The Ashes Tour 2021-22 England's tour of Australia has demonstrated how the county championship has been left to make its own way, while the limited-over competitions have been given priority by ECB and the first-class counties. No matter who was captaining the squad during this attempt to regain the Ashes, the lack of proper preparation, some of it admittedly made more difficult by COVID and the weather, the decision to leave selection to one person and the preponderance of limited-over fixtures towards the end of our summer have left the squad with batsmen ill-equipped to face the very strong and united Australian attack. Even with these handicaps, we have made some surprising decisions to leave out key players in Brisbane and Adelaide and bat on a green pitch in the very first Test match. Surely Anderson and Broad would have loved the first chance to take on the Australian batsmen in Brisbane and that might have set an entirely different tone in the series? However, it is the batting that is the biggest concern. There remain fundamental problems with the development of Test-class batsmen in the county championship. Four-day fixtures have been shunted to fill gaps in the limited-over programmes, pitches have been prepared to ensure a result, all too often in three days, and have favoured the medium-paced seamers, who will never dominate overseas in Australia, and the England and top overseas players do not play on a regular basis. The England batting line-up may be the best available, but where are the reliable county openers, the exciting and consistent stroke-players who can dominate or defend against bowlers without looking vulnerable for long periods? Where is the 'over-my-dead-body' approach from the middle order? We have some wonderful strikers of the ball in one-day matches, when there are no close catchers. Stokes, Buttler, Bairstow and Malan have huge ability, but the first two appear to have two different playing styles in Test matches - all-out attack or nothing but defiant defence, with not much in between. Pope clearly has talent, but looks inexperienced and frenetic, finding ways to get out. Burns is a fighter and the second highest scorer in Test cricket for England this year, but his technique looks shot to pieces. Neither Hameed nor Crawley has looked able to cope against top-class opening bowlers. It must be disheartening for our bowlers. Anderson has done a marvellous job. Robinson is steady and a captain's dream, but there appear to be doubts about his fitness. Is Broad not worthy of a place on pitches that start green? Wood has bowled valiantly and has provided the extra pace that's needed on pitches with slightly variable bounce. Woakes is a very good third seamer, but not an opening bowler on these pitches. Leach needs help in when he bowls and where his field is set, especially to left-handers. Why is Bess in the squad, if he is not selected when the opposition has so many left-handed batsmen? Brisbane and Melbourne were typical English pitches with seam movement and we were completely outplayed by the better Australian team, who had enjoyed the chance to practise by playing the longer format for their states. There will be no easy fixes, but ECB and its counties must look at priorities and put the county championship at the top, even though it does not produce as much gate money as the limited-over matches. So much of the television revenue seems to have been linked to the Hundred, which no other country plays and which is no preparation for Test cricket. There seem to me to be three essential changes, one radical the other two common sense decisions, to be made: 1. Prioritise and incentivise players and teams in the County Championship a. Four Divisions of 10 counties to include Ireland and Scotland in the Premier and First Divisions along with the first-class counties. b. National Counties initially to play in the Second and Third Divisions c. ECB payments to counties to be based on final positions in the championship d. Let each county decide how many full professionals, semi-professionals or amateurs to select e. Start 4-day Premier and First Division matches on Mondays f. Start 3-day Second and Third Division matches on Sundays g. Use Saturdays for a 50-over competition for Premier and First Division teams h. Play a T20 competition in a period in late July and August 2. Prepare better pitches 3. Return to a selection committee and a strong England manager.

 COMING SOON

BOUNDARIES - A MEMOIR BY ROGER KNIGHT

In many ways I have had a charmed life.  I was born after World War II and was too young for conscription; had a supportive mother and father; was educated at a top school, having passed the 11+, and university and grew up in a large school house with thirty boarders, a competitive younger sister and a very big garden as well as having Dulwich College’s playing fields and facilities close by.  Later, two headmasters were prepared to allow me to teach for two terms each year and three county cricket clubs employed me for the other five months; a wife and two children stood by me through the two time-consuming careers in education and professional sport; and, most fortunately of all, I retained good health.

