Walking

[Eclipse]

I have seen Lara not walk or though not often..

 

[KennyD]

yes, i wonder how much consisitency there is with `serial' walkers...

 

[SJS]

Game must celebrate walkers
Peter Roebuck

http://www.hindu.com/2004/10/25/stories/2004102502092100.htm

 

[Top_Cat]

Nope, I'd never walk and I'd be mighty miffed if a member of the team I was in did so. Aside from the arguments about umpires having a job to do, etc, you yourself may well be wrong. A lot of the time, if you've hit a ball and it's been caught you're well aware but the batsman in question isn't always in the best position to judge one way or the other.

And how about if you're absolutely certain that you didn't hit the ball but you most certainly did? Of course you're not going to walk because you don't think you're out but the fact that you'd made the wrong call would make you look like you'd decided not to walk and would unwittingly point towards you being a hyprocrite when in reality, you were just wrong.

So yeah, the potential for the batsman to walk when they weren't out is there and as such, I would not be encouraging anyone to walk. Walking is a relic of a bygone era much like Stetson hats when the game was played by gentlemen. It's now played by professionals who have livelihoods on the line and it's umpired by professionals too. It may well be a moral decision for some but the morals aren't as clear as 'if you stay when you know you're out, you're morally wrong'. I mean, would anyone here steal a loaf of bread to feed their starving family? Morals are never as clear as some would have us believe.

To be honest, the only way to avoid most of the moral dilemmas is to never walk. It's a far stronger argument to do it on the grounds of professionalism than trying to justfy walking 'most times, except when the game/my career is on the line'. Of course the obvious retort is 'well you could walk every time' but I challenge ANYONE to walk EVERY time they think they're out. Then I challenge anyone to do it again if they walked thinking they were out when they actually weren't. Ha!

 

[Slow Love™]

Yeah, I suppose I am saying I can see it happening. What I'm not telling you, however, is that I think he would do it. I just don't think everyone can categorically say that he would never do it.

Yeah, I agree with this. Why should we extrapolate to Gilchrist what we ourselves might/might not do? Maybe he would.

This issue is incredibly complicated. Is the idea that we might not be willing to walk all the time, under all circumstances, an argument against walking? I know it has the potential to make you a hypocrite, but I still don't know if it's a good enough reason not to celebrate somebody (or, further, to denounce them) for doing something decent in a game. Better to give them the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise, IMO, rather than berate them for something we assume they'll do later.

It's also very hard for people to be completely morally consistent, but I don't know that this takes away from the morality of their behaviour when it is moral. A vegetarian who refrains from eating animals as a stance against their killing may eat a hot-dog if they're desperate and that's all that's available to eat. A radical environmentalist might find themselves scribbling notes on non-recycled paper, just because they're in a hurry. These types of examples are often used by those seeking to criticize their principles, but does it really render their general behaviour worthless? I don't think so - you can only do what you can, and nobody's perfect.

If somebody walks 9 times out of 10, does the tenth time (when they don't walk) injure the game more than if they never walk at all? I don't really know, but I suspect not. Not that I'd really crap on somebody who decided they'd never walk (Steve Waugh was, and still is, the cricketer that I looked up to most).

I can understand that consistency can be an issue - but bottom line I have to say it feels to me that walking is good for the game, even if might be imperfect in it's application. Something to think about, anyhow...

 

[SJS]

Yeah, I agree with this. Why should we extrapolate to Gilchrist what we ourselves might/might not do? Maybe he would.

This issue is incredibly complicated. Is the idea that we might not be willing to walk all the time, under all circumstances, an argument against walking? I know it has the potential to make you a hypocrite, but I still don't know if it's a good enough reason not to celebrate somebody (or, further, to denounce them) for doing something decent in a game. Better to give them the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise, IMO, rather than berate them for something we assume they'll do later.

