After last week's commotion over Gilchrist, Gillespie, Kasprowicz and Yuvraj Singh 'walking' rather than waiting for the umpires to rule them out [or in spite of being ruled not-out in Kasprowicz's case!], I was quite astonished that no one exclaimed about the fact that Gilchrist walked in the second innings at Madras after being bowled by a Kumble googly round his legs. If being bowled was bleedingly obviously out, so was the batpad catch he offered in the first innings. I can understand the brouhaha if it was a thin edge and he had walked. But it was a clear nick from the bat onto his pad and then to the short-leg fielder. Gilchrist made waves when he walked in the World Cup semi-final against Sri Lanka. At that time, it was certainly a thin edge. This time though a mountain has been made out of a molehill.

I in fact have a theory that more batsmen will begin to walk early on during a given series [Tests or one-dayers] in the hope that umpires will believe them to be angels. Subsequent nicks through to the keeper/close-in fielders will not elicit a voluntary trudge back to base camp since the umpires would now believe that if the player didnt walk, it was because he genuinely did not nick it. Call it a sinister theory, but I am fairly sure I will be proved right.

I dont believe in the notion that things even themselves out. Technology in cricket is a must and it will improve the game. Players careers [cricketing and financial] are on the line and umpires attempt to get away from it by saying "sorry" and blaming the crowds for it? That is ridiculous. So should home-crowds stay pin-drop silent when their team is batting? How about when the opposition is batting?

Greg Baum writes about a hypothetical conversation between Gilchrist and Steve Waugh about walking.

Labels: walking