What these teams need now - what cricket needs, but rarely has had - is someone with authority and reason to bang heads together, starting with the captains. Evidently, gentlemen's agreements and appeals to better instincts do not work.
Most of the offences that soured an otherwise fine Test match were petty. The exception was the charge and counter-charge of racism. Blatant dissent. Frivolous appealing. Refusing to walk when caught. Petulant and cynical slowing of the over rate. These are frowned upon in junior cricket.
The umpiring was poor, but partly, the players have only themselves to blame. Umpiring is a tough enough job anyway. Aggravation from and between the players only makes it tougher. It began with Australian captain Ricky Ponting's double standard and mute protest when dismissed on the first day and did not abate. Steve Bucknor and Mark Benson would have found themselves second-guessing every decision. So it is that Bucknor probably has stood in his last Test match. He was culpable here, but a victim, too. Everyone was guilty, not forgetting media who forgot themselves at Indian captain Anil Kumble's press conference and applauded him for sticking it to Australia. Kumble miscounted when he said only one team was playing in the spirit of the game. India's sportsmanship at times was as lacking as Australia's when using elaborate ruses to slow the over rate on the last day. India got the rough end of the stick here, but were as sore losers as Australia were graceless winners.
What to do? Calls for sackings are knee-jerk, the threat to abandon the tour nonsensical. Apart from anything else, the all-powerful television moguls here and in India would not countenance it. The tour will go on, and so will the captains. So law and order it must be.
Once previously, in 2003, the Australian team was shocked by the public backlash to boorish behaviour in the West Indies, and drew up its own code of conduct, tighter even than the international code. It changed Australia's ways. They are not nearly the overt bullies they were. But in Sydney, they relapsed.
Adam Gilchrist is the team's hallmark of probity, but he was crucially involved in the erroneous and critical decision against Rahul Dravid on day five. I do not think Gilchrist is a hypocrite, so there must be a deeper malaise. It is time for the riot act to be read again. But by whom? Ponting? But he is (a) unrepentant and (b) compromised. Cricket Australia chief James Sutherland? Certainly, but he is not naturally a head-kicker. ICC chief Malcolm Speed? He is a head-kicker, but also Australian. In the eyes of some in the international cricket community, that makes him suspicious.
Ultimately, it must be Ponting. In cricket, the captain leads. He must stand up again. So must Kumble.
Cricket struggles for strong, consistent leadership. This was evident again in the Harbhajan case. Referee Mike Procter refused even to consider a charge against Yuvraj Singh for obvious dissent in Melbourne, yet banned Harbhajan for three Tests for a racist epithet. Harbhajan was foolish, but that is all. It is manifestly a harsh penalty.
Overwhelmingly, in all spheres, it is whites who have practised racism against non-whites. Yet in cracking down on racism, cricket makes as its first example a non- white player. This was always bound to sit poorly with Indians.
Australia say Ponting was bound by the racism code to report Harbhajan's remark: funny how the letter of the law suddenly was so important. But India have done themselves no favours by bringing a tit-for-tat charge against Brad Hogg.
The very least that must transpire in the eight days before the third Test is a meeting between the captains and a public handshake. It shames both sides to say that they should take their lead from the youngest player in the match.
Ishant Sharma, 19, was robbed of Symonds's wicket in Australia's first innings by a decision so bad Symonds later admitted he had been out. Instead, he made a big, unbeaten hundred. As the players left the field at the end of the Australian innings, Sharma would have been forgiven for keeping his distance, yet he alone of the Indians went to Symonds to offer his congratulations.
cricket
RT On Air
Tuesday, 8 January 2008
Arrogant Ponting must be fired
The Australian captain's disrespect for his opponents has embarrassed his country, writes Peter Roebuck.
