Gilchrist: Why I walked

[Top_Cat]

Especially if you're the captain of the player who walked or didn't walk. If Vaughan walked on 30-odd like he did, I'd have wrung his neck if I was Nasser Hussain.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I have more respect for the players who walk when they know they're out. A couple of hand-

Brian Lara
Andy Flower
Jonty Rhodes
Shiv Chanderpaul
Adam Gilchrist

 

[aussie_beater]

I am quite against this walking thing altogether.

Its a professional sport adjudicated by a professional umpire who gets money to do his job just like the players get money to win the game.Its not a backyard jousting of mates anymore.The players get money to win the game within the rules formulated for the game and no such rule says that a batsman should walk.By walking, a batsman puts his prime responsibility of winning the game for his team into jeopardy which is a breach of his professional code of conduct which has no room in modern sport.There is no place for any namby-pamby sentimentality in todays sports including cricket.A batsman has got to do a job for which he gets paid and he should do it without breaking the rules of the game and also by not making any silly decisions based on sentimental issues or the like, which is what walking is.

Moreover a batsman gets a wrong decision from the umpire quite often.Who accounts for those ? A batsman never gets called back to the crease to play his innings, once he is wrongly given out.It happened once I remember when Gundappa Viswanath called back an English player in a test match in Bombay after he was given out, but that's the only incident I can recall.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

So you are faulting players who are morally inclined to be honest?

 

[aussie_beater]

I am not faulting players for being morally honest or otherwise....I am faulting a player for subverting his professional duty.Now you can argue whether his professional duty is higher in priority then his moral obligations, but that's a totally different issue and when you talk of that, everything becomes subjective to the extent that it becomes a personal decision with scant regard for what your team necessities call for.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

IMO, a player should be allowed to make a personal decision above team 'necessities' if morals come into play.

Yes, it is a team game but some things are just more important and they surpass that classification.

 

[aussie_beater]

Morals dictate actions that not only affect the personal causes but also helps achieve greater good, in this case for the team, where you become less selfish to further the team cause which is paramount when you are playing for a team.

 

[krkode]

It's one of those jobs where the job description goes, "Do what you can. You're hear for a reason. That reason being you're one of the best. Now do your best."

It says nothing about him having to score a hundred every game or having to stand at the wicket as long as the umpire doesn't give him out.

Those are choices he makes as to what is his "best."

I look at it that way, and I say, if a player feels the need to walk, let him. It's his wicket. If the selectors don't want to pick him for that, then too bad for the selectors, cuz they've just let go one of the best...

 

[aussie_beater]

It's one of those jobs where the job description goes, "Do what you can. You're hear for a reason. That reason being you're one of the best. Now do your best."

I would differ on that count.... the job description for a professional player in any sport says "Your job is to win the game". That's the objective for which a player plays a game and is paid for. Yes every team or player doesn't win everyday, but then they get chucked out if they under-perform, don't they ?

 

[Top_Cat]

IMO, a player should be allowed to make a personal decision above team 'necessities' if morals come into play.

Looking at it objectively, that's extremely selfish. You put your own interests above those of the team and I'm sure there'd be a lot of captains who'd not want you in the team if you were serious about that.

Let's face it, all the moral stuff stripped off, the object of any game is to win. And to do that you need players who also want to win. Someone who is a serial walker doesn't objectively have the same will to win as someone who refuses to walk ergo probably shouldn't be in the team, especially in professional sport.

And as Aussie_Beater mentioned, when was the last time you saw sportsmanship from the opposition in allowing a batsman wrongly given out to come back? I've NEVER seen it in person but I've heard of probably two occasions. Plus the inherent problem with being a 'walker' is when you don't actually think you're out (when you clearly are) and you stand your ground. Watch Adam Gilchrist's reputation go up in smoke next time that happens. And is he going to give himself out on LBW's too?

Nope, it's crazy to walk. Even discounting the statistical argument (i.e. you ARE going to get dodgies against you from time to time) the moral argument is shaky. What about your moral obligation to play at the best of your ability for the good of the team? Why should your morals dictate how the rest of the team fares. What happens if you give yourself out and the team suffers a collapse? Of course your conscience will be clean as far as your 'fair play' but you've buggered the team. Which is morally more right/wrong? If you say your own morals matter more, well as I said you're affecting more people than yourself and that is selfish in the extreme and as I said, if I were captain, you wouldn't be in my team if you were like that.

