Rob Steen
Rob Steen Rob SteenRSS FeedFeeds  | Archives
Sportswriter and senior lecturer in sports journalism at the University of Brighton

Tendulkar and the wisdom of walking

What sped through his mind in the seconds before he was given not out against West Indies? Did he decide to go out of pragmatism or nobility?

Rob Steen

March 24, 2011

Comments: 154 | Text size: A | A

Sachin Tendulkar walks back after being caught behind, India v West Indies, Group B, World Cup 2011, Chennai, March 20, 2011
Sachin Tendulkar: setting an example © AFP
Related Links
News : To walk or not to walk?
Match reports : South Africa v England
Players/Officials: Sachin Tendulkar
Series/Tournaments: ICC Cricket World Cup
Teams: India

It is possible, just, that this World Cup will produce a more cherishable moment than Sachin Tendulkar's decision to walk against West Indies on Sunday. That said, short of Ricky Ponting offering to ghost-write Aleem Dar's autobiography in exchange for a signed copy of the MCC's Spirit of Cricket, it is fiendishly difficult to see how.

Let's be clear about this. Walking is cricket's trickiest ethical dilemma. Always has been, always will be. It marks the intersection of professionalism and honesty, where pragmatism collides with principle. That it should rear its two-faced head again at this tournament is assuredly no coincidence, but more of that later. By way of measuring the delicate nature of this part-time custom, let's rewind to Cape Town, 1965.

On the opening day of the third Test, Eddie Barlow, the bulldog atop South Africa's order, survives a vehement England appeal for a catch at short leg, stands his ground, with the tourists convinced that the umpire has erred, and marches on to a century. Still livid, the fielders refuse, pointedly, to applaud, then over-compensate, equally pointedly, when Barlow's partner, Tony Pithey, reaches 50. Mike Smith's side are castigated for making their dissent so plain; one writer claims they descended "to a deplorable level". Smith duly apologises to Barlow, but the furore is merely warming up.

When England bat, Ken Barrington, on 44, nudges to short leg, on the bounce. Spinning around, the team joker makes as if to walk off, then returns, grinning. The crowd gets the joke. Shortly afterwards, Barrington edges to the keeper, Denis Lindsay. At first it looks as if he is about to walk, but he stays put. Again, the umpire was John Warner. "I knew I was out," Barrington would recall, "but then I remembered all the chat in the papers about leaving decisions to the umpires."

Apparently every bit as confused as Barrington, Warner doesn't flinch. For a few interminable seconds, time and picture freeze, whereupon Barrington walks. "I felt I just couldn't stay there," he later explained. "It was a matter of principle and sportsmanship." Cue applause from fielders and spectators alike, and a fusillade of criticism from journalists - many of them English - who felt Barrington had tarried too long. Unusually, outrage was caused because Barrington did walk.

The Rand Daily Mail wondered whether it was "an ostentatious act which bordered on gamesmanship" and urged Barrington to apologise to Warner for subjecting him to "ridicule and contempt". To the Fleet Street Daily Mail, the action "smacked of 'we chaps know how to play the game even if you lot don't'." Barrington apologised. "I can blame my hesitation only on my own indecision," he would reflect. "I got terribly involved in the rights and wrongs of walking."

DON'T KID YOURSELF that walking is one of those noble practices that only died out with the advent of global professionalism. WG Grace famously stayed put even when his timbers had been shivered. Between the world wars, claimed Gubby Allen, "few batsmen ever walked unless given out".

That period may have accounted for 90% of Wally Hammond's career, but as England's first post-war captain he made Bill Edrich feel so queasy about not walking in an Ashes Test that Edrich promptly surrendered his wicket. Come the 1960s, according to Mike Brearley, non-walkers were considered cheats. In his disarmingly robust diary, Another Day, Another Match, the Gloucestershire seamer Brian Brain confirmed as much: "When I started in county cricket [in 1959], the ones who didn't walk could be counted on the fingers of one hand and they'd be given a huge rocket from their captains if they stood their ground when they knew they were out… [In 1980] I didn't see one batsman walk." All three, though, were referring to county cricket. In Australia it has never been the done thing, the honourable thing, nor even a credible act - hence the disbelief and dressing-room disgruntlement that greeted Adam Gilchrist's celebrated decision to off himself in the 2003 World Cup semi-final.

If Tendulkar did act out of fear for what this brave new world might do to his reputation, we should not think any the less of him. What we got was the right result, regardless of how it was arrived at. End fully justified means

Nor, for that matter, was walking admired unreservedly in the shires. After all, reasoned Sir Derek Birley in his seminal myth-frying book The Willow Wand, here was a decidedly dodgy, shamelessly class-based and erratically practised custom instigated by amateur captains, who "set their honour code above the authority of the humble umpires" (and Hammond, note, had to turn amateur to captain his country). Unconstrained by social hierarchies or convention, Australians felt no compunction to follow suit. "[It] can be assumed as more likely to take place when a batsman has just made a century than after he has made three successive ducks," theorised Birley with a certain slyness. "It has, in fact, a slightly unreal 'holier than thou' aura."