Ricky Ponting must be sacked as captain of the Australian cricket team. If Cricket Australia cares a fig for the tattered reputation of our national team in our national sport, it will not for a moment longer tolerate the sort of arrogant and abrasive conduct seen from the captain and his senior players over the past few days. Beyond comparison it was the ugliest performance put up by an Australian side for 20 years. The only surprising part of it is that the Indians have not packed their bags and gone home. There is no justice for them in this country, nor any manners.
That the senior players in the Australian team are oblivious to the fury they raised among many followers of the game in this country and beyond merely confirms their own narrow and self-obsessed viewpoint. Doubtless they were not exposed to the messages that poured in from distressed enthusiasts aghast to see the scenes of bad sportsmanship and triumphalism presented at the SCG during and after the Test. Pained past players rang to express their disgust. It was a wretched and ill-mannered display and not to be endured from any side, let alone an international outfit representing a proud sporting nation.
Make no mistake, it is not only the reputation of these cricketers that has suffered. Australia itself has been embarrassed. The notion that Ponting can hereafter take the Australian team to India is preposterous. He has shown not the slightest interest in the well-being of the game, not the slightest sign of diplomatic skills, not a single mark of respect for his accomplished and widely admired opponents.
Harbhajan Singh can be an irritating young man but he is head of a family and responsible for raising nine people. And all the Australian elders want to do is to hunt him from the game. Australian fieldsmen fire insults from the corners of their mouths, an intemperate Sikh warrior overreacts and his rudeness is seized upon. It might impress barrack room lawyers.
In the past few days Ponting has presided over a performance that dragged the game into the pits. He turned a group of professional cricketers into a pack of wild dogs. As much can be told from the conduct of his closest allies in the team. As usual, Matthew Hayden crossed himself upon reaching three figures in his commanding second innings, a gesture he does not perform while wearing the colours of his state. Exactly how he combines his faith with throwing his weight around on the field has long bemused opposing sides, whose fondness for him ran out a long time ago. Hayden has much better in him.
Michael Clarke also had a dreadful match but he is a young man and has time to rethink his outlook. That his mind was in disarray could be told from his batting. In the first innings he offered no shot to a straight ball and in the second he remained at the crease after giving an easy catch to slip. On this evidence Clarke cannot be promoted to the vice-captaincy of his country. It is a captain's primary task to rear his younger players and to prepare his successor for the ordeals of office. Nothing need be said about the catch Clarke took in the second innings except that in the prevailing circumstances the umpires were ill-advised to take anyone's word for anything.
The Indians were convinced Ponting grounded a catch he claimed on the final afternoon at the SCG. Throughout those heated hours, the Australian remained hostile, kicking the ground, demanding decisions, pressuring the umpires. So much for the corporate smile that has been produced these last few years.
Probably the worst aspect of the Australians' performance was their conduct at the end. When the last catch was taken they formed into a huddle and started jumping up and down like teenagers at a rave. It was not euphoria. It was ecstasy. They had swallowed a dangerous pill called vengeance. Not one player so much as thought about shaking hands with the defeated and departing. So much for Andrew Flintoff consoling a stricken opponent in his hour of defeat.
Nor could Ponting and Gilchrist stop themselves publicly chiding Tony Greig for daring to criticise the timing of the declaration. They should have been thanking their lucky stars that three wickets had fallen in five balls, one of them in dubious circumstances. Australia had 150 runs and five minutes to spare. It was unfitting conduct from an Australian captain or vice-captain. By all accounts Ponting was later rude towards Indian reporters at his news conference.
Ponting has not provided the leadership expected from an Australian cricket captain and so must be sacked. On this evidence the time has also come to thank Hayden and Gilchrist for their services. None of them are bad fellows. All will look back on this match not as their finest hour but their worst. Obviously a new captain and side is required. But that is a task for another day. It is possible to love a country and not its cricket team.
cricket
Ricky Ponting must be sacked as captain of the Australian cricket team. If Cricket Australia cares a fig for the tattered reputation of our national team in our national sport, it will not for a moment longer tolerate the sort of arrogant and abrasive conduct seen from the captain and his senior players over the past few days. Beyond comparison it was the ugliest performance put up by an Australian side for 20 years. The only surprising part of it is that the Indians have not packed their bags and gone home. There is no justice for them in this country, nor any manners.
