walk or not???

[Pratters]

I find it alarming that people do not feel every one should walk.

It is a sport and people are sportsmen. Now if some one genuinely gets a nick and knows he is out, he should walk. Not walking would be cheating and is indeed according to me when people dont actually walk.

What is the task of an umpire? To make decisions. Batsmen give the excuse the umpire is there to decide, so why should we bother, or its a professional game.

Professional game means you lose the ethos?

The object of sport is to give in your best and try to win. It no where states according to me that win by hook or crook.

An incident with Ridley Jacobs happened a few years ago where he claimed a catch which wasnt out. He was fined, reprimanded. And rightly so I felt.

Adam Gilchrist is a brave man and a man of principles which is why he is my favourite cricketer. Cricket as a whole should get its act clear on this specific issue I feel.

 

[Shounak]

Adam Gilchrist is a brave man and a man of principles which is why he is my favourite cricketer. Cricket as a whole should get its act clear on this specific issue I feel.

Oh come on. I'm sure Gilly's appealed on numerous occasions when he knew the batsman wasn't really out.

What about his antics during the tour of Sri Lanka. Symonds was given out by one of the umpires. In protest Gilly threw down his gloves at the non-strikers end and was not a very happy chappy. Does walking give him the right to behave like that towards a decision.

The real principles were those of Marvan Attapattu, by allowing Symonds to be recalled. I strongly doubt it would even come to that if the fielding captain was Ponting. And what would Ponting's decision be do you think? I'd say it would be in line with his views on walking.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Personally speaking I never walk, but being an exceptionally mediocre late order slogger at best this is really of v little practical consequence.

When considering the moral aspect I'm inclined to agree with both T_C & Slow Love; not walking ever has the merit of consistency to recommend it, but walking when one knows one has hit it is desirable.

A problem "walkers" give rise to is the occasions where they have hit the ball but do not walk because they (possibly in all sincerity) think they haven't got a nick. Umpire X may know player Y has a rep as being a walker so if he stands his ground the ump may be more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt than player Z who is a confirmed non-walker.

By repute Colin Cowdrey was supposed to be a "selective" walker (walking for the obvious ones, standing for the marginals) & may possibly have gained a miniscule advantage because of it. I mention this because I have to say in the Nat West a certain Mr Gilchrist, a confirmed walker since at least 2004, hasn't headed pavilion-wards on a couple of occasions where the nick has looked pretty obvious. Now I'm not slinging accusations around (any team with our keeper is on pretty thin ice attempting to assert any moral superiority), but has he stopped walking altogether or is he merely becoming a tad more discriminating in his strolls?

 

[Pratters]

Oh come on. I'm sure Gilly's appealed on numerous occasions when he knew the batsman wasn't really out.

That is the common counter point against Gilchrist. Atleast he is better on the principles than other international players.

What about his antics during the tour of Sri Lanka. Symonds was given out by one of the umpires. In protest Gilly threw down his gloves at the non-strikers end and was not a very happy chappy. Does walking give him the right to behave like that towards a decision.

No but it was one of the few ocassions when Gilly showed such a behaviour. He doesnt usually.

The real principles were those of Marvan Attapattu, by allowing Symonds to be recalled. I strongly doubt it would even come to that if the fielding captain was Ponting. And what would Ponting's decision be do you think? I'd say it would be in line with his views on walking.

And ofcourse it wouldnt be brave to walk in the semis of the world cup.

 

[Shounak]

That is the common counter point against Gilchrist. Atleast he is better on the principles than other international players.

Agreed.

No but it was one of the few ocassions when Gilly showed such a behaviour. He doesnt usually.

I guess there are a few ways of looking at it. I saw this as Gilly revealing his true colours. I could never imagine a player like Tendulkar doing this, not in a million years. Because his behaviours truly reflect his principles. So I viewed that incident as a little more then a hissy fit. I suspect he's a little bit like a wrestler in that, the Gilly you see on field isn't the actual Gilly. Not nearly to the extent of a wrestler, but I think there's been a lot of PR engineering by a highly skilled team.

And ofcourse it wouldnt be brave to walk in the semis of the world cup.

I couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic or not. But I'm sure Gilly thought that one through. He cashed in on it. Wrote a book called "Walking to Victory". As if walking is the victorious thing to do.

If he had not carefully constructed his "on field persona" in that way, I highly doubt he'd have all the lucrative contracts and media attention to the extent he does now.

 

[Pratters]

Okay so we both regard Gilchrist differently then. For me he is a revelation as a modern player both as a player and for his coduct and I would not hush it as a PR stunt because if it was so easy do dodge such a persona many others would do the same. To each his own.

 

[Craig]

Although I did happen to remind them on the odd occassion that it wouldn't have mattered at all if they hadn't have dropped me four times.

There does your first chance average...

As for the topic I gave my thoughts in the other thread.

