Does the Gentlemen’s Game mean the Batsmen’s game?

An opinion gaining momentum in the recent past is that the game of cricket is increasingly becoming more and more favorable to the batsmen. Flat, batsmen friendly pitches, smaller grounds, more and more protective gear for the batsmen, the powerplays, and some may argue, a fall in the standard of bowling since the 70s, though this is debatable, have all made cricket a batsman’s game. Yet, if we give it some thought, we will realize that the bias towards the batsmen is not a recent phenomenon but a traditional reality steeped in the very ethos of the game.

No other sport, to my knowledge at least has a moral dimension as pronounced as cricket. Most other sports are usually tightly bound by rules, leaving very little space for ethical dilemmas to creep in wherein the sportspersons have to exercise their own moral discretion. The standard for these sports is usually that whatever is not prohibited is mandatory. It is only in the game of cricket that there is a grey area not bound by rules, yet viewed with a certain degree of moral censure. If we examine these grey areas, we will realize that the moral attitudes are strongly biased in the favor of the batsman.

Whether to walk or not is probably the most oft-faced dilemmas faced by cricketers. It has been at the centre of considerable debate lately after Adam Gilchrist decided to walk in an important World Cup match and exhorted others to do the same. The basis of his argument is if the batsman knows that he is out, he is morally obliged to walk. Sunil Gavaskar, in his book, Runs and Ruins, spoke of an incident while playing in Pakistan when he was out first ball and not given out. He did not walk because he had been given out so many times in Pakistan when he was not, he felt they owed him a few. This is the other side of the argument espoused by most players including, Sourav Ganguly and Ricky Ponting. A parallel to the same would be to appeal for a dismissal while knowing that the batsman is not out. However, strangely the same moral standard is not applied to the two. It has even been codified and was included in the preamble of the Spirit of the Game. Section 5 states that appealing, while knowing that a batsman is not out is contrary to the spirit of the game. In one instance, it has even led to a wicketkeeper being suspended for three matches.

The traditional bias against bowlers has been so strong that that when the googly was invented by Bernard Bosanquet, there were many who felt it was unethical for the bowler to thus, deceive the bastman! Now, such a suggestion would seem ridiculous but it does throw some light on the inherent bias in the game. The reason behind this strange discrimination perhaps lies in the old class division between batsmen and bowlers wherein batsman were the real gentlemen, while bowlers, merely players. It is most apparent in the moral censure attached to Mankading. The batsman clearly gains an unfair advantage by backing up too much and leaving the crease, whether intentionally or otherwise and if an unfair advantage is accrued, there must be a sanction, too. The problem with this form of dismissal was perhaps that the bowler questions the motives of the batsman in backing up too far and such an accusation by a player against a gentlemam doesn’t bode well.