That the senior players in the Australian team are oblivious to the fury they raised among many followers of the game in this country and beyond merely confirms their own narrow and self-obsessed viewpoint. Doubtless they were not exposed to the messages that poured in from distressed enthusiasts aghast to see the scenes of bad sportsmanship and triumphalism presented at the SCG during and after the Test. Pained past players rang to express their disgust. It was a wretched and ill-mannered display and not to be endured from any side, let alone an international outfit representing a proud sporting nation.
Make no mistake, it is not only the reputation of these cricketers that has suffered. Australia itself has been embarrassed. The notion that Ponting can hereafter take the Australian team to India is preposterous. He has shown not the slightest interest in the well-being of the game, not the slightest sign of diplomatic skills, not a single mark of respect for his accomplished and widely admired opponents.
Harbhajan Singh can be an irritating young man but he is head of a family and responsible for raising nine people. And all the Australian elders want to do is to hunt him from the game. Australian fieldsmen fire insults from the corners of their mouths, an intemperate Sikh warrior overreacts and his rudeness is seized upon. It might impress barrack room lawyers.
In the past few days Ponting has presided over a performance that dragged the game into the pits. He turned a group of professional cricketers into a pack of wild dogs. As much can be told from the conduct of his closest allies in the team. As usual, Matthew Hayden crossed himself upon reaching three figures in his commanding second innings, a gesture he does not perform while wearing the colours of his state. Exactly how he combines his faith with throwing his weight around on the field has long bemused opposing sides, whose fondness for him ran out a long time ago. Hayden has much better in him.
Michael Clarke also had a dreadful match but he is a young man and has time to rethink his outlook. That his mind was in disarray could be told from his batting. In the first innings he offered no shot to a straight ball and in the second he remained at the crease after giving an easy catch to slip. On this evidence Clarke cannot be promoted to the vice-captaincy of his country. It is a captain's primary task to rear his younger players and to prepare his successor for the ordeals of office. Nothing need be said about the catch Clarke took in the second innings except that in the prevailing circumstances the umpires were ill-advised to take anyone's word for anything.
The Indians were convinced Ponting grounded a catch he claimed on the final afternoon at the SCG. Throughout those heated hours, the Australian remained hostile, kicking the ground, demanding decisions, pressuring the umpires. So much for the corporate smile that has been produced these last few years.
Probably the worst aspect of the Australians' performance was their conduct at the end. When the last catch was taken they formed into a huddle and started jumping up and down like teenagers at a rave. It was not euphoria. It was ecstasy. They had swallowed a dangerous pill called vengeance. Not one player so much as thought about shaking hands with the defeated and departing. So much for Andrew Flintoff consoling a stricken opponent in his hour of defeat.
Nor could Ponting and Gilchrist stop themselves publicly chiding Tony Greig for daring to criticise the timing of the declaration. They should have been thanking their lucky stars that three wickets had fallen in five balls, one of them in dubious circumstances. Australia had 150 runs and five minutes to spare. It was unfitting conduct from an Australian captain or vice-captain. By all accounts Ponting was later rude towards Indian reporters at his news conference.
Ponting has not provided the leadership expected from an Australian cricket captain and so must be sacked. On this evidence the time has also come to thank Hayden and Gilchrist for their services. None of them are bad fellows. All will look back on this match not as their finest hour but their worst. Obviously a new captain and side is required. But that is a task for another day. It is possible to love a country and not its cricket team.
cricket
Dodgy deeds leave sour taste
India have been dudded. No one with the slightest enthusiasm for cricket will take the least satisfaction from the victory secured by the local team in an SCG Test that entertained spectators, provided some excellent batting but left a sour taste in the mouth.