It was refreshing, therefore, to hear Nick Knight, the England opener-turned-affable Sky Sports pundit, admit on Sunday to having been "a convenient walker… a selective walker". He walked if average/form permitted. The late Sir Colin Cowdrey was another "selective" walker. While remembered by many, quite properly, with admiration and fondness, bowlers deplored his wayward ethical compass.

Knight's confession came in the wake of Tendulkar's unprompted exit, which went conspicuously un-analysed by the Sky experts (and many others besides). Maybe they were being diplomatic. To question any batsman's motives in such circumstances would fling open a can of worms; to question those of the only active sporting icon with an unstained reputation could lever the lid off a bucket of cobras. The question, nevertheless, is too pressing, too relevant to the game's future, not to be asked.

Let's unpack the loaded context. The din in the MA Chidambaram Stadium was shrill and deafening; umpire Steve Davis would have been hard-pushed to hear any edge, let alone an inside tickle. Nor, even after multiple TV replays, was it clear that Ravi Rampaul's inducker had kissed Tendulkar's bat. Small wonder the appeal triggered a stately shake of the head from Davis, who looks more like the Buddha's younger, fitter brother with each passing match, and seems to have inherited the family wisdom.

One assumes Tendulkar knew he'd nicked it, but when the appeal was rejected he didn't go all Hamlet on us like Barrington; he was decisive, off in a flash. Yet what, one couldn't help but wonder, had sped through his mind during the interregnum separating shot and Davis' slo-mo shake? Was he mulling Ricky Ponting's extraordinary look of innocence after being adjudged caught-behind against Pakistan 24 hours earlier, a decision that my children's cat's grandmother could have made? Did Tendulkar feel Ponting should have walked? Does he believe the game's elders should be setting an example? Why not?

But might he also have been pondering the Decision Review System? Tendulkar has often expressed reservations about this latest contentious innovation (a major factor in the BCCI's distaste towards it, presumably); and now, lo and behold, the damned thing was in a position to put his image on the line. David Gower summed up one of the less-heralded by-products of the DRS with typical succinctness and delicacy after Michael Clarke walked during last November's Brisbane Ashes Test: "There's less incentive to stay." And after Clarke declined to walk in Adelaide, putting struggling team before ego and/or gallantry, he was palpably embarrassed and quick to tweet a public apology. Without the DRS, would he have been so remorseful?

The next question, to some, is the most damning: did Tendulkar act out of pragmatism rather than nobility? Did he weigh up the options? He must have known, had he stood his ground, that a review, even as early as the first over, would have been eminently likely. And what might that have unearthed? That ball had eluded edge? With no HotSpot on tap, why not? Or would it have showed that he, Sachin Tendulkar, the most pandemically respected sportsman of them all, an untouchable idol to billions, had tried, like that rogue Ponting, to get away with it?

Umpire Marais Erasmus hands out a warning to Prosper Utseya after he bowled a beamer, New Zealand v Zimbabwe, Group A, World Cup 2011, Motera, March 4, 2011
And what of the umpire when a batsman walks? © Getty Images

This is not meant to decry Tendulkar; anything but. Since when is being human a sin? Like Barrington and Gilchrist, he waited for the umpire's ruling. Perhaps he and Gilchrist (if not Barrington) did so not to buy themselves time but out of respect for the adjudicator's sensitivities. None of this, though, should undermine the underlying message: if the DRS can make umpires look fallible, even incompetent, it can also make players look foolish at best, at worst dishonest. And if Tendulkar did act out of fear for what this brave new world might do to his reputation, we should not think any the less of him. What we got was the right result, regardless of how it was arrived at. End fully justified means.

Soon after Ted Dexter was appointed chairman of the England selectors, in 1989, he claimed that the public, in addition to "heroic deeds", craved "chivalrous conduct". If this was a remarkable and fruitless thing to say then, such romanticism is even harder to come by now. All the same, is a PhD in naivety the only prerequisite for concluding that the DRS is awakening something much more desirable than chivalry - namely honesty?

Unfortunately there may be a sobering epilogue, and a deeply ironic one at that. Sunday's episode might persuade Tendulkar to harden his stance against the DRS, in which case, such is his sway, the game's strongest incentive for honesty could well die a premature death. Let's hope this was his Damascene moment.

