A new debate has been opened in world cricket with three Australian batsmen deciding to walk in the first innings of the Chennai Test without waiting for the umpire's decision. Adam Gilchrist started it off when he bat-padded a delivery to short leg and started taking the long walk back to the pavilion without waiting for the decision. He was soon followed by Gillespie and Kasporwicz who took the same path. India's Yuvraj Singh and Parthiv Patel too obliged and walked back when they knew they were out.

With batsmen deciding to take it upon themselves to make the game more honest, it can become so much easier for the on field umpires. But the real big question is will all the players walk when they are out, certainly not. Here's where things get a bit dodgy for the umpires. If some players from a particular team walk and the others don't, it can become very tough for the 'men in white' while making certain close decisions. If they know the previous batsmen have walked and he feels the current batsman is out he may still consider ruling the decision in the batsman's favour, assuming he would have walked if he was out like the earlier batsmen. Thus, the umpire's job will certainly become more complex if certain players from a team walk and the others don't.

Also if the cricketers want to make the game more honest, they must be consistent in their behaviour. If cricketers walk when they are out, they also shouldn't appeal when they know the opposition batsman is not out. Aussies mentioned that they did not know Sehwag had hit the ball when they appealed and Bowden ruled it in their favour. But there have been many other instances when the batsman was clearly not out and they still appealed. True, they have every right to appeal, but if they have chosen a path of honesty and integrity while batting, it must show in the other departments of their game too.

But having said this, credit must go to Adam Gilchrist whose sporting gesture has sparked off this debate. He was the one who initially created a bit of storm by walking in the semi-finals of the '03 World Cup even when the umpire had declared him not out. It did not go down very well with the Australians who were not supporting such a policy. Australia under Steve Waugh and Ricky Ponting have never been walkers. But under Gilchrist's regime (if only for a short period) the team has taken on a new characteristic. People are walking following in Gilchrist's footsteps-even the opposition, in this case India. Such has been the impact of Gilchrist's sportsmanship. Even the team seems to be more relaxed on this tour under Gilchrist. Players between the two teams can be seen smiling at each other during on-field exchanges unlike the heated ones in 2001.

Coming back to the walking debate, it is absolutely and individual's decision and no one can force a player to walk. Having said that, if everyone follows Gilchrist's policy, the umpire's task can become so much simple. But then another question arises. If someone walks in one game and gets a really bad decision the next match, doesn't he have a reason to feel aggrieved? Some are of the point of view that things even out as you go along and so there is no need to walk Certainly Virender Sehwag will find it difficult to walk if he gets a wrong decision in his favour the next game as he got a really nasty one a Bangalore. Here, as mentioned earlier, the fielding side can make things easy for the umpires by not appealing. But can the fielding side resist appealing when they are desperate for a wicket.

This debate will go on and on. The bottom-line is it is each individual's decision as to whether he wants to walk or not or whether to appeal or not. There were a few instances in the Chennai Test when the constant appealers in the Indian team did not appeal when they were sure the batsman had not hit the ball. So the Gilchrist's way of playing cricket is certainly having an influence even on India.

Not walking doesn't make a player a cheat because even greats like Sachin Tendulkar don't walk. But walking when you know you are out only makes you stand that much higher in the eyes of the umpire, the public and overall the game of cricket. And so apart from being a great wicket-keeper batsman, Gilchrist's stature as a sportsman will only rise higher in the game of cricket