It was a match that will have been relished only by rabid nationalists and others for whom victory and vengeance are the sole reasons for playing sport. Truth to tell, the last day was as bad as the first. It was a rotten contest that singularly failed to elevate the spirit.
Until another shocking decision was made by a 61-year-old umpire, reliable in his time but past his prime, the fifth day of this unattractive contest was offering plenty of tension to put alongside the memorable hundreds contributed by capable batsmen on both sides. Thereafter they might as well have drawn stumps, as all interest had been removed. Once justice and fair play have been ejected there is no point in playing the game.
Whilst Rahul Dravid and Sourav Ganguly were at the crease it seemed India might escape with a draw. Had the umpiring been even remotely acceptable on the opening days or had replays been used to give embattled umpires a chance, they might perchance have won the contest, but that will forever remain in the land of conjecture. Australia had regrouped and set a stiff target and a badly chosen Indian batting order had faltered. Thereafter it was a matter of trying to save the match.
India's former captains stayed together till tea and afterwards continued their attempt to negotiate the 46 overs that still remained as a result of the lamentable over rates indulged in by both sides, and especially the visitors. By now Ricky Ponting had thrown the ball to his spinners and asked them to land the ball in the rough. Ponting's street fighter instincts have emerged in this contest, and it has not always been a pretty sight. By now the Australians were starting to press the umpires with appeals, dirty looks and questions. Cricketers know that umpires are vulnerable on the fifth afternoon, when even the most seasoned white coat can succumb to pressure created by weariness and the frenzy of eager fieldsmen around the bat.
Dravid found himself facing Andrew Symonds. Beyond argument, Dravid's was the crucial wicket. He had been dropped once at first slip off a snorter from Mitchell Johnson. But he had looked better balanced at the crease and more upright in his strokes. From a distance it seemed the worst was over. Although not exactly an immovable object, he looked solid enough to save his side.
Then came the moment that compromised all subsequent events, rendering meaningless the continuation of Australia's run of victories. Dravid thrust his pad forward at a wide delivery and wisely took the precaution of tucking his bat out of harm's way. The ball brushed the front pad and was taken by the local gloveman, a man with a high reputation for sportsmanship. Adam Gilchrist and his comrades around the bat immediately roared a raucous appeal. Gilchrist was especially animated. To think, there was a time when teammates chided him for holding back.
Doubtless, the fieldsmen heard a noise, but canvas and wood make different sounds, a fact known to every cricketer. That the bat was hidden away behind the body was surely more obvious from behind. Doubtless, the Australians will argue that excesses of this sort are commonplace elsewhere. But they were stoking the fires of an angry contest.
If the appeal was bad, the decision was worse. A mild-natured and intelligent man, Dravid departed shaking his head slowly as the Australians celebrated. Instead, they should have been fearing the damage done to their reputations. Already scorned by the English, they may find themselves under the cosh in a country where most of them make most of their money. Despite the amiability of many players, Ponting's team is developing an unwanted reputation for being headstrong and precious. Matthew Hayden's belittling of Anil Kumble's bowling at the MCG was a case in point.
Nor was that all. Ganguly's departure was also debated. An edge flew low to Michael Clarke at slip and the catch was claimed. Replays were inconclusive and the batsman stood his ground. He remembered that the catcher waited to be given out after being taken at slip. In these circumstances, the umpires in the field have been urged to make the decision. But that was not enough for an agitated Australian captain. Just to help the umpire make up his mind, Ponting held up a finger to indicate the catch had been taken. Having recalled an opponent prepared to take his word in the first innings, he expected to be believed. Unfortunately, Australia had long since left the high ground.
Certainly the match gripped the crowd. Ultimately Australia secured a 16th consecutive victory as Clarke struck. Kumble trooped forlornly from the field and reached the boundary before any Australian thought to shake his hand. Others may be caught up in the euphoria. It is to be earnestly hoped that at least a vestige of sportsmanship is observed when the teams next meet in Perth. What happens in the middle has a nasty habit of spreading further afield.
cricket
It was a match that will have been relished only by rabid nationalists and others for whom victory and vengeance are the sole reasons for playing sport. Truth to tell, the last day was as bad as the first. It was a rotten contest that singularly failed to elevate the spirit.
