Who do you agree with?

[Dick Rockett]

^^^Sums-up the most typical attitude, for mine.

Most batsmen are more concerned about their own gain (and by chain that of their team) than that of the game itself.

How is the game harmed by batsmen not walking? Most people don't really care, as evidenced in this thread. The general lack of uproar about it among the general public and media would also seem to suggest that no-one cares.

On the other hand, the game in this country certainly suffers through the poor results of the national side, so if a batsman not walking is the difference between a win and a loss, I'll take it, thanks very much.

 

[vic_orthdox]

The media in Australia at the moment is trying to make an issue of it.

 

[Smudge]

On the other hand, the game in this country certainly suffers through the poor results of the national side, so if a batsman not walking is the difference between a win and a loss, I'll take it, thanks very much.

And that's what really frustrated me about the McCullum-Murali incident. Some of my brethren in the press, who often chastise the BCs for their lack of killer instinct and inability to win close games, then immediately got on McCullum's back for his actions (actions which, IMO, were entirely fair). You can't win with some people when you're a Black Cap.

 

[Dick Rockett]

The media in Australia at the moment is trying to make an issue of it.

Certainly it sometimes comes up, but one can hardly claim that it's a constant thorn in the side of the game. Besides, when Australia boasts a prominent player that has a policy of walking, there's bound to be more interest in the topic than usual.

And that's what really frustrated me about the McCullum-Murali incident. Some of my brethren in the press, who often chastise the BCs for their lack of killer instinct and inability to win close games, then immediately got on McCullum's back for his actions (actions which, IMO, were entirely fair). You can't win with some people when you're a Black Cap.

You can't win at all. The general public's disdain for the team is really quite distressing. I don't recall it having been this bad since immediately prior to the '92 World Cup, when we saw exactly what bandwagon jumpers New Zealanders are.

 

[Richard]

How is the game harmed by batsmen not walking? Most people don't really care, as evidenced in this thread. The general lack of uproar about it among the general public and media would also seem to suggest that no-one cares.

On the contrary, many care - in the opinion of many (bowlers especially, and also walker-batsmen) batsmen who don't walk are cheats, and their getting away with being patently out is one of the greatest sources of friction, dissent, anger, etc. And plenty often enough, it leads to unsavoury incidents that the game of cricket can do without.

Come to that, can the game of cricket also not do without runs being scored (and teams gaining results) that are not won on their own merit but through the incompetence of Umpires and the lack-of-sportsmanship (at best) of the players?

On the other hand, the game in this country certainly suffers through the poor results of the national side, so if a batsman not walking is the difference between a win and a loss, I'll take it, thanks very much.

What was I saying about caring more about yourself than the game...

 

[Richard]

The media in Australia at the moment is trying to make an issue of it.

The media in Britain are making an issue of it more often than they aren't...

 

[Dick Rockett]

On the contrary, many care

That's really a meaningless point - that is often used in the media - that attempts to prove support for a cause or idea when there isn't really any. A group can be 'many' without either being a majority, or even a significant minority.

What was I saying about caring more about yourself than the game

I think you'll find that the point I was making is that more runs from our batsmen helps the game in this country, regardless of how they come.

 

[Richard]

That's really a meaningless point - that is often used in the media - that attempts to prove support for a cause or idea when there isn't really any. A group can be 'many' without either being a majority, or even a significant minority.

So long as there are any at all (and there are, plenty - see the Hussey-Nixon game for the most recent example in intl. cricket) it's plenty enough for me. There's certainly more than a significant minority.

I think you'll find that the point I was making is that more runs from our batsmen helps the game in this country, regardless of how they come.

Obviously - and therefore to you your country and your batsmen matter more than the greater good of the game of cricket.

 

[Dick Rockett]

So long as there are any at all (and there are, plenty - see the Hussey-Nixon game for the most recent example in intl. cricket) it's plenty enough for me. There's certainly more than a significant minority.

Which explains the howls of outrage, the hundreds of posts in this thread, most of them agreeing with your point of view. Oh wait, they don't exist.

If you want to see how a significant number of people respond to an issue they actually care deeply about, search for "veil or no veil".