It's also very hard for people to be completely morally consistent, but I don't know that this takes away from the morality of their behaviour when it is moral. A vegetarian who refrains from eating animals as a stance against their killing may eat a hot-dog if they're desperate and that's all that's available to eat. A radical environmentalist might find themselves scribbling notes on non-recycled paper, just because they're in a hurry. These types of examples are often used by those seeking to criticize their principles, but does it really render their general behaviour worthless? I don't think so - you can only do what you can, and nobody's perfect.

If somebody walks 9 times out of 10, does the tenth time (when they don't walk) injure the game more than if they never walk at all? I don't really know, but I suspect not. Not that I'd really crap on somebody who decided they'd never walk (Steve Waugh was, and still is, the cricketer that I looked up to most).

I can understand that consistency can be an issue - but bottom line I have to say it feels to me that walking is good for the game, even if might be imperfect in it's application. Something to think about, anyhow...

Very well said.

 

[Slow Love™]

Very well said.

Thanks, man. Actually, this is a great thread.

 

[SJS]

Thanks, man. Actually, this is a great thread.

Digressing from this thread for a bit. Do you know that Shoaib and Brett Lee may not be the fastest bowlers of all time. There high speeds as compared to those measured on Thommo, Holding etc are higher mainly because of the difference in the way the figures are arrived at ????

Actually those guys might have been as fast if not faster !!

 

[Slow Love™]

Digressing from this thread for a bit. Do you know that Shoaib and Brett Lee may not be the fastest bowlers of all time. There high speeds as compared to those measured on Thommo, Holding etc are higher mainly because of the difference in the way the figures are arrived at ????

Yeah, I thought it was a matter of technological accuracy as much as actual method though (was it something to do with where the speed of the ball was recorded, in relation to it's travels?). IIRC, nobody's ever been that certain of the earlier tests, because there was a decent margin of error. Although that could also mean that the 100mph Thommo was clocked at (or was it 99mph?) was faster than he actually bowled it, and Shoaib and Lee are even quicker.

 

[Son Of Coco]

yes, i wonder how much consisitency there is with `serial' walkers...

I don't know about this 'serial' walker thing though, people seem to be wanting to either categorise someone as a person who'll walk all the time or someone who wont - it seems a bit like me saying that I saw a red apple, so everything red must be an apple.............

 

[SJS]

Yeah, I thought it was a matter of technological accuracy as much as actual method though (was it something to do with where the speed of the ball was recorded, in relation to it's travels?). IIRC, nobody's ever been that certain of the earlier tests, because there was a decent margin of error. Although that could also mean that the 100mph Thommo was clocked at (or was it 99mph?) was faster than he actually bowled it, and Shoaib and Lee are even quicker.

No it was something very basic.

- In the current system the speed is calsulated as it leaves the hand. So if at the point of delivery the speed is 150 KMPH, thats what we atke it to be, though it may be much less by the time it reaches the other end.

- In the earlier system, the speed was calculated both at the point of release AND when it reached the other end and the AVERAGE of the two was declared the speed of the bowler !!

 

[honestbharani]

I have seen Lara not walk or though not often..

I don't remember him ever staying at the wicket when he had actually nicked the ball. Remember in the world cup match against Sri Lanka, when his presence was ALL important to nullify Murali and he walked after nicking Chaminda Vaas to the keeper. The umpire did not give it out, but Lara didn't even hang around to see what the umpire was doing. He nicked it and he just walked. He didn't even look around to see if the keeper had taken it. Obviously, he must have gathered that it was taken cleanly seeing the celebrations. Now, that move probably cost the Windies a berth in the super six. So, I don't see why Lara would not walk at 150/9 and with 1 run to win, although I don't think he would ever nick a ball in that situation.