 

At first, I was shy and unconfident.  Few would have predicted what was to come.  At Dulwich College Preparatory School, I was able to cope academically and compete on the sporting field, but the move to Dulwich College at eleven placed me in a vast school with many more competitors and able pupils.  I never struggled to get into sports teams, but I never felt that I was one of the dominant personalities.  I was often made form captain, probably because I was more compliant than the stronger characters and kept to the rules.  With a father teaching in the school, I didn’t want to step out of line.  I was aware of boundaries at an early age.  This desire to conform has always remained.  Perhaps becoming a schoolmaster, a county cricket captain and a Secretary of MCC contributed to the necessity of wanting to wear the right clothes, say the right things and make the right impression.  

 

It did help that I was born in September, right at the start of the academic year and therefore I was always one of the oldest in the year group.  It also helped my confidence that I was tall and fit, blessed with good hand-eye coordination.  It was success in sport that helped my self-confidence to grow.  After A Levels I did stay at the College for a seventh term, to attempt a scholarship to Cambridge.  I never thought that I had a chance, but I did gain a place and then decided to stay on for two more terms at Dulwich to retake and improve my German A Level grade.  By this time I was nineteen and still a schoolboy, so rugby and cricket produced more success.

 

Going up to St Catharine’s College, Cambridge, I soon realised that there were other modern linguists in my year who had read more, spent more time in the foreign countries and were much more able to speak the languages we were studying than I.  Again, it was sport, initially rugby in the first term and then cricket in the summer, which boosted my confidence.  It also made me realise how much fun team sports were.  They encourage banter amongst teammates, a sense of perspective and the need to accept the ups and downs as a group of winning and losing.  I had learned at Dulwich College that wit and humour were essential to keep a balance in life.  Quick-witted South Londoners always had a ready response to lighten the mood.  I think and hope that this part of my character has developed and remained a constant part of me.  It may not always have been apparent to others, because I chose throughout the two careers to take my responsibilities seriously.  However, I knew, as I became more confident, that I could enjoy the lighter side of situations, even though I did so often without showing it to those around me.

 

Standing in front of a class gave me confidence to speak publicly.  Finding success in sport gave me more topics about which I felt able to speak and hold my own in conversations.  Running a boarding house, an HMC independent school, a professional cricket team and a private members’ club taught me about management and defined how I, personally, would lead other people and organisations.

 

Whether we want to or not, everyone is always moving on.  When it happens, do we want to hang on to the past longingly or do we move on and embrace any future challenges?  I have tended not to look back, but to be ready and willing to welcome new opportunities which have arisen.  From cricket combined with teaching to teaching fulltime, from teaching to cricket administration, from employment to retirement, my wife, Chris, and I have moved on and always looked forward to the next challenge.  Of course we have looked back but, as we have been determined not to regret the major decisions we have made, it has been easier to react positively to the new situations.

 

One of the best pieces of advice given to me by John Edrich when I was a young batsman starting out in first-class cricket was not to worry about the last ball you faced.  As he said, if you’re still at the crease, even if you’ve been beaten all ends up, it is the next ball that matters, because that’s the one that can get you out.  As on the cricket pitch, so in life.  There is an appropriate time to learn from past mistakes, but the immediate future has to be embraced and demands concentration.  We have to move on and clear our mind so that we can think positively and operate efficiently.

 

Through it all, I have always realised and appreciated how fortunate I have been.  I am grateful to so many people, who have stood by me, advised and guided me, led me, become colleagues and friends or have been prepared to follow and support me as a leader.  Above all, though, I am grateful to my close family, who have supported me as a husband, father and grandfather, putting up with my humour and competitive spirit.  They are the people who know me best.  

 

All individuals are inevitably influenced in some way by the background into which they are born and in which they grow up.  I was encouraged at home and at school to be part of a team but to remain my own person.  Perhaps that is what drew me into cricket, which requires individual skills and decision-making within a team framework.  It also taught me to respect other people, whether in authority and leading, part of a peer group or those expecting to be led.

 

My life has been a journey through schools and through sports, especially cricket and rugby.  From 1971, when I left Cambridge after four enlightening years bringing greater maturity and independence, I was a schoolmaster who played cricket in the summers.  For the first fourteen of the twenty-four years that I taught in independent schools, I spent only two terms a year at the schools.  In the summer I played professional cricket and, for the first five years, that entailed two separate existences, living in Eastbourne for the winter and in Bristol during the summer.  When I was invited back by Surrey CCC in 1978, the emphasis changed and I became a county captain who taught in the winters.  The years from 1984 until 1993 were the time when I saw myself as a proper, full-time schoolmaster, as a housemaster at Cranleigh and then, subsequently, as headmaster of Worksop College.  New opportunities arose in the years ahead and, from 1994 our family life changed completely as we moved down to London for me to work as MCC Secretary.  