Rob Steen is a sportswriter and senior lecturer in sports journalism at the University of Brighton

RSS Feeds: Rob Steen

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by   on (March 27, 2011, 9:03 GMT)

@KHooper1 : He did walk against AUS as well. He was called back by the umpire for the review. And how can you say nothing was at stake in that match?? It was just the 1st over and had India lost that match Ind would've faced SL in Q/F a much better side than AUS.

Posted by   on (March 26, 2011, 13:45 GMT)

superb icon of sport world !!

Posted by Umamahesh_Srigiriraju on (March 26, 2011, 6:44 GMT)

I think Sachin walked because of DRS. Just in last IPL, he didn't walk after snicking one behind to Dhoni. Nothing wrong in not walking. Sachin and Dravid will be remembered as Gentlemen for things more than just walking I guess.

Posted by melvn on (March 26, 2011, 5:54 GMT)

It wasnt the first time sachin walked.I can point out so many games. In the 1998 Sharjah cup against Australia (Sandstorm match) sachin made 143,he walked despite of the umpire being quiet.The videos are available in Youtube with millions of views. So it is very clear that pragmatism isnt the real reason but professional integrity.He is a moral man,cricket desperately needs more men like him to make it the GENTLE MAN'S GAME

Posted by aurovasudev on (March 26, 2011, 5:30 GMT)

I was told this story -true or false - in my adolescent years, of the great master W.G.Grace, who admonished the umpire for adjudging him lbw at the first ball he faced, telling. "you idiot, these people have come here to see my batting nor your umpiring!", and then the 'bold and chivalrous' umpire canceeed his ruling!

Posted by TheFridge31 on (March 26, 2011, 3:21 GMT)

If that was the World cup final would he of walked ? Got to remember it was a dead rubber.

Posted by pappadu on (March 26, 2011, 2:45 GMT)

All these writers know that if they write something questionable about Tendulkar they will be noticed. As simple as that. Like another comment mentioned, replays are there for years of course!

Posted by raghu2 on (March 26, 2011, 2:00 GMT)

There were only a couple of walkers in the present era. Lara and Gilchrist, without any hesitation. Sachin was not, as I'd seen him not walking on a couple of occasions (and not given out) in the past. If he's decided to do so now is commendable.

Posted by jayrkay on (March 26, 2011, 0:23 GMT)

As simple as truth, that is the man he is, my hats off, to Sachin. I thought he had nicked it while I watched it in disbelief.We need a few more good people with honesty

Posted by silverline102 on (March 26, 2011, 0:08 GMT)

A noble act from the master batsman. Lets not forget the other master who has always been a walker, BRIAN CHARLES LARA. let me remind the indian fans of the time he walked with his score in the 90's in a test match without much of an appeal.

Comments have now been closed for this article

Email Feedback Print
Rob SteenClose
Rob Steen Rob Steen is a sportswriter and senior lecturer in sports journalism at the University of Brighton, whose books include biographies of Desmond Haynes and David Gower (Cricket Society Literary Award winner) and 500-1 - The Miracle of Headingley '81. His investigation for the Wisden Cricketer, "Whatever Happened to the Black Cricketer?", won the UK section of the 2005 EU Journalism Award "For diversity, against discrimination"

    'My dream is to win the World Cup for New Zealand'

Neil Wagner on being 12th man for South Africa, his baseball namesake, and who he'd least like to be stuck in a lift with

    Has international cricket begun to break up?

Simon Barnes: The disenchantment among the weaker teams is forcing a devaluation of Test cricket

The best batsman to watch

The Cricket Monthly: Touch artists, god's gifts, naturals, geniuses and giants: five batsmen who set the pulse racing
Download the app: for iPads | for Android tablets

    The Singhs of Inverhaugh

The journey of Bart and Jan Singh's labour of love in rural Canada - the alluring Inverhaugh Cricket Club - which they built from scratch. By Justin Robertson

ODI overs analysis using ball-by-ball data: Part 2

Anantha Narayanan: A look at various interesting high and low-scoring sequences. Plus, a Bradman surprise

News | Features Last 7 days

How India weeds out its suspect actions

The BCCI set up a three-man committee to tackle the problem of chucking at age-group and domestic cricket, and it has produced significant results in five years

A rock, a hard place and the WICB

The board's latest standoff with its players has had embarrassing consequences internationally, so any resolution now needs to be approached thoughtfully

Twin Asian challenges await Australia

What Australia have not done since returning a fractured unit from India is head back to Asia to play an Asian team. Two of their major weaknesses - handling spin and reverse swing - will be tested in the UAE by Pakistan

WICB must tread on eggshells with care

The WICB statement should cool down emotions and allow all parties involved to take the next step forward

Last ball, last wicket, and Northants' parched spell

Also, Vijay Manjrekar's nickname, Abid Ali's no-ball, oldest double-centurions, and this decade's leading players

News | Features Last 7 days