 

[SJS]

I don't remember him ever staying at the wicket when he had actually nicked the ball. Remember in the world cup match against Sri Lanka, when his presence was ALL important to nullify Murali and he walked after nicking Chaminda Vaas to the keeper. The umpire did not give it out, but Lara didn't even hang around to see what the umpire was doing. He nicked it and he just walked. He didn't even look around to see if the keeper had taken it. Obviously, he must have gathered that it was taken cleanly seeing the celebrations. Now, that move probably cost the Windies a berth in the super six. So, I don't see why Lara would not walk at 150/9 and with 1 run to win, although I don't think he would ever nick a ball in that situation.

I agree. I too do not remember a single occasion when Lara has edged a delivery (and been taken cleanly) and stayed at the wicket.

 

[Top_Cat]

- In the earlier system, the speed was calculated both at the point of release AND when it reached the other end and the AVERAGE of the two was declared the speed of the bowler !

Actually, that was just in the 'World's Fastest Bowler' competition and all of those bowlers were clocked significantly slower than 150km/h. Thommo was clocked at around 148km/h as his fastest ball (have it on DVD so I'll have to check). When Thommo was clocked at 160km/h, Lillee was also clocked at 155km/h the same day. Bearing in mind this was AFTER Lillee had his back problems. I'd say that the measurement was probably inaccurate because even before his back operation, Lillee was surely never THAT quick (although I'm sure he touched 150km/h on occasions).

The method used today is about as accurate as we've seen for real-time measurements. The two infra-red laser beams obviously have parallax and curvature errors introduced but they are taken into account. This is true that the speed is taken as it leaves the bowler's hand but technically, that IS the speed the bowler lets the ball go at.

Personally, the speed thing is perception I think. Guys like Thommo 'looked' quicker than they actually were. Guys like Glenn McGrath also look quicker than he's measured at. The problem with comparing the bowlers across generations are that 1. the measurement method is completely different and 2. the criteria for what is taken into account to measure the speed is completely different. The differences are so great, in fact, that I would say one shouldn't even make the comparison because credibility and caveats to the data would abound.

Back to walking........

Lara is certainly one to walk not only when he thinks he's nicked the ball but also when the catch isn't an obvious one. He often asks the fielder of he caught it and if the answer is yes, I've seen him walk off without hesitation. But this can also lead to the mistakes which I mentioned previously; in the WI in 1995 in the 1st Test, Steve Waugh took a 'catch' at gully which he fumbled and (in my opinion) ultimately grassed but he claimed the catch (in fairness to Waugh, I doubt he knew the ball hit the ground). Lara didn't even stick around to wait for a decision from the umpire; he asked Steve Waugh whether he caught it, Waugh said yes and he walked off.

Now in my opinion, he shouldn't have walked and if I was his captain, I would have been peeved that he did so, particularly since (again in my opinion, although the replays suggest that what I'm saying is close to the truth on this one) he was likely wrong. Fast forward to 1996 when Lara went for a pull shot against McGrath in Melbourne I think) which he definitely nicked, Healy took what was a clear catch diving forward (replays again) and Lara walked off but protested. Then went proceeded to enter the Aussie dressing room and give the Aussie management a pasting, in effect saying Healy claimed a catch he didn't take (which was shown to be wrong). Lara again was wrong and in that instance should not have walked. Yes he's consistent but I think he would have been well within his rights to stay and allow the umpire to give him out/not out. Walking is fraught with danger (whether you're wrong or right in what you think has happened can affect the outcome) and there's no really strong justification for it but not walking is a little different in that whether you are wrong or right in terms of whether you hit the ball, at least you allowed the umpire to give you out/not out which, as far as I'm concerned, is far more morally consistent.

I'll happily celebrate the walkers as long as I'm not playing on their team.

 

[Deja moo]

Meh.Whatever.

It takes a lot more hypocrisy to stay put at the crease knowing youve nicked it than a regular walker can be accused of if he doesnt walk in the odd situation when he himself isnt sure if he nicked it .

 

[Mr Casson]

Meh.Whatever.

It takes a lot more hypocrisy to stay put at the crease knowing youve nicked it than a regular walker can be accused of if he doesnt walk in the odd situation when he himself isnt sure if he nicked it .