Until another shocking decision was made by a 61-year-old umpire, reliable in his time but past his prime, the fifth day of this unattractive contest was offering plenty of tension to put alongside the memorable hundreds contributed by capable batsmen on both sides. Thereafter they might as well have drawn stumps, as all interest had been removed. Once justice and fair play have been ejected there is no point in playing the game.
Whilst Rahul Dravid and Sourav Ganguly were at the crease it seemed India might escape with a draw. Had the umpiring been even remotely acceptable on the opening days or had replays been used to give embattled umpires a chance, they might perchance have won the contest, but that will forever remain in the land of conjecture. Australia had regrouped and set a stiff target and a badly chosen Indian batting order had faltered. Thereafter it was a matter of trying to save the match.
India's former captains stayed together till tea and afterwards continued their attempt to negotiate the 46 overs that still remained as a result of the lamentable over rates indulged in by both sides, and especially the visitors. By now Ricky Ponting had thrown the ball to his spinners and asked them to land the ball in the rough. Ponting's street fighter instincts have emerged in this contest, and it has not always been a pretty sight. By now the Australians were starting to press the umpires with appeals, dirty looks and questions. Cricketers know that umpires are vulnerable on the fifth afternoon, when even the most seasoned white coat can succumb to pressure created by weariness and the frenzy of eager fieldsmen around the bat.
Dravid found himself facing Andrew Symonds. Beyond argument, Dravid's was the crucial wicket. He had been dropped once at first slip off a snorter from Mitchell Johnson. But he had looked better balanced at the crease and more upright in his strokes. From a distance it seemed the worst was over. Although not exactly an immovable object, he looked solid enough to save his side.
Then came the moment that compromised all subsequent events, rendering meaningless the continuation of Australia's run of victories. Dravid thrust his pad forward at a wide delivery and wisely took the precaution of tucking his bat out of harm's way. The ball brushed the front pad and was taken by the local gloveman, a man with a high reputation for sportsmanship. Adam Gilchrist and his comrades around the bat immediately roared a raucous appeal. Gilchrist was especially animated. To think, there was a time when teammates chided him for holding back.
Doubtless, the fieldsmen heard a noise, but canvas and wood make different sounds, a fact known to every cricketer. That the bat was hidden away behind the body was surely more obvious from behind. Doubtless, the Australians will argue that excesses of this sort are commonplace elsewhere. But they were stoking the fires of an angry contest.
If the appeal was bad, the decision was worse. A mild-natured and intelligent man, Dravid departed shaking his head slowly as the Australians celebrated. Instead, they should have been fearing the damage done to their reputations. Already scorned by the English, they may find themselves under the cosh in a country where most of them make most of their money. Despite the amiability of many players, Ponting's team is developing an unwanted reputation for being headstrong and precious. Matthew Hayden's belittling of Anil Kumble's bowling at the MCG was a case in point.
Nor was that all. Ganguly's departure was also debated. An edge flew low to Michael Clarke at slip and the catch was claimed. Replays were inconclusive and the batsman stood his ground. He remembered that the catcher waited to be given out after being taken at slip. In these circumstances, the umpires in the field have been urged to make the decision. But that was not enough for an agitated Australian captain. Just to help the umpire make up his mind, Ponting held up a finger to indicate the catch had been taken. Having recalled an opponent prepared to take his word in the first innings, he expected to be believed. Unfortunately, Australia had long since left the high ground.
