Will you be a walker?

[biased indian]

Why walk, when i can do the most enjoyable think in the world, to be in the middle of the ground and bat

 

[Richard]

It's hard not to walk when all 3 stumps are laying on the ground... ay Richard?

What's that got to do with anything?

 

[Richard]

Has Gilly always done it? It's only really the last year or so the media started making a song & dance about it, so I assumed it was a recent decision of his.

I think it all started in the world cup... well thats when it became a big thing anyway.

It was. About two years though, I think.

Started when he walked after David Orchard had specifically given him not-out against SL in the semi... then made the comment "I think it's about time for cricketers to start being honest with each other..."
IMO the more fuss top players make over it the better... Gilchrist still gets a massive rub-of-green with lbws, though...

 

[Anil]

& we're back to my argument about slitting your own throat!

I think non-walking at least has the merit of consistency. Allowing the ump to make all the calls will mean one is about even in the credit/debit column at the end of the season.

i agree...there is no provision or comeback for a player who is wrongly given out...and since the umpire's decision is final, let the umpire's decision be final...

 

[hindsy]

Not in a million years would i walk.. Just the other week i smashed the cover off 1 to the keeper - got given not out... If the umpire makes a mistake too bad, because when you are bowling you will get some bad descisions go your way.. The secret is to not look behind when you hit it :

 

[Richard]

Interesting thing is, most batsmen actually do that whether they've hit it or not!

 

[dinu23]

no way!

 

[honestbharani]

I think Lara choices to walk and not to walk when he wants to. I remember a interview with Billy Bowden and he said he thought Lara was a walker so he gave him not out once when he nicked it behind. He had a look at the replay during the session break and saw that he nicked it. He is one of those guys that only walks when he has a hundred behind him or his team isn't in trouble. Sachin usally walks dosen't he.

Nope, I have basically watched his every innings and he walks everytime. You can read any article by guys like Peter Roebuck and others to confirm it. The only time when it seemed close was in an ODI agaisnt Sri Lanka in the Windies and Tony Greig, in his usual rubbish way, was terming Lara should have walked but about 12 replays were watched and the good commentators couldn't make up their mind and I think it is fair that we give the benefit of the doubt to Lara in that instance. And for Billy Bowden, the guy makes horrible decisions, I wouldn't be surprised if the instance he talked about was when Lara actually didn't nick it and he thought he did.

 

[honestbharani]

And, BTW, Sachin has walked only once in all my years of watching him. It is just an impression built up by the Indian media because we want our heroes to be the best at everything. Dig deep in the Indian media and I am sure you will find an article by the sports editor of a leading newspaper talking about how Sachin is a better leg spinner than Shane Warne in 1998. It is ridiculous to say the least.

 

[biased indian]

i dont think our media hassiad that he walks.The Hindu(with the place where u r from i think u had read it) had a report during the Mohali test saying that he should be walking refering to the incident in the last test where he didnot walk when he was given not out of the bowling of kaneria.what the media has been saying and which is almost correct is that he always take the wrong decisions by the Umpires in the right Spirit.

 

[Buddhmaster]

I'm against walking. What's the point of the umpire, if you're going to make the decisions yourself. Just can't see how anyone can give up their innings, whether they know they hit it or not.

 

[Josh]

It depends what score I'm on, and the situation of the team...

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Wouldn't that be double standards?

I advocate walking, considering you're lying to yourself, both teams and the scorecard by staying when you know the game's up. Dirty runs don't appeal to me.

 

[biased indian]

It depends what score I'm on, and the situation of the team...

its what i have always thought, ur the last pair u need 3 runs and u r given notout when u r out will u walk???

 

[Craig]

Hard to say.

If you walk you must continue to walk IMO, but you wouldn't walk if you got a faint nick and your team needed one run to win and one wicket le, in a big game for example, you would be mad.

If I had to choose, I would walk.

 

[vic_orthdox]

no, i don't. simply coz i stand there like a deer in the headlights and don't think, go mentally blank, just ****ing myself until the umpire says out or not out. i'm even like that when i don't hit it. and i've copped enough stinkers to not give a sucker an even break. its not as though me staying in will hurt the opposition anyway.

follow up question that anyone who has said that they would walk can answer. would you walk if no one appealed???

 

[Dasa]

I probably would not walk, but have no problem with people who do. What gets me is inconsistency - if someone says they walk but then don't depending on the situation.

 

[hindsy]

follow up question that anyone who has said that they would walk can answer. would you walk if no one appealed???

heck no! i dont walk even if its a regulation edge.. make the umpire do their job and make the opposition do theirs..

 

[vic_orthdox]

the question was more directed to those who have already said that they would walk.

 

[Jono]

I've never had the opportunity to walk when playing, as I've always been bowled, or caught (including one where there was no way a catch should have been given, but because the fielder claimed it, the 'spirit' of the game meant you trust the fielders. The same fielder who claimed my awesome top edge for 4 never really reached the boundary, when all the parents watching saw it did! [/End Rant]).

If I were to take a wager, I'd bet that I wouldn't walk. But I have absolutely no problem with those that do.

Whats the point in walking? You are going to get some duff decisions, you may as well take the luck when it comes..

I'd go mad on a team mate who decided he would walk, It's a team game, not one where you go feeding your individual conscience..

That's a load of crap! So you're saying that one should drop their morals and principles when they join a team? What if the captain said to claim a catch, when you know you didn't take it, because that catch would win you the game? Should he do it then because there's no 'I' in team?

To go even more to the extreme, should someone in the military be looked down upon if they refused to act in a way they felt inappropriate (torture, abuse etc.), yet the majority in their unit (their 'team') felt it was the right thing to do for their country? The answer is of course not, and if they want no part in it, that's their decision.

By your logic they should join in because they should drop their values for the greater majority. Absolute rubbish.