I hope to publish this book in 2021.

ROGER KNIGHT ONLINE

A new website is being developed and will be published in 2021. 

THE BEST VIEW IN CRICKET

This will provide an online Snapshot from 1994-2006

Few people have had the chance to see MCC from so many different perspectives.  I first came to Lord’s for Easter Coaching classes in 1958 where I was coached by Bill Voce.  Each year I received expert coaching from a variety of different cricketers, most of whom had played at a high level.  The one I remember best was Tom Spencer, who became a top class umpire.  He concentrated on praising my off drive and said that I would score a lot of runs through it.  As a Schoolmaster Playing Member I joined the Club in 1968, then was voted on to the MCC Committee twice, which showed me how much effort and thought goes into arranging the fixtures and tours and decision-making on behalf of the membership.  As MCC Secretary from 1994 -2006 (Secretary & Chief Executive became the title halfway through my tenure), I felt that I was right at the centre of all that was happening within the Club.  Being nominated as President in 2015 was a wonderful honour, as was being elected as an Honorary Life Member when I retired from the full-time position of Secretary & Chief Executive in 2006.  My allegiance to MCC and my support for the Club remain very strong and it upsets me to see an increasing number of Members, who seem only to criticise the Committee and the staff.  As in any organisation, not all decisions will suit everyone and some may well be unintentionally misguided, but the hybrid nature of a membership club and a medium-sized business can cause conflicts and frustrations.

 During the years in which I acted as the 13^th Secretary of the Club, there were many matters which arose.  In my book, Boundaries - A Memoir, I have mentioned some of them, but this snapshot is an attempt to give a fuller picture of the way the Club evolved between 1994 and 2006.  The minutes of the committee meetings are all in the MCC library, but I always made my own notes of discussions, proposals and decisions.  The views expressed are personal and others may well see the debates in different ways, but I hope they shed some light on the debates, the changes made and those suggestions, which did not receive support.