Of course. If a person never walks, then they aren't a hypocrate. Unless they say that other people *should* walk.

As for guilt, though, I think it would be about the same. Neither one of them has to, or is obligated to walk, so they should have about equal amounts of 'guilt'.

 

[Western Warrior]

Like I said earlier, this is an issue which can never be resolved to the satisfaction of anyone if the onus is placed on players to be honest.

Again, cricket has become a high profile sport giving most players a lifestyle and income beyond the dreams of many. However, as a result the stakes have increases accordingly and thus expecting a player to walk when their income, their livelihood and even their reputation is at stake is simply expecting too much.

The technology required to assist an umpire and to take away the currently existing level of doubt exists and is not expensive nor difficult for the ICC to obtain.

All that is required is a conserted effort by the ICC to impliment such technology and to apply it consistently and to all levels of the game.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Meh.Whatever.

It takes a lot more hypocrisy to stay put at the crease knowing youve nicked it than a regular walker can be accused of if he doesnt walk in the odd situation when he himself isnt sure if he nicked it .

Out of interest, how is that hypocrisy?

 

[Western Warrior]

Out of interest, how is that hypocrisy?

I don't see it as hypocracy. It may be dishonest but it is not hypocracy unless that individual player has publically encouraged walking in the past.

Unfortunately I am one of those players who would remain at the crease having been, in my mind, the victim of more than one borderline lbw appeal where I as batsman was not given the benefit of the doubt.

However, I have never made my feelings on walking public. Therefore if I get a thick edge which is caught but not given out then I am staying put. That may make me dishonest but it does not make me a hypocrite.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Actually, that was just in the 'World's Fastest Bowler' competition and all of those bowlers were clocked significantly slower than 150km/h. Thommo was clocked at around 148km/h as his fastest ball (have it on DVD so I'll have to check). When Thommo was clocked at 160km/h, Lillee was also clocked at 155km/h the same day. Bearing in mind this was AFTER Lillee had his back problems. I'd say that the measurement was probably inaccurate because even before his back operation, Lillee was surely never THAT quick (although I'm sure he touched 150km/h on occasions).

The method used today is about as accurate as we've seen for real-time measurements. The two infra-red laser beams obviously have parallax and curvature errors introduced but they are taken into account. This is true that the speed is taken as it leaves the bowler's hand but technically, that IS the speed the bowler lets the ball go at.

Personally, the speed thing is perception I think. Guys like Thommo 'looked' quicker than they actually were. Guys like Glenn McGrath also look quicker than he's measured at. The problem with comparing the bowlers across generations are that 1. the measurement method is completely different and 2. the criteria for what is taken into account to measure the speed is completely different. The differences are so great, in fact, that I would say one shouldn't even make the comparison because credibility and caveats to the data would abound.

I think you hit the nail on the head with perception. Before speed guns were used at every televised match I assumed some cricketers were a lot faster than they were. Dom Cork is an example that springs to mind. I initially assumed he was a v brisk fast-medium, but nowadays at least the gun shows him to be a high 70s/ low 80s MPH merchant. Pace wise he's about on a par with Scott Styris, but because of his, er, "enthusiastic" action looks quicker to the naked eye.

With regards to pace bowlers of yore, in his book Bodyline Autopsy David Frith quotes a letter from Sandy Bell the South African fast bowler where he claimed that Harold Larwood was measured at over 100MPH by "Percy Fender (20s Surrey captain & sometime mentor to D Jardine) & the White City boffins" at the White City Greyhound track in 1929. Given the time period the measurement may not be that accurate, but Frith also quotes George Hele (one of the Bodyline umpires) from an ABC interview in 1975 as saying "I'm not exaggerating when I say it was 97MPH".

In 75 presumably Hele would've seen Tommo & Lillee for comparison to Lol. Guess "who's the quickest" will be argued about for as long as "who's the greatest"!