To walk or not to walk - A batsman's conundrum
The million dollar question raises its not-so-ugly face again. Lots of disdain on moral code of the players, the ineptness of the umpires and ungentlemanly conduct in the gentleman’s game of cricket. Before we get on with it, here is looking at 2 scenarios. Put yourself in these positions and think what you would have done.
Scenario 1 – Your team is setting up a target for the opposition and has slipped to 90-7. You, along with the new batsman, are the only hopes to take your team to a respectable total. With the score at 130-7, you get a faint tickle on your bat and are caught behind. The umpire is oblivious to it and gives it not out.
Scenario 2 – Your team is chasing a modest total of 180 odd and has motored along to 50-1 in 9 overs. You get a big edge on your bat and are caught behind. The umpire doesn’t quite hear the nick and gives you not out.
What will you do?
The first scenario is similar to what Stuart Broad went through in the 1st Ashes test. England were precariously placed in their 2nd innings. Their lead was around 200, when Broad nicked an Agar delivery. The umpire wasn’t convinced; Broad stood ground, Australia had no reviews left. Broad went on to add 28 vital runs to his score, which in the end proved to be vital.
Walk? You must be kidding right?
Scenario two is similar to what happened a few years back. It was a CB series league match, India vs Australia. India were chasing 160 to win. Sachin Tendulkar nicked a Stuart Clark delivery in the 10th over with his team on 52-1. Rudi Koertzen was unmoved, and so was Sachin Tendulkar. Sachin went on to make 44 and was India’s top scorer in the low-scoring match.
Keeping morality aside for a bit, Scenario 1 is a case when the batsman can’t afford to walk, considering the situation his team is in. It was essential for him to stay put in the crease and add as many runs as possible. Broad knew he had nicked the ball, but he took a chance with umpire. And it paid off. Let’s assume Broad had misread the pace of the ball, played a tad too early and lobbed a catch back to Agar. Would he have waited for the umpire to give his decision then? Obviously, not.
Scenario 2, on the other hand, is a case when the batsman can afford to walk. Chasing a modest total and a pretty decent middle order waiting in the hut, a wicket at that moment wouldn’t have had much of an impact on the match. Sachin thought it was important for him to stay at the crease and took his chance with the umpire. And yes, It did pay off. Does that make him morally wrong? Remember he is the batsman who walked of his own accord when he nicked Ravi Rampaul in the first over of the crucial group match in the World cup of 2011.
Calling a batsman morally corrupt because he doesn’t walk after nicking the ball is quite unwarranted. Don’t bowlers appeal for LBWs even if the ball is going to miss a sixth stump? Don’t the wicket-keepers appeal for anything remotely close to the edge of the batsmen? Why are the standards different?
The answer to the “To walk or not to walk” question is simple. It is a situational discretion. The atmosphere at the time, the match situation, the mindset of the batsman at that given moment all impact the decision of the batsman. Or for that matter, any decision of the batsman.
The basic human tendency is to be driven by circumstances and not to be ruled by a set of rigid doctrines. Cricketers are as human as each one of us. Should we be chastising them for being “selectively moral”? We aren’t saints now, are we?
Coming back to aalking, it is the umpire’s job to notice the edge and give the batsman out. Instead of censuring the batsman, why not aim the ire at the umpires? Ok, I understand that they are human too. So, why not use more technology? Maybe let the TV umpires have more authority over the DRS system. Why not replace umpires with robots to completely eliminate human errors? Or just maybe, live with these minor human errors and move on because, in my opinion, this is what makes the game more beautiful and a game of glorious uncertainties.