DRS - The Decision Review System is faulty

Once again, in the first Ashes Test of 2013, we have seen the deficiencies of the Domestic Review System.  ICC needs to show leadership in the use of what should be an asset and an assistance to the umpires.
As the reason for including this technology in cricket is to improve decision-making, avoid howlers by umpires and give the players more confidence in the officials, the world's governing body must take control of this aspect of the game.
The players have adopted the system and are using it tactically for the benefit of their own team, which is perhaps inevitable in a professional game.  There is general agreement that the third umpire should be included in the decision-making, but I believe that this official, along with the on-field umpires, and not the players, should decide when to employ the replays.  Whether one, currently two or formerly three reviews are available to a team there is no guarantee that unsafe decisions will always be corrected.  In this Test, the match ended with the use of DRS when England successfully questioned the not-out decision of the umpire, but, if the umpire had thought there was an edge and had given the batsman out, Australia could not have reviewed his decision, as they had already used up their two chances.  Surely this might have been a travesty?  As it happens, the umpire was wrong and the wronged team had a review, but that conceals the inequitable situation that could have arisen if the batsman had not touched the ball and had been given out.
I am not in favour of increasing the number of reviews available to a team and continuing with the present system.  Instead, I believe that the decisions must be the responsibility of the umpires, as designated in Law 27.  The Laws do not need to be changed drastically to include the possibility of the third umpire being consulted (Law 27.6) and I recommend that, in matches where DRS is employed, the third umpire should be encouraged to intervene whenever he believes that there may have been a wrong decision.  Although this may lead to more delays in a game that has slowed over the last few decades, correct decisions are vitally important and must be the aim of all officials.
I hope that the DRS will be changed and the officials will be properly in charge of making decisions following an appeal.  It has always struck many past players that a second appeal by the fielding team, when the hoped-for appeal has failed, is contrary to the Spirit of Cricket, where players are expected to accept the umpire's decision.  There is perhaps more reason to allow a batsman to review a decision when there is doubt in his mind.  Others have suggested that only 'out' decisions should be reviewed, but miscarriages of justice work both ways.  Perhaps there will always be uncertainty, whether the on-field umpires are given sole responsibility for decision-making or whether technology is used increasingly as the systems become more accurate.
Another real problem with DRS was exposed in this match when the broadcaster was showing the nick down the leg-side, which saw the end of Joe Root, and therefore could not produce any hotshot film of the next ball when Jonathan Trott may or may not have edged the ball into his pad.  This was a time when intervention by the third umpire with control of the technologies available should have brought about the correct decision.  If the broadcaster's role is to bring live and replayed action to spectators as part of the entertainment, Sky TV was right to show the dismissal on several occasions.  The job of the officials and the administrators is to do their best to ensure that correct decisions are made in real time.  If ICC paid for its own cameras and other technological devices, there would be no conflict of interest.  It would also be in a position to counter the claims of some countries that they cannot afford the DRS system.  National Governing Bodies have certain requirements from their international grounds and the installation of all these technological aids should be mandatory.
In this Test Match spectators have seen the best and worst of the present system.  The final decision was an example of the best, but it might not have been if circumstances had been different.  Stuart Broad's decision not to walk off when he had clearly and, I suggest, knowingly hit the ball to a fielder was perhaps the worst.  Australia had no review left, which was admittedly their captain's own fault, and there was no way that a wrong decision could be reversed  There has been considerable debate in the media about the morality of 'walking' or 'standing' and waiting for an umpire's decision.  The knowledge that there can be intervention by a third umpire might lead to more people 'walking', which ultimately makes for a more pleasant, but not necessarily any less competitive, atmosphere between players, who still get incensed by 'non-walkers'.  It would certainly make the job of the umpires easier and would fit into the idealistic, but nonetheless desirable aspirations of the Spirit of Cricket no matter how much the protagonists of 'playing to the weaknesses of the umpire' and to the extremes of so-called professional attitudes may argue.  I can see no greater aspects of morality for a player to try to get away with hitting the ball in the air to cover or mid-off and standing his ground (though it has happened in a Test Match in the past) than hitting the ball to slip and standing to wait for the outcome of an appeal.
Golf is a better example to follow that most other sports in the way that the top professionals usually own up to small errors on their part, such as coming into contact when addressing the ball.  Cricket, or rather cricketers, may never have been fully committed to playing with such values.  However, the advent of close-up filming and the other technological advances has made it easier for players to play to the Spirit of the Game as promoted strongly within the Laws and throughout the game.  It is up to administrators and the officials to persuade them, from the top of the game down to the grass roots, that a professional approach does not necessarily mean that sharp practice, deception, cynical exploitation of the weaknesses of an official or, in the occasional case of fielders claiming a catch on the half-volley, cheating is not in the best interest of the game or the individual.  Whilst there are inadequacies and inconsistencies within the DRS system there is little incentive for players to adopt an approach of 'Fair Play', because they can benefit and they may not be exposed to the opprobrium that many would like to shower on them.  There are, and have always been, differences of opinion on this aspect of cricket but, as a former member of the MCC Laws Working Party, I have never been convinced that the game of cricket is better for batsmen trying to deceive the umpire.  Individuals may benefit, teams may prosper because of it, but the game of cricket loses some of its charm in being different from other team sports, where the official in charge has to make all decisions throughout the match.  According to Law 27: "Neither umpire shall give a batsman out, even though he may be out under the Laws, unless appealed to by a fielder.  This shall not debar a batsman who is out under any of the Laws from leaving his wicket without an appeal having been made."
Law 32 states unequivocally that "The striker is out Caught if a ball delivered by the bowler, not being a No Ball, touches his bat without having previously been in contact with any fielder, and is subsequently held by a fielder as a fair catch before it touches the ground."  It is hard to justify any argument, without accepting that it is an attempt to deceive the umpire, for a batsman not leaving the wicket whether the ball is held by a fielder at mid-off or at slip.  The wicket-keeper is also defined as a fielder, so there are potentially eleven fielders who might make a fair catch.
The Spirit of Cricket, the Preamble to the Laws, talks of 'Respect'.  In my view players who try to deceive the umpires or who are prepared to stoop to low cunning to win matches do not show respect to either the officials or the opposition players.  In professional matches, which are televised, there are additional technologies available and the officials must use them.  In rugby it is possible for a player to be cited after the match, if he is seen to commit foul play, which was not spotted by the referee or one of the touch judges.  In order to preserve the Spirit of Cricket and to encourage the players to play hard but fair, perhaps there should be a similar approach taken in cricket.

Projected Schedule for the Murali Cup

MURALI CUP 2011 PROJECTED SCHEDULE*

*correct up until 10.06.11

Tuesday 12th July - MATCH DAY 1.

