Guest
A player that walks is as bad as a player that refuses to leave the crease after being given out. Both are showing decent towards the umpires decision.
Phil Ivey
Guest
Oh FFS. You are out when the ump says you are out. End of.
Kurt S
Roar Pro
So Beardan, you are saying you actually knowingly gloved a ball, it was caught, and someone appealed, albeit not to your vocal satisfaction, so you stayed at the crease. And you call yourself a walker... Wow... Just wow. I don't have the laws of cricket with me right now, but I was taught at a young age that someone on the fielding team must appeal for an umpire to consider someone being out caught. Never did I ever get taught on what level of enthusiasm one needs to exert to make a valid appeal to an umpire for a catch. By your own standard, you cheated and brought the game into the same disrepute you claim of Chappell as far as I can ascertain.
Baz
Guest
Bit aggressive knackers?
Beardan
Roar Guru
Im tipping kids arent quite concerned with making a living yet...
The Barry
Roar Guru
You're just showing double standards now. There's no difference - if you're a walker and you know you're out you should walk. In your anecdote the bloke at gully appealed. And still you didn't walk. Look I'm not blaming you - I wouldn't have walked for that either...but it shows that this whole issue is a spectrum and you can't say things like "he was wrong not to walk" or "you should know the differemce". One person will never walk, one person will walk if they hit it to cover but not if they snick into slips, someone else will walk for snicks but only if the fielding team appeals, you'll walk but not if the fielding team only half appeals. St Francis of Assissi is the only cricketer in history to walk for everything. All of these things are on the same spectrum - you've just drawn a boundary in a different spot to other people. You've admitted that there are circumstances where you'll stay at the wicket when you know you're out so you're no better (or worse) than Chappelli or anyone else...
Paul D
Roar Guru
Your caps lock appears stuck. Also, given the amount of people who've taken you to task over this article, I'd argue it's not at all clear in the slightest. But hey, fell free to abuse your audience and keep writing trash. I'm sure it will stand you in great stead when it comes to responses on future articles.
Beardan
Roar Guru
I was a walker. I remember once when a ball brushed my glove and a guy with brilliant hearing at gully half appealed and nobody else did. I wasnt going to go on a half appeal to a bloke with brilliant hearing. You arent out there to embarrass yourself. Im talking about ones like Nathan Lyon when all goes up and there is no doubt he hit it. If you know cricket you know the two are different.
Beardan
Roar Guru
I made it clear Chappell had great influence over the culture of non walking. It couldnt be any clearer. But since you dont get it i will spell it out for you. Chappel had a GREAT INFLUENCE OVER THE CULTURE OF HOW CRICKET WAS PLAYED. HE WAS NOT THE FIRST NON WALKER, which the article not once says. I dont mind spelling it out for you if i need to.
GB
Guest
the people are here to watch me bat, not you bowl
The Barry
Roar Guru
Why not? Surely it only matters whether you know you're out, not what the opposition team is aware of. Surely with all the sportsmanship and morals you've been sprouting all through this post then there is even MORE of an obligation to play fair and walk if you know you are out but the opposition doesn't. But all any of this proves is that all of this is completely 100% subjective. There is no right or wrong. Everyone defines their line somewhere along the spectrum - we've just found the point at which you'll be 'dishonest' and not walk.
JGK
Roar Guru
Not a great way to teach them how to make a living though.
Paul D
Roar Guru
"In the 1970s, there was no more influential cricketer than Ian Chappell." "Chappell had an influence on how cricket was played then and for the next 45 years. Specifically, to walk or not to walk." "If Chappell knicked (sic) the ball through to the keeper, he decided it wasn’t his problem whether he should walk off the field or not. According to Chappell, the umpire was there to do a job, and he wasn’t going to make it easier for him to do it." "It set a culture that still stands in cricket" Your argument implies it started with him. Stop trying to weasel out of what you said originally. If you're not saying Chappelli started non-walking, why did you write an article saying he did cricket a great disservice? Why not write about WG Grace instead? You blamed Chappelli for introducing non-walking, and now you're trying to dodge after being skewered by numerous people for it.
Beardan
Roar Guru
I would really love to know where it says Ian Chappell started the non walking. Maybe you can point it out for me..
Playmaker
Guest
Should make a list of batsman who scored a hundred , but was actually out earlier...would make some interesting reading and comparisons.
pat malone
Guest
maybe you guys should meet up. you could both share each others stories with no basis or evidence
peeeko
Roar Guru
Brett if you want to see another piece of brilliance, check his RL article on the weekend
peeeko
Roar Guru
he obviously did none.
peeeko
Roar Guru
hes looking for clickbait and got it