Certainly the match gripped the crowd. Ultimately Australia secured a 16th consecutive victory as Clarke struck. Kumble trooped forlornly from the field and reached the boundary before any Australian thought to shake his hand. Others may be caught up in the euphoria. It is to be earnestly hoped that at least a vestige of sportsmanship is observed when the teams next meet in Perth. What happens in the middle has a nasty habit of spreading further afield.
cricket
Monday, 7 January 2008
Not walking is not cheating
Why is cricket only major sport in the world where some people demand that players do the umpires' jobs for them?
Martin Williamson
While the poor umpiring during the Sydney Test has attracted many of the headlines, much vitriol has also been directed at several players for not walking when they have nicked the ball. At best they have been accused of unsporting behaviour, at worst of downright cheating.
And yet what is it about cricket that it is the only major sport in the world where some people demand that players do the umpires' jobs for them? There is nothing in the Laws that requires a batsman to walk, although there is a widespread feeling that batsmen always used to do so in the good old days, and by not doing so now the current generation show themselves as being inferior.
The reality is that walking has always been a contentious issue. The concept grew up in social cricket in Victorian times when the whole ethos of gentlemen being sportsmen was formulated. And yet, even at that level, there were some batsmen who walked and some who did not.
WG Grace, the epitome of Victorian cricket, never walked. Lord Harris, who is possibly the most establishment figure the game has ever known, admitted in his autobiography to have stood his ground when he knew he was out. "This is a case when the umpire on appeal has decided that a batsman is not out," he wrote. "The batsman, although he knows he was out, has no business to retire from the wicket."
In the 1920s there is a story of Johnny Douglas, the Essex amateur captain, storming into the Gloucestershire dressing room to berate a young Wally Hammond, at the time a professional, for not walking. Both were at one time England captains.
And yet at the same time Jack Hobbs admitted to Gubby Allen that he had edged a ball but stayed when given not out. When Allen remonstrated, Hobbs replied that it was unfair to undermine the umpire, adding that "if I had [walked] then he would almost certainly have given me out at the next possible opportunity." Hobbs was one of the game's true gentlemen - in all but name as he was no amateur - but his point was clear. The umpire is there to make decisions and not the player.
In the post-war period the debate rumbled on. There were many complaints that some batsmen were walkers unless the situation was tight in which case they would stand their ground, aided by the umpire giving them the benefit because of their reputation as a walker. Writing in The Guardian, Mike Selvey claimed that Colin Cowdrey walked for obvious decisions but not for marginal ones in the hope his reputation would save him.
When England visited Australia in 1982-83 they made a collective decision not to walk, the logic being the Australians never did so why should they. It was once said that an Australian only ever walks when his car breaks down.
Bill Lawry, a former captain of Australia, was clear about the issue when he played. "Leave it to the umpire," he said. "The umpire has a job and I have mine. I will not walk." That's fine. He knew he would get a break one day but that on another he would be on the rough end of a bad decision. His view was that the two evened themselves out. As long as a non-walker accepts a bad decision with good grace, what is the problem?
Steve Bucknor, in the eye of the Sydney storm, said a few years ago that some batsmen would only walk when they had passed a hundred and not before they had scored. "If he knows he is out and he goes, that's good for the game," he said. "But the umpire should not depend on someone who is a walker. Otherwise, that same walker may embarrass the umpire.''
In short, unless every player in the world walks without hesitation, it won't work - and human nature means that simply will not happen. There is too much at stake to ask even the most ardent walker to give himself out when he gets the thinnest of edges after being on the receiving end of a string of bad decisions and is, as a result, batting for his place.
Not walking is not cheating. Claiming a catch you know you have not caught cleanly is; the same goes for claiming a bat-pad catch when you know it was nowhere near the edge. The difference is that in one you are leaving the umpire to make his decision, in the other you are openly trying to deceive him.
The umpiring at Sydney was as poor as the umpiring was good in Cape Town. The officials got several decisions badly wrong, and not just ones that the benefit of endless replays showed as being errors. That is something for the ICC to address as it is becoming clear that the demands put on a tiny panel of elite umpires by a burgeoning fixture list is causing the best of them to crack.