 

[Shounak]

Okay so we both regard Gilchrist differently then. For me he is a revelation as a modern player both as a player and for his coduct and I would not hush it as a PR stunt because if it was so easy do dodge such a persona many others would do the same. To each his own.

My views aren't extremes or absolutes. I'm sure he is a top bloke all round. And of course his whole persona on field is not a PR stunt. But I think many of his decisions are carefully thought through.

But yes, two fairly different views.

Also a question, who was the picture in your old Avatar, some guy with an afro. Always been curious.

 

[Pratters]

Also a question, who was the picture in your old Avatar, some guy with an afro. Always been curious.

Carlito!

The best 'character' wwe has created since the Undertaker. The very fact that you ask about him even shows how much of potential crowd pulling power the guy posseses.

He is COOL

 

[Shounak]

Carlito!

The best 'character' wwe has created since the Undertaker. The very fact that you ask about him even shows how much of potential crowd pulling power the guy posseses.

He is COOL

Hahahah wrestling's never been the same since WCW collapsed. I tuned out in about 1999, ahh now those were the days of real wrestlers..

 

[marc71178]

An example. If you get pulled over goin 15 km/h (or m/ph), over the limit and the copper decides to not give you a ticket. Your reaction is usually a big "phheewww". Very few people would tell the officer to give them a ticket because it's the right thing to do and they actually were speeding.

Interesting comparison!

 

[Pratters]

Hahahah wrestling's never been the same since WCW collapsed. I tuned out in about 1999, ahh now those were the days of real wrestlers..

For me Benoit is and will always remain the epitome of real wrestling but yes after the Monday Night Wars ended, wrestling has lost its steam.

 

[Adamc]

I don't have a problem with walking, but it's important to:a) do it consistently; and b) don't overrule the umpire. If you are going to walk, do it straight away, don't wait for the umpire to give you not out, as you are then undermining the authority of the umpire instead of making his job easier. Also, as SL said, only walk when you know you are out, don't do what Gilchrist did yesterday against Bangladesh.

 

[Dasa]

I think I'd always be a non-walker simply because it'd be something I could do easily with consistency. I (and I'm sure most) cannot guarantee that they'd walk in a high-pressure situation...the game can get on top of you and the first instinct of most people would be to win I'd think.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Walking and losing in a high-pressure situation will earn you more respect as a sportsman than cheating and winning will.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Walking and losing in a high-pressure situation will earn you more respect as a sportsman than cheating and winning will.

Try telling your teammates, who have worked with you towards a common goal for the best part of 10 months, that. Let alone trying to convince them that it is cheating.

It'd be interesting to know the standard of cricket played by those who are strong advocaters of walking as opposed to those who wouldn't walk.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Try telling your teammates, who have worked with you towards a common goal for the best part of 10 months, that. Let alone trying to convince them that it is cheating.

It'd be interesting to know the standard of cricket played by those who are strong advocaters of walking as opposed to those who wouldn't walk.

I don't play a very high standard of cricket, so I can't really speak for those in positions of high pressure like yourself. However, the major problem is that everyone does different things - if, in all high-pressure situations, everyone walked, all matches would have the "correct" outcome. If no-one walked, they'd all have the "wrong" outcome. The reality is somewhere in the middle, so it's very hard to say whether or not walking in a high-pressure situation would mean that somewhere down the line someone else would do it for your benefit - probably not, which is why I can completely understand the dilemma you would face.

 

[Slow Love™]

I mention this because I have to say in the Nat West a certain Mr Gilchrist, a confirmed walker since at least 2004, hasn't headed pavilion-wards on a couple of occasions where the nick has looked pretty obvious. Now I'm not slinging accusations around (any team with our keeper is on pretty thin ice attempting to assert any moral superiority), but has he stopped walking altogether or is he merely becoming a tad more discriminating in his strolls?

You must have missed his ill-advised walk yesterday, then.

Out of curiosity though, what are these other incidents you speak of this series? I think I've seen most of Gilchrist's time at the crease over the Nat West, but I could have missed them. I'd have thought there'd be a bit of press about them though, had that happened...

 

[vic_orthdox]

Also, in regards to BoyBrumby's points, there are times when you think "Ooh, I hardly hit that" but everyone knows you've got a nick, and others the opposite too, I guess. It's not as though he's been hanging around excessively or anything.

 

[BoyBrumby]

You must have missed his ill-advised walk yesterday, then.

Out of curiosity though, what are these other incidents you speak of this series? I think I've seen most of Gilchrist's time at the crease over the Nat West, but I could have missed them. I'd have thought there'd be a bit of press about them though, had that happened...

The real one I was thinking of was his egde off Jones (to Jones!) in the abandoned match. I don't recall him walking for that one. May be wrong tho. He walked when he edged Tremlett in the 2nd Eng-Aus ODI IIRC, but that was a much thicker egde so there was really little doubt.