Match Times (for all match days) –

- 1^st Innings 10:30am – 1:30pm

- Lunch 1:15pm – 2:15 pm

- 2^nd Innings 2:15pm – 5:15pm

- Max end of play 6:00pm (in the event of delays)

Match Venues (for all match days) –

- Galle International Stadium (Galle)

- Sri Wimala Buddhi College – Surrey Oval (Seenigama nr Hikkaduwa)

- Surrey Village (Maggona)

- Sri Sumangala College – Lords MCC Ground (Hikkaduwa)

Wednesday 13th July – MATCH DAY 2.

Thursday 14th July - This is the COMMUNITY DAY with an evening cricket seminar on after dinner held in Refresh hotel conference room in Hikkaduwa.

10am – 12pm – Beach cleaning and temple volunteer work 12pm – 1:30pm – Traditional Sri Lankan buffet lunch at Nature Resorts Restaurant Hikkaduwa 1:30pm – 3:30pm – School maintenance work 4pm – 5pm – Beginners Karate class at Seenigama 6pm – 7:30pm - evening cricket seminar held in the Refresh Hotel conference room. Special guest speakers Roger Knight OBE and Kushil Gunasekara

Friday 15th July - MATCH DAY 3.

Saturday 16th July - MATCH DAY 4. Semi-finals day in the Cup and plate competitions

Sunday 17th July - Today is the MASTERCLASS DAY, complete with a second evening of seminars from stars of the masterclasses.

10am – 10:50am – Batting Masterclass at Seenigama Surrey Oval Outdoor nets by Kumar Sangakkara 11pm – 11:50am – Bowling Masterclass (fast + spin) Masterclass on Seenigama Surrey Oval by Angelo Mathews and Muttiah Muralitharan 12pm – 1:30pm – Lunch in Hikkaduwa (own arrangement) 2pm – 2:50pm – Batting Masterclass at Sri Sumangala MCC Lords Ground Indoor Facility by Mahela Jayawardene 3pm – 3:50pm – Fielding (+wicket-keeping) Masterclass at Sri Sumangala MCC Lords Ground by first-class SLC coaching staff

4pm – 5pm – Press conference and community carnival at the Sri Wimala Buddhi College – Surrey Oval hosted by the Foundation of Goodness and community sponsors Elephant House 6pm – 7:30pm - evening cricket seminar held in the Refresh hotel conference room. Special guest speakers Roger Knight OBE, Muttiah Muralitharan, Kumar Sangakkara and Mahela Jayawardene

Monday 18th July - MATCH 5. Finals and play-off day. The cup final is played at the Galle International Stadium with Murali as guest of honour to award the cup at the end of the match.

After the matches, the schools congregate at Coral Sands hotel garden where the Foundation are hosting the tournament presentation gala. Guest of honour Muttiah Muralithara

The Murali Cup in Sri Lanka - July 2011

The opportunities that cricket affords are immense. I have been fortunate to have played the game professionally, to have coached and to have been an administrator at Lord’s, the Home of Cricket. As Chairman of the ECB Association of Cricket Officials I now have the chance to work closely with umpires and scorers throughout England and Wales.

The Murali Cup is an exciting tournament, which begins this year and, I hope, will become an annual fixture in international schools’ calendars. The objects of the tournament, apart from providing matches against other schools from around the world in a country that is passionate about cricket and has developed into a major force on the world cricket stage, are for the players to meet top class Test cricketers, learn from their advice and coaching, see something of the Sri Lankan culture and benefit from taking part in one of the most inspiring charitable initiatives in the world.

Following the tsunami in 2004 MCC staged a match at Lord’s, in which the world’s leading cricketers played, and raised a considerable sum of money to help those who had been made homeless or had lost family or livelihood in the disaster. The majority of that funding went to the Foundation of Goodness. Kushil Gunasekera, the manager of Muttiah Muralidaran, was already working in the villages around Seenigama and MCC’s donation was put to use in many different ways to create an MCC Centre of Excellence and a cricket ground in Hikkaduwa. Seven years on it is wonderful to see the difference that the Foundation has made to the lives of so many people in the area.