The one thing the players can do to help is to leave all the decisions to them. The one thing the public can do is to accept that players should not be expected to act as their own hangmen.
cricket
Martin Williamson
While the poor umpiring during the Sydney Test has attracted many of the headlines, much vitriol has also been directed at several players for not walking when they have nicked the ball. At best they have been accused of unsporting behaviour, at worst of downright cheating.
And yet what is it about cricket that it is the only major sport in the world where some people demand that players do the umpires' jobs for them? There is nothing in the Laws that requires a batsman to walk, although there is a widespread feeling that batsmen always used to do so in the good old days, and by not doing so now the current generation show themselves as being inferior.
The reality is that walking has always been a contentious issue. The concept grew up in social cricket in Victorian times when the whole ethos of gentlemen being sportsmen was formulated. And yet, even at that level, there were some batsmen who walked and some who did not.
WG Grace, the epitome of Victorian cricket, never walked. Lord Harris, who is possibly the most establishment figure the game has ever known, admitted in his autobiography to have stood his ground when he knew he was out. "This is a case when the umpire on appeal has decided that a batsman is not out," he wrote. "The batsman, although he knows he was out, has no business to retire from the wicket."
In the 1920s there is a story of Johnny Douglas, the Essex amateur captain, storming into the Gloucestershire dressing room to berate a young Wally Hammond, at the time a professional, for not walking. Both were at one time England captains.
And yet at the same time Jack Hobbs admitted to Gubby Allen that he had edged a ball but stayed when given not out. When Allen remonstrated, Hobbs replied that it was unfair to undermine the umpire, adding that "if I had [walked] then he would almost certainly have given me out at the next possible opportunity." Hobbs was one of the game's true gentlemen - in all but name as he was no amateur - but his point was clear. The umpire is there to make decisions and not the player.
In the post-war period the debate rumbled on. There were many complaints that some batsmen were walkers unless the situation was tight in which case they would stand their ground, aided by the umpire giving them the benefit because of their reputation as a walker. Writing in The Guardian, Mike Selvey claimed that Colin Cowdrey walked for obvious decisions but not for marginal ones in the hope his reputation would save him.
When England visited Australia in 1982-83 they made a collective decision not to walk, the logic being the Australians never did so why should they. It was once said that an Australian only ever walks when his car breaks down.
Bill Lawry, a former captain of Australia, was clear about the issue when he played. "Leave it to the umpire," he said. "The umpire has a job and I have mine. I will not walk." That's fine. He knew he would get a break one day but that on another he would be on the rough end of a bad decision. His view was that the two evened themselves out. As long as a non-walker accepts a bad decision with good grace, what is the problem?
Steve Bucknor, in the eye of the Sydney storm, said a few years ago that some batsmen would only walk when they had passed a hundred and not before they had scored. "If he knows he is out and he goes, that's good for the game," he said. "But the umpire should not depend on someone who is a walker. Otherwise, that same walker may embarrass the umpire.''
In short, unless every player in the world walks without hesitation, it won't work - and human nature means that simply will not happen. There is too much at stake to ask even the most ardent walker to give himself out when he gets the thinnest of edges after being on the receiving end of a string of bad decisions and is, as a result, batting for his place.
Not walking is not cheating. Claiming a catch you know you have not caught cleanly is; the same goes for claiming a bat-pad catch when you know it was nowhere near the edge. The difference is that in one you are leaving the umpire to make his decision, in the other you are openly trying to deceive him.
The umpiring at Sydney was as poor as the umpiring was good in Cape Town. The officials got several decisions badly wrong, and not just ones that the benefit of endless replays showed as being errors. That is something for the ICC to address as it is becoming clear that the demands put on a tiny panel of elite umpires by a burgeoning fixture list is causing the best of them to crack.
The one thing the players can do to help is to leave all the decisions to them. The one thing the public can do is to accept that players should not be expected to act as their own hangmen.
cricket
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)