 

[vic_orthdox]

Meh, very few bowlers will ever be angry about a batsman not walking. Just that the umpire got the decision wrong. Even most of the sledging that goes on, along the lines of "You should've walked, you cheating so-and-so" is done as gamesmanship to get the batsman thinking about something else other than the next ball, rather than because that's what they think the batsman should have done.

I mean, the sledging would probably happen every time there's an obvious nick, yet it's not only Gilchrist and Lara doing it. Nixon himself, after all of his yap, mentioned about how he wouldn't have walked either.

 

[Richard]

Which explains the howls of outrage, the hundreds of posts in this thread, most of them agreeing with your point of view. Oh wait, they don't exist.

How does the lack of them explain anything of the sort?

 

[Richard]

Meh, very few bowlers will ever be angry about a batsman not walking. Just that the umpire got the decision wrong. Even most of the sledging that goes on, along the lines of "You should've walked, you cheating so-and-so" is done as gamesmanship to get the batsman thinking about something else other than the next ball, rather than because that's what they think the batsman should have done.

I mean, the sledging would probably happen every time there's an obvious nick, yet it's not only Gilchrist and Lara doing it. Nixon himself, after all of his yap, mentioned about how he wouldn't have walked either.

That's not the point. The point is, the cause of the aggro is the fact that a batsman has not walked. Yes, the Umpire getting the decision wrong will also come into it, and indeed often bear more brunt than the non-walk, but both contributed equally to it.

And had either been reversed, we wouldn't have said aggro.

 

[vic_orthdox]

On the contrary, many care - in the opinion of many (bowlers especially, and also walker-batsmen) batsmen who don't walk are cheats

Find any international player who'll attest to that.

That's not the point. The point is, the cause of the aggro is the fact that a batsman has not walked.

It's irrelevant though, because you don't, nor should you, expect a batsman to walk.

 

[Richard]

Find any international player who'll attest to that.

Allan Donald to Michael Atherton, glove down leg, 1998, no walking: "you ****ing cheat!". Adam Gilchrist to Craig McMillan, nick, 2004, no walk: "the whole World's watching, mate."

It's irrelevant though, because you don't, nor should you, expect a batsman to walk.

I don't, but I think the game of cricket would be better if they did, and hence I "expect" it in a sense of the word.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Allan Donald to Michael Atherton, glove down leg, 1998, no walking: "you ****ing cheat!". Adam Gilchrist to Craig McMillan, nick, 2004, no walk: "the whole World's watching, mate."

That's not attesting to anything. That's gamesmanship, or sledging.

I'm sure there's plenty of on-field banter regarding various players and their fondness for farm animals too.

 

[Richard]

It's whatever you want to interpret it as.

The way Atherton described it, Donald was not making considered remarks, he was speaking in-the-heat-of-the-moment. Without needing to think, he felt Atherton was a cheat.

 

[Dick Rockett]

It's whatever you want to interpret it as.

The way Atherton described it, Donald was not making considered remarks, he was speaking in-the-heat-of-the-moment. Without needing to think, he felt Atherton was a cheat.

In much the same way that Herschelle Gibbs made those comments about the Pakistani spectators recently? We all occasionally say things in the heat of the moment that we wish we could take back, and usually we change our tunes when we've had a chance to cool down.

The examples you've provided, and the manner in which you've interpreted the context in which they were made, really show that what is said out in the middle should be taken less seriously, not more.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Allan Donald to Michael Atherton, glove down leg, 1998, no walking: "you ****ing cheat!". Adam Gilchrist to Craig McMillan, nick, 2004, no walk: "the whole World's watching, mate."

http://forum.cricketweb.net/showpost.php?p=1054167&postcount=50
And isn't it being "in the heat of the moment" more likely to mean you're just going to sledge for the sake of it.

At the time of posting, I was thinking more in terms of a player saying that off the field. But if anything, those quotes just back up my point. And when McMillan blew up at Gilchrist after his comments, you don't think that's the reaction that Gilchrist was searching for, or do you really think he was trying to convince him to walk?

 

[Stumped]

http://forum.cricketweb.net/showthread.php?t=21420

 

[33/3from3.3]

If the umpire gives it out, walk. If not, don't.