The tournament has come about because, as a schoolmaster, I have always believed that school cricketers benefit enormously from playing in different conditions, in different countries and against opposing teams from overseas. Red Dot Tours have thrown themselves into the initiative and we are all indebted to their enthusiasm and expertise in making it all happen. The combination of a company with experience in the travel and the hotel industry, top international cricketers, enthusiastic schoolmasters and players and a charitable Foundation has led to the first Murali Cup being staged in the area around Seenigama and Hikkaduwa, with matches at the great Galle Stadium.

To be coached by and to listen to the top players in the game today is a privilege. During the week we shall be joined by Muttiah Muralidaran, the world’s leading wicket taker in Test cricket, who has done so much himself to help the Sri Lankan people through his cricket and through his own practical efforts after the tsunami. We shall also meet Mahela Jayawardene, a former captain of his country and still one of the most stylish and brilliant batsmen in the world. We shall also meet Kumar Sangakkara, another former Sri Lankan captain, who recently delivered an absolutely outstanding Cowdrey Lecture at Lord’s. This annual lecture has been delivered by some of the great cricketers of the past, such as Ritchie Benaud, Clive Lloyd, Sunil Gavaskar and Barry Richards and, on one occasion, by Bishop Desmond Tutu. Kumar was the first current cricketer to speak and was the most passionate of all about his subject, which was the Spirit of Sri Lankan Cricket.

The players will have a wonderful time in this lovely country, with its friendly and welcoming people and they will be able to help the charitable work of the Foundation. They will return to their homes more experienced, wiser about the game of cricket and, it is to be hoped, keen to return to this island. I am delighted to be part of the organising committee and look forward to some competitive matches and the chance to make new friends through cricket.

Michael Atherton's Spirit of Cricket

The Spirit of Cricket

Michael Atherton’s article in the Times on 1^st October raised the issue of the ‘grey areas’ which surround the Laws of Cricket. It is always good to discuss and debate these areas of a sport, which are all-too-quickly abused and exploited in the name of competitive spirit or the will to win. His conclusions and his obviously heartfelt views about the Spirit of Cricket, however, need to be questioned and challenged further by those of us who are closer to John Woodcock in our views.

He mentions two occasions when the batman had assumed that the ball was dead either because the run had been completed or the over had ended. In both cases it is easy to blame the batsmen for “being dozy” and Michael may be right in saying that they should have waited for the ball to be called dead by the umpire. However, it is not always easy to hear the umpire call “over” and on occasions a batsman will move out of his crease for all sorts of reasons before the call has come. Technically speaking, in both cases, the umpire could have decided that the ball was “settled in the hands of the wicket-keeper” (Law 23 paragraphs 1 and 2) and therefore the spirit of the Laws might not have been tested. Indisputably, in Murali’s case there was no intention of taking another run. In the case of Paul Collingwood he did not overbalance in playing the shot and therefore was not genuinely stumped, nor did he appear to be taking a run, so he was not really run out.

Michael also mentions the occasions when Angelo Mathews was recalled by Andrew Strauss and when Grant Elliott was not recalled by Paul Collingwood. The situations both involved a collision between the batman and one of the fielding team.

In all of these situations the captains involved had options. Fleming and Collingwood chose to let the appeal stand, Strauss and Vettori chose to reprieve the batsman. The captain always has the option of withdrawing the team’s appeal in the interests of the spirit of the game provided that he has a clear idea in his mind of what that constitutes. The batsman’s intention and whether a collision is deliberate or not cannot be defined in the Laws, so a captain has to rely on his own instincts or the commonly accepted standards of his time, which may not always be in line with the traditional values of the game.

All these may be difficult decisions to make, but, in the Laws of Cricket, a captain is given the responsibility for making them. The umpire is there to advise, “be the sole judge of fair and unfair play” and, ultimately, to apply the Laws.

“The Captains are responsible at all times for ensuring that play is conducted within the Spirit of the Game as well as within the Laws.”

The Laws of any sport are written for players, umpires and scorers in the knowledge that there needs to be a structure to the game and a number of regulations to guide the actions of those participating and the decision-making of the officials. There cannot be a fair contest without the participants knowing the parameters within which they are to compete. The Laws of Cricket attempt to define most situations that may arise in a game, but, as with all laws, interpretations can vary and not every eventuality will be adequately covered.

