A media storm has erupted in the wake of Andrew Symonds’ decision to stand his ground in the second Test against India in Sydney after getting a fairly healthy edge through to MS Dhoni off youngster Ishant Sharma. Many people believe that Symonds – who went on to make an undefeated 162 – should have done the honourable thing and walked when he was clearly out.

Those who are not enamoured of the Australian way of playing have suggested that not to walk is cheating and against the spirit of the game. What cobblers! These same, high-minded individuals have no problems with players appealing when the batsman is demonstrably not out. Apparently, there are degrees of cheating that are acceptable.

Anyone who has played cricket for any length of time will have been on the wrong end of a dodgy umpiring decision and there is absolutely no recourse when umpires get it wrong in favour of the bowling side. The important thing is to accept the umpire’s decision and get on with the game; it’ll all even itself out in the end. If you doubt that, then just look at Ricky Ponting’s dismissal in the same innings.

‘... batsmen should walk. But, so should bowlers withdraw appeals when batsmen are clearly not out, fielders should admit if they aren’t sure if they caught the ball and bowling sides should get through their overs.’


One big problem with those who decide that walking is the right thing to do, and fortunately there aren’t that many, is that it undermines the authority of the umpires and can often embarrass them. If anyone can come up with a scenario where it is good to get an umpire offside, I’d love to hear it.

There is, however, a counter argument, espoused admirably by Christopher Martin-Jenkins in last year’s Cowdrey Lecture to the MCC. CMJ’s argument is that batsmen walk when they are bowled, if they sky the ball to mid-on or are caught at second slip, therefore not to walk when they think that they can get away with it is dishonest.

He believes that the view that the umpires are paid to make decisions – something he refers to as the Southern Hemisphere view – demeans the spirit of the game. He believes that the game has been built on the spirit of honesty and sportsmanship and that the modern game has lost the very thing that made it special. It’s difficult to argue with him when it’s put like that.

Walking, however, is only one facet of the game where these types of issues are raised. Catches, too, are a source of contention. Is it appropriate for the umpires to trust the fielder when they claim a catch – should they refer it to the third umpire or should they pay close enough attention to make the decision themselves. If they can’t tell, then convention is that the benefit of the doubt goes to the batsman. That, too, is part of the spirit of the game.

What then of the slow over rates that are the curse of the modern game. Is the fact that a side can only bowl 89 overs, even with the benefit of an extra half-hour, acceptable – especially when spinners bowled 45 of those overs, as was the case by India in the Australian first innings? Over rates this slow are inexcusable.

The spirit of the game is important, of that there is little argument, but it can’t be cherry picked. If people want to hold out the spirit as paramount, then batsmen should walk. But, so should bowlers withdraw appeals when batsmen are clearly not out, fielders should admit if they aren’t sure if they caught the ball and bowling sides should get through their overs in the six hours allocated.

Get those in order and then we can worry about batsmen walking.