Sports After Dark

Cricket was originally a game played by English gentlemen, and one of the virtues those gentlemen held in high regard was honesty. However today’s modern cricketers do not seem to have the same level of honesty as those who played the game once had, chosing to stay at the crease rather than walk when they mistakenly given not out.

There are two schools of thought when it comes to walking in cricket, those in favour say it respects the traditions of the game, while those against say that the umpire should have the final say. While international umpires get most decisions right, they are only human, but should the batsman be expected to correct the umpire when he gets it wrong?

On the opening day of the New Year’s Test between India and Australia the umpires got at least three decisions wrong, two in favour of the home side, one against. On all three of those occasions the players who were decided against reacted in disbelief, struggling to comprehend how the umpires could have got it so badly wrong.

Early in Australian captain Ricky Ponting’s innings he chased a ball from Sourav Ganguly down the leg side, got some bat on the ball and was caught by wicketkeeper Mahendra Dhoni, but umpire Mark Benson, seemingly the only person at the Sydney Cricket Ground to not hear the noise, gave him not out. The Indian players knew Ponting had hit the ball, Pointing knew he had hit the ball, the fans in the stands knew he had hit the ball, but Ponting remained at the crease, examining the pitch intently rather than walking.

The hypocrasy of Ponting’s decision to stay was shown when umpire Benson gave him out LBW for 55, despite clearly getting an inside edge. Having been happy to accept an incorrect decision in his favour, Ponting stood at the crease and stared at the umpire, rather than heading back to the pavilion.

Perhaps the worst decision of the day came from veteran umpire Steve Bucknor who gave Andrew Symonds not out after he clearly edged a catch to Dhoni from the bowling of Ishant Sharma. Again, instead of walking, Symonds remained at his crease and refused to make any eye contact as the Indian players once again stood around in disbelief.

It is my personal feeling that when a batsman chooses not to walk, he is made to look foolish. When everybody in the stadium knows that a player is out, and he chooses to remain at the crease, he gives up any right to feel agrieved if he is on the short end of a wrong decision.

The cricketers of tomorrow take their cues from those playing today, and if they set a bad example, that is what we are likely to see in the future.

As a youngster the best example of sportsmanship I remember came from Martin Crowe, who was given not out after an appeal for caught behind in an ODI against England. Crowe turned to the English wicketkeeper and asked if he had caught the ball, when told that the catch had been taken Crowe tucked his bat under his arm and headed for the pavilion. That is how cricket should be played and it would be a shame if the traditions of the game were lost in the relentless pursuit of victory.

Similar Posts:

• Is technology the answer to cricket’s umpriring woes?
• Cutting through the spin
• Australia vs England 1 Innings Break
• Questions remain as fall out from Sydney test continues
• Big Indian dollars threaten New Zealand cricket as player exodus continues

The The art of walking by Hamish McBrearty, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.