The Spirit of Cricket points towards an ideal, which, given human frailty, may not be fully achieved. Does that mean that it is wrong to attempt to promote the ideal? Surely not! In all sports ideal standards beyond the laws or rules have been promoted, though not always followed. When implicitly understood standards have been broken or ignored, some sports have altered the laws or regulations in the hope that they can close that particular loophole. In cricket that happened when MCC introduced the Spirit of Cricket as the preamble to the Laws in 2000. However, that does not alter the position where players should be encouraged to compete within the Laws and be reminded of the need to consider the ‘grey areas’, which may constitute the ‘spirit’ of those Laws, and which also tend to bring out the ‘higher or baser instincts’ of an individual. There may be a better way of expressing what is meant by the Spirit of the Game. Although there have always been players who ignored the conventional codes, the majority of players over the years have had an understanding of where sportsmanship has crossed the undefined line into gamesmanship or sharp practice. Even today there is a reaction from most fielders and bowlers when a batsman does not “walk”, although, hypocritically, they themselves may also take that stance when batting. There is clearly still an implicit feeling that the batsman has acted wrongly and overstepped the bounds of what should be acceptable.

Michael Atherton derides the opening words of the Spirit of the Game as “a lot of well-meaning guff” and denies that cricket has ever had a “unique appeal”. He says that “Cricket, like other sports, is played by human beings and so it is no surprise that it is a flawed game.” Perhaps it is a play on words to say that cricket has a “unique appeal”. Cricket is the only game where, uniquely, a player appeals for a decision to be made, rather than waiting for an umpire’s or referee’s decision and then accepting or appealing against it (Law 27). With the incoming new “referral” or “review” system ICC is introducing a second appeal; that surely will be unique!

Although not specifically stated, it has been accepted that batsmen will walk off without any indication from the umpire when they are bowled or caught by the majority of the fielders, unless there is doubt whether the catch was cleanly taken. Other manners of dismissal need an appeal to an umpire. Run-out, stumped, hit wicket, handled the ball, LBW, timed out, hit the ball twice and obstruction may all have an element of doubt about them and the umpire’s role is to decide on these dismissals. If there is doubt about the catch being taken fairly, it is reasonable also to refer this decision to the umpire, although I cannot understand why one should not expect the fielders to claim only genuine catches (to do otherwise is surely cheating) and the batsman to walk off if he knows that he has hit the ball (to stand his ground is an attempt to be deceitful and therefore could be deemed sharp practice). I do assume that the fielders and the batsmen know what actually happened and I do not accept that, except on very rare occasions, there is genuine doubt in their mind. Obviously, in cases of doubt it must be right to leave the decision to the officials who have been given that responsibility.

In cricket, players are asked to respect their opponents, their own captain and team, the role of the umpires and the game’s traditional values. The captains are given the major responsibility for the team’s conduct, which inevitably leads to changes in interpretation of the Spirit of the Game dependent on the mores of the day. If captains are unaware of the ‘game’s traditional values’, it is important that administrators, commentators and coaches make them aware of them, even though the definitions may not all be universally agreed. The best forum for these deliberations would be a meeting of all international captains with the MCC World Cricket Committee, which attempts to be representative of the game worldwide without any political or national bias.

The traditional values have generally been agreed as being based on respect, which should cover most actions which have an impact on the other participants. In particular:
a) Players should accept, without question, the decision of the umpire
b) Players should not indulge in sharp practice, which although not actually cheating, may be seen as coming close to it and being deceitful
c) There is no place for violence on the field of play
d) No abusive language should be directed towards an opponent or umpire

The Laws are written for cricket at all levels. It should make no difference whether such an incident occurs in a local village match, in the final of the World Cup or on the last day of a deciding Ashes Test Match, but sadly the captains and some of those associated with professional teams do not always see that as being true. The moral obligation ought to be absolute and therefore consistently applied by all captains. If it is not, it is easy to see why players, teams and even Governing Bodies can lose respect for each other and why the atmosphere on the field and in the dressing rooms can change for the worse if there is any inkling of sharp practice. It is easy to dismiss this striving for ideals as naïve and outmoded, but it needs to be said that there are many supporters of the game of cricket who are disappointed that, increasingly, current and some influential past players are promoting, provocatively and at times unchallenged, the baser instincts of the players of today.

John Woodcock’s thoughts on acting within the Spirit of Cricket are clear. He believes it is the same as “being honourable” and compares the phrase to “chivalry”. The only problem with using these synonymous expressions is that those who want everything to be defined in laws without “grey areas” will choose not to understand their meaning any more than they are willing to accept the Spirit of Cricket as standing for an ideal, if not easily defined, way of playing the game.