Manee
Cricketer Of The Year
Partially. It does ruin my rhythm though.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
You know what really grinds my cricketing gears?
- Thread starter pasag
- Start date
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
I've never had a stumping either and I actually agree completely about the claustrophobia thing. It's really weird.
But more practice at doing it will get me over that. I'm already better than I once was.
But you don't need stumpings. That's not the point. It's to stop batsmen using their feet to you.
And it certainly doesn't eliminate the caught-behind. And even if it did, that's small price to pay for stopping batsmen taking 20 or so runs off you per 10 overs.
_Ed_
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I disagree that NZ are dull. We're pretty average, yes, but many of our players are really entertaining to watch - Taylor, McCullum, etc.Maybe they could bury it next to whoever's idea it was to pit England and New Zealand against each other in consecutive test and one-day series. The two dullest cricket teams around... playing each other... forever...
Smudge
Hall of Fame Member
Not watched Ryder and McCullum opening the batting, or are you just eternally dire?Maybe they could bury it next to whoever's idea it was to pit England and New Zealand against each other in consecutive test and one-day series. The two dullest cricket teams around... playing each other... forever...
Jungle Jumbo
International Vice-Captain
I think it's more of a general perception - if I was able to see one day of Test cricket in England, the last team I'd want to watch would be NZ.
The whole 'four medium-pacers' idea still hangs around, perhaps unfairly. There's also a bit of a lack of the exotic with NZ, which in many people's eyes is just England on the other side of the world, with less people, more sheep and better scenery.
That said, virtually all of the above applies to England as well. As a neutral, I think the last series I'd want to watch would be England v NZ.
The whole 'four medium-pacers' idea still hangs around, perhaps unfairly. There's also a bit of a lack of the exotic with NZ, which in many people's eyes is just England on the other side of the world, with less people, more sheep and better scenery.
That said, virtually all of the above applies to England as well. As a neutral, I think the last series I'd want to watch would be England v NZ.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Why? They are morally (in cricket terms) better than those who don't walk, because they reduce the chance of undeserved runs being scored.
Precambrian
Banned
Sadly, under cricketing laws, noone cares, though the review system would bring a cure to some extent.
Perm
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Would've said they were morally better because they played the game in the fairest possible spirit tbh, but given your hatred of undeserved runs I'm not surprised
Langeveldt
Soutie
Eh? There is no circumstance ever where any batsman should walk.. Really don't know what you are getting at.. The whole idea being things have to be the same for both teams, so it is easiest if all the decision making is left up to the guys who should be making the decisions..
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
What about when they know their chances of getting away with it are zero? So therefore they'd only speed-up the game by walking.
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
It's a mark of respect for the other team. It's saying, fair play, you got me out, I'm not going to pretend otherwise. In Gilchrist's case it was more "we don't need to cheat to beat you".
It doesn't make a great deal of practical sense, it's just sportsmanship.
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
I don't know how it is in the cricket you've played, but often at suburban levels here, you are only allocated one umpire, and sometimes he doesn't show, or they just plain don't have enough umpires. So one of the players from the batting team has to umpire. In this situation, it's expected that the batsman should walk, and not put the impetus on an umpire who is in an awkward position.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Over here it varies - sometimes you get 2 allocated independent Umpires, sometimes each team brings one themselves. Usually depends on the level you're playing at - first teams get the former, second and third teams the latter. Usually. And Sunday teams it varies.
PhoenixFire
International Coach
That's pretty much exactly the same thing that happens over here, surprised such a thing would happen in Australia.
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
Generally the club will organize one, in that case you take what comes. But when it's a player who has to umpire, it's expected that you'll walk.
I was about 14 when I learnt this the hard way...
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
I was about 16 when I first gave a team-mate out. It was an lbw at least.
Never yet had to give a team-mate out caught-behind - thought I was going to in the Pickup match in 2006 (the one where the Hingston photography including me bowling and pretending to bowl dates from) but gave him a few seconds to walk and eventually he did.
Never yet had to give a team-mate out caught-behind - thought I was going to in the Pickup match in 2006 (the one where the Hingston photography including me bowling and pretending to bowl dates from) but gave him a few seconds to walk and eventually he did.
Last edited:
PhoenixFire
International Coach
Got in my captain's good books by not giving him out when he was stone-cold plumb, when he was on 95 or something. He went on to make 120 odd and has never forgotten it 