 

[krkode]

To some people it's heart breaking, the fact that they have to continue playing there, knowing that they kinda don't deserve to....

It also comes out to being respectful towards the opposition and the opposition bowler, if not a question of helping your OWN team.

It's the difference between saying "I want to win" and "I will go to any means to win" and the difference between a sportsman and a fanatic. As they say, winning isn't everything

 

[aussie_beater]

Even discounting the statistical argument (i.e. you ARE going to get dodgies against you from time to time) the moral argument is shaky.

Exactly. The moral argument is extremely shaky. And it is made out to look like a case where the batsman who don't walk are the incarnations of satan himself, and the ones that do are the holiest of the holy.... it stems from the values of a time when sport was a mere pastime for a privileged few.Now its different and its about time everybody came to terms with it.

 

[aussie_beater]

It's the difference between saying "I want to win" and "I will go to any means to win" and the difference between a sportsman and a fanatic. As they say, winning isn't everything

Winning within the rules of the game....that's what should be a sportsman's motto...and not "I will go to any means to win"...no one is asking a sportsman to profess to such an extremity.And not walking is well within the rules.

 

[Top_Cat]

It also comes out to being respectful towards the opposition and the opposition bowler, if not a question of helping your OWN team.

How about respecting the umpire's decision, whether it goes for or against you (and it will even itself out in the end)?

It's the difference between saying "I want to win" and "I will go to any means to win" and the difference between a sportsman and a fanatic. As they say, winning isn't everything

At the top level of professional sport (as opposed to a hit in the park-type cricket) it should be the ONLY thing. If it isn't for someone as a professional sportsperson, maybe they should re-examine what they're doing there in the first place.

it stems from the values of a time when sport was a mere pastime for a privileged few.Now its different and its about time everybody came to terms with it.

All the players have for a very long time. Even in Benaud's day, he said they were just as competitive. In fact, he gets visibly irked when someone suggests otherwise or that cricket has been a Gentleman's game etc. I've heard him systematically debunk any myths like that for years.

It's the fans who seem to have trouble with accepting that this anachronistic notion of the Gentleman's game has been long dead and buried.

 

[aussie_beater]

It's the fans who seem to have trouble with accepting that this anachronistic notion of the Gentleman's game has been long dead and buried.

Fans....and the English press.

 

[krkode]

All I can say is that your values and my values are different. Your expectations of a proffessional sportsman are different from mine.

I agree that this is not a gentleman's game anymore, but everyone who plays is a gentleman, and when you conduct yourself so (however that conduct may be) you get my respect.

Gilchrist strikes me as a proffessional sportsman of the highest quality, not necessarily for his walking incident but more for his other deeds.

As I see it, there is only one level of sport. And that is playing it with a reasonable set of rules. Proffessional and backyard are just two sublevels of that one level and in both levels, there is more than winning, and that is winning with dignity and with your respect intact. Didn't Douglas Jardine play within the rules when he asked his bowlers to bowl "bodyline"?

I will continue to respect non-walkers. Why, Ganguly, a staunch non-walker is one of the cricketers who I hold in the highest esteem. But I see wanting to walk as a personal choice. If that personal choice gets you kicked off, then so be it.

As I say, you can choose your actions, but not the consequences. You may or may not gain respect for your actions. You may gain it from the opposition team, you may lose it from your own team, but any respect is okay for me as long as I do what I feel is right. (and such must be the way some other walkers feel). All the time, this being a team sport, you gotta work for the team, but sometimes you gotta do what you wanna do.

 

[Top_Cat]

krkode: How is the view from atop the fence, m'lud?

Just kidding. Well-made points, mate.

 

[krkode]

'tis right, I'm an idealist

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Exactly. The moral argument is extremely shaky. And it is made out to look like a case where the batsman who don't walk are the incarnations of satan himself, and the ones that do are the holiest of the holy....

I don't think anyone is saying that people who choose not to walk when they are given not out or the umpire is unsure are wrong. I have stated that it is a case of individual morals which are subject to change not generally what is right and what is wrong.

I suppose you disagree with a fielder putting his hand up and saying that he didn't take a catch or he's not sure....

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Also, the point of a game is to entertain and to have fun.

With regards to a proffesional athlete looking to win at all costs short of cheating, what about sportsmanship? For instance, if a ball hits the runner and goes for possible overthrows and the batting team rejects the runs....what then? Are they wrong in doing so?