I would like to recount a (paraphrased) story from Allan McGilvray’s biography. In about 1933, a young McGilvray was playing for NSW against the Vics. He had the honour of taking the new ball and was bowling the first over of the match to the then Australian captain, the great Bill Woodfull. McGilvray could not believe his luck when Woodfull got a healthy edge and the keeper did the rest. A huge appeal ensued. It was turned down, much to McGilvray’s disappointment. Woodfull made a single from the next ball, and, arriving at the bowlers end, two interesting things happened:

1. A very sheepish McGilvray said “I’m sorry about that appeal Mr Woodfull”.
2. Woodfull said “I hit that one hard Ump. I would have walked but I didn’t want to embarrass you.”

My how times have changed!!

I thinking the practice of walking was dead by the end of the seventies. Sure, there has been the odd exponent since then, mostly the idealists and artists. Lara and Gower could be counted amongst them.

In the hard days of professional cricket, players have decided that they can balance out the bad decisions they receive by accepting those more favourable decisions. Swings and roundabouts. Certainly not cheating.

Have you ever noticed than when the batsman has nicked the ball, their reflex action is the spin the head around to see if the catch is taken. The real professionals such as Steve Waugh eliminated that practice, always staring straight ahead, poker faced, whether contact was made or not.

Now move forward to the World Cup Semi final, Australia versus Sri Lanka in March 2003. There is a big appeal against Adam Gilchrist for caught behind. The umpire gives not out. Gilchrist walks! What a sensation this caused. Why did he do it? Had he had a religious experience? Did he have money on Sri Lanka? Was this a team directive? Would more Aussie’s do it?

Gilchrist simply said that it wasn’t something that he had really thought through. It was almost an involuntary action – he just thought “Well I hit that. I should go.” Gilchrist was concerned that he had embarrassed Dave Orchard and spoke to him after the match. Orchard was very happy and wished there was more of it.

Ponting was very quick to point out that Gilchrist’s actions were not part of any team discussion or policy. I believe that he went as far as denouncing the move and couldn’t quite understand what was going on with Gillie.

Gilchrist has continued to walk since then and this must have earned respect from the umpires. It probably means that he won’t be given out with bogus bat-pads and caught behinds. Gilchrist has walked faithfully and I think if he doesn’t walk, it is unlikely that he will be given out. Gilchrist’s walking has had the acid test. During some important innings (I know it’s pathetic but I can’t remember and I don’t have time to research but I think it was in either India or Sri Lanka last year), Gilchrist had a big appeal for bat-pad turned down (after the umpire had allowed Gilchrist time to walk). The very next ball, up they went again, and off went Gillie. No need for umpire intervention.

The issue of walking has received a great deal of attention since Gilchrist’s action in that World Cup semi final. Some of his team mates even joined him on occasions. However, things came to a head in the recent tour of New Zealand. I think it was Craig McMillan who clobbered the ball through to Gilchrist but survived. Gilchrist and some of the other lads had a few words to McMillan. At the end of the days play McMillan was most upset that Gillie should take such a moralistic and “holier than thou” attitude. If Gillie wanted to walk good for him, but there was no expectation that anyone else would. I would just like to make the point that if a batsman blatantly hits the ball, is caught and is given not out, he is going to be made aware of his good fortune by the ‘keeper and slips. Whether the ‘keeper is a devout “walker” or not has little to do with it. That batsman is going to cop an earful. And I would say it’s worth it. A small price to pay. It’s much better than watching replays of your dismissal from the peace of the sheds!

While batsmen not walking may be a little sad, it certainly is not a major detraction to the game. What is a blight on the game however, is incessant, excessive, over zealous and mischievous appealing. Most countries are guilty of this practise at least some of the time and Australia is one of the worst, especially if Warne is bowling. In my opinion, even more admirable than walking, is Gilchrist’s practice of appealing only when it is out or pretty darn close. It is not uncommon to see all those around the bat go up, except for Gilchrist. I’m sure that the umpires find that very useful too. I once suggested a checklist that umpires need to go through before giving a batsman out lbw (Was it hitting the stumps? Did it pitch outside leg? Was it too high? etc). Perhaps “Did Gilchrist appeal?” should be added to the checklist.