Why Batsmen Don't Walk Anymore

These days, it’s considered old-school for a batsman who edges a ball through to the keeper to simply walk off without waiting for the umpire’s decision. “Walking” used to be considered the gentlemanly thing to do. So why has it disappeared from pretty much all levels of cricket?

There have been a few much discussed incidents at international level. Andrew Symonds being “caught behind” on 30 and then going on to score 162 no against India is one which comes to mind. Opinion was divided. Those supporting him argued that Australia had poor decisions go against them, so why not get one back?

In contrast, I can remember Doug Walters’ character being assailed in the mid 1970’s when he allegedly didn’t walk on a much thinner edge. He denied hitting it at all.

Today, in the Australia vs Sri Lanka test, Mahela Jayawardene asked for Michael Clarke’s claimed catch to be referred to the TV umpire. There was no way he was walking until it was independently verified that the ball had not hit the ground before it went into Clarke’s hands. Most people thought this fair: what’s the TV umpire for if not to adjudicate based on objective evidence?

One explanation proffered for why professional cricketers no longer walk is that they are professionals. At international or provincial level, a cricket "career" means the same thing as it used to in terms of statistics, but now there is another dimension: money. You’re paid to score runs and win matches. If you don’t produce consistent results, you’ll be dropped and you’ll lose your livelihood.

Playing elite sport is a job. Cricket is no exception. In fact, elite cricketers’ earnings began to rise with the advent of World Series Cricket in the late 70's. Not only have their base salaries greatly increased as they secured a greater share of television rights, for the most popular players, advertising endorsements now provide even more income than they receive from playing actual matches.

According to the Courier Mail, in 2007, Australian captain Ricky Ponting was on a base contract of $800,000 and in form opener Matthew Hayden was on $650,000. Adding in endorsements, Ponting, Hayden and Brett Lee were estimated to each earn over $2M per year.

In 2006, players in the English test squad had base contracts of £300,000.

Even Australian state cricketers have contracts worth $25,000 - $50,000 p.a.

That’s a lot of income at risk if you’re out of form, have had a couple of bad decisions, then get a faint edge. But is keeping your job sufficient to explain not walking at elite level?

No. If the rest of the population still thought walking was the right thing to do, proven non-walkers would lose advertising endorsements and possibly even be fined for “bringing the game into disrepute”.

But this never happens. We rarely, if ever even hear former cricketers say: “He should have walked. That wasn’t right. Someone should have a word with him about sportsmanship”.

In fact, walking is rare at grade or even park cricket level, unless it’s a blatant edge which can be heard from the boundary … and sometimes not even then.

If it’s rare to walk at any level, retention of employment can’t be the sole explanation for the change. To say that winning per se has become more important than how the game is played is not an explanation because this is a symptom rather than a cause. Such an attitude definitely exists more now than it used to, but there must be some cause which initiated and then supported this change.

Did the change trickle down from elite level, or was it a change in general attitudes which is now so established that elite cricketers have grown up with the new mores?

I suspect it was originally the former and now it’s the latter. Cricketers took cues from their role models and now take them from their peers.

Look at Tony Greig’s run out of Alvin Kallicharran in 1974. That was well before cricketers’ pay or prize money could justify such an action (if ever it could be). Such behaviour would never have been contemplated in a club game at that time. It represented a change in attitude toward winning at all costs by some at the elite level. Tony Greig, always a complete prick, was one of its pioneers.

The Indians recently tried to pull the same stunt on England’s Ian Bell.

Commensurate with the decline in "walking" is the increase in highly speculative and often outrightly dishonest appealing. Umpires will make some bad decisions and the more appeals they get, the more bad decisions they will make. Why would a batsman previously given out LBW from a thick edge onto the pad or caught behind from a ball they were nowhere near, now walk on a thin edge?

I don’t walk for precisely this reason. I’ve been given out LBW to an overly enthusiastic appeal on the last ball of the day from a clear inside edge onto the pad, then had the opposing captain say to me: "You were a bit unlucky there, mate" as we were walking off. No shame about it. "Fuck off!" I said.

I’ve also played matches without official umpires (the batting side does it) and the cheating here is appalling. I’ve had LBW appeals turned down where the batsman has padded up to a ball which would clearly have hit the stumps.

It’s usually the same people who make blatantly dishonest appeals who whinge the loudest if you don’t walk. The batsman’s typical response is: "When I stop getting crap decisions from bullshit appeals, I’ll start walking."

Let’s also not pretend there aren’t cultural factors involved. Plenty of test cricketers from all nations have been fined for excessive appealing in tense situations, but anyone who has umpired or played against a team of subcontinental players knows they are by far the most prolific and blatant offenders. They only care about the result, not how it was obtained. When you look at the corruption in their societies, you can see where the attitude comes from.

I play with a few teammates of Indian, Pakistani and Sri Lankan origin and they freely discuss what every cricketer knows: If you play a team consisting entirely of curries, expect a lot of cheating. Our guys rip into them in Hindi. It’s hilarious to watch.

No-one is trying to pretend that white players don’t cheat.

Here’s a summary of 10 controversial test cricket dismissals. Only 3 are absolutely beyond the pale cheating: Carl Hooper’s run out of Dean Jones, Tony Greig’s even more disgraceful run out of Alvin Kallicharran and the worst in history, the slimy Sarfraz Nawaz’s appeal against Andrew Hilditch for handled ball.

The offenders: A white South African émigré, a West Indian and a Pakistani.

What I’m saying is what every player has experienced: there is in general more frequent and more shameless cheating from subcontinental teams.

It’s not their DNA which causes it: it’s culture. Interestingly, you don’t see the same level of cheating in culturally mixed teams.

A culture in which transgression is principally understood externally via shame rather than internally via guilt is far more likely to lead to cheating in group situations where responsibility can be diffused and shame is not felt due to the support of colleagues.

One team cheating can make the other cheat in response. Teams who “confidently” appeal for anything will cause the opposition to not walk even for thick edges, as well as make speculative appeals themselves, although one needs use psychology to temper the latter to the disposition of the umpire, who is generally looking to give you a few LBWs to punish a team of shifty pricks.

In summary, a batsman has to deal with dodgy appealing, poor umpiring decisions, and regularly playing against a bunch of shifty, often mouthy pricks who would never walk themselves. Add to that the financial incentive at elite level. Why would you ever walk?