On The Edge #1 - Debut Issue

ISSUE #1

Welcome to the first ever issue of 'On the Edge'
Featuring Neil Pickup and Liam Camps debating the hot topics in modern day cricket.

TOPIC:- To walk or not to walk?

PREMISE:
For decades this argument has raged on between supporters of cricket. Should a batsman walk when he knows he is out, even if the umpire is unsure? Or, more simply translated, morals over duty? As recently as the World Cup 2003 semi-final, when Aussie batsman, Adam Gilchrist made the decision to walk, the topic took a new life.

FOR (Liam Camps):
How can a man be faulted for sticking to his morals? Whether they are incorrect or unjust, is opinionated and the fact that a person has the commitment to stand by what he believes in deserves respect. Some say that a need for professional duty surpasses that for morals. must strongly disagree.

This, the sport of cricket, which we love so dearly, has changed greatly since its birth over a century ago. One thing has thrived, even if only barely, is its consideration as a gentleman's game. When a runner is hit by a return from a fielder, he does not run over throws and a fielder puts up his hand when he knows he hasn't caught a ball. These are not personal morals but these are that of the game itself. I ask you, what is a gentleman?

In some cases, it is true that a decision to walk may jeopardize a team's chances in a game but I ask you, why do we play these games? In my estimation, it's about having fun and not winning.

In summation, a wise man once said, It's not about winning, it's how you play the game.

AGAINST (Neil Pickup):
Ask any batsman about the reasons he gets out, and you can bet your bottom dollar that 'bad umpiring' will be somewhere near the top of the list. Justified or not, it's impossible to argue that everyone gets given out when they aren't. Caught off your pads or armguard, bowled by a no-ball, given LBW when you hit it. So why would anyone want to add to their misfortune when they get a life from the umpire?

It's a favourite quote of football pundits that decisions even themselves up over the course of a season and this, of course, is true for cricket as well. Unless you disadvantage yourself by giving yourself out when, under the laws of the game, you aren't. It's clearly stated that a batsman is out if given out by an umpire on answering an appeal, or if he walks, believing himself to be out. So, again, why give yourself out when there's a chance that you won't be.

What is a gentleman? I thought we'd lost that decadent tradition of Players and Gentlemen when professionalism came in fully at First-Class level many years ago obviously not. The game you're playing in is the most important game in the world at the time you're playing, so there is no reason to increase your chances of defeat unnecessarily. If I was captain or manager of a player who'd dismissed himself, you can be sure that they wouldn't get the nicest of receptions back in the dressing room not only are they out themselves, but they've hurt the team's chances into the bargain.

If you're not playing to win, then why are you bothering playing at all?

In summation, a wiser man said, If winning isn't everything, then why do they keep the score?

Posted by Liam