• 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.

Gilchrist: Why I walked

aussie_beater

Well-known member
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
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....
No, a fielder should not claim a catch that he didn't take...that's abiding by the rules....and that's all I am saying....play the game by the rules, but play to win.
 

krkode

Well-known member
If a batsmen trips in his run and gets run out, should the fielding team insist that he's out.

If a batsmen mistakedly collides with a fieldsman who has run up to the pitch to backup a throw, and collides and falls down and gets run out, then what?

These are questions, I've always thought are what distinguished a good team from a great team.

What Australia did in the WI a couple of years ago, I thought was sensational. Steve Waugh in particular for literally calling back the batsman. But Aus were commanding that match anyway...:duh:
 

aussie_beater

Well-known member
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
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?
That's a refusal to take unfair advantage of a situation, which is right.Its not the same as a batsman being given not out by an umpire whose job is to decide whether a batsman is out or not and generally adjudicate the game, and then the batsman making his own decision as to whether he was out or not.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Well-known member
krkode said:
But Aus were commanding that match anyway...:duh:
If I remember rightly, the batsman was Campbell and the match was evenly poised with West Indies winning very comfortably in the end...:rolleyes:
 

aussie_beater

Well-known member
krkode said:
If a batsmen trips in his run and gets run out, should the fielding team insist that he's out.

If a batsmen mistakedly collides with a fieldsman who has run up to the pitch to backup a throw, and collides and falls down and gets run out, then what?
I think its the batsman's responsibility to watch out for such things and if he fails to do so, and also if the fielding team is not doing anything deliberately, I don't see why there should be any squeamishness in declaring the batsman out.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Well-known member
What exactly are you saying? Are you saying that a batsman who walks when he knows he's out is going against his professional duty? If so, does it make him right or wrong? Are you saying that batsmen who walk should not be respected for that decision?
 

krkode

Well-known member
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
If I remember rightly, the batsman was Campbell and the match was evenly poised with West Indies winning very comfortably in the end...:rolleyes:
Well you're the master of West Indian cricket knowledge :) My bad, that only makes Waugh's decision more respectable in my opinion :)
 

Top_Cat

Well-known member
No they should be respected and admired for their moral stance. And then (depending on the player) promptly dropped.

There's no 'I' in 'TEAM' and that goes for moral decisions. The umpire makes the decision. That's what they're out there for. Leave them to do their jobs or you undermine the decisions they make. Ifyou undermine those, what's to stop another batsman or bowler from undermining any others they make?
 

aussie_beater

Well-known member
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
What exactly are you saying? Are you saying that a batsman who walks when he knows he's out is going against his professional duty? If so, does it make him right or wrong? Are you saying that batsmen who walk should not be respected for that decision?
Here's what I am saying -

1) A batsman who walks when he is given not out by the umpire fails to do his professional duty.
2) And that act is wrong as far as his moral responsibilties towards his team is concerned.
3) I for one, would not respect a player that walks. Its what you consider higher in your ladder of moral responsibilities.In my opinion the player's moral responsibility towards the well being of his team, is more important then his own personal moral calling which can be termed as selfish.
 

Gotchya

Well-known member
aussie_beater said:
Here's what I am saying -

1) A batsman who walks when he is given not out by the umpire fails to do his professional duty.
2) And that act is wrong as far as his moral responsibilties towards his team is concerned.
3) I for one, would not respect a player that walks. Its what you consider higher in your ladder of moral responsibilities.In my opinion the player's moral responsibility towards the well being of his team, is more important then his own personal moral calling which can be termed as selfish.
Well, NOT walking is an immediate urge, its a luring thought to stay on. Tell me, if you nicked one on 20 and then made 150, how would you rate that against a flawless 100 ? equal ? One thing is for sure, you wont hear the batsman bragging too much about that 150.

Getting out and NOT being noticed is lucky, just like commiting any indiscretion and getting lucky ;)
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Top_Cat said:
No they should be respected and admired for their moral stance. And then (depending on the player) promptly dropped.
:D:D:D

Some interesting points here - but until we get everyone playing the game in that vein, I think those that walk are honourable, but misguided!
 

aussie_beater

Well-known member
Gotchya said:
Getting out and NOT being noticed is lucky, just like commiting any indiscretion and getting lucky ;)
And on the same vein, not getting out and being declared out is unlucky.Luck plays a part in sport but it all evens out in the end and it does not become the most decisive factor.
 

aussie_beater

Well-known member
krkode said:
But need he not respect the other team?
Yes he should respect the other team's abilities which gives him the perspective to build his own skills and strategies to win.The respect should not be to an extent where you feel that the other team deserves more then you, to win the game.
 

Rik

Well-known member
aussie_beater said:
Luck plays a part in sport but it all evens out in the end
Not if you get given out for 3 0s in a row through bad decisions and never play again...
 

krkode

Well-known member
aussie_beater said:
Yes he should respect the other team's abilities which gives him the perspective to build his own skills and strategies to win.The respect should not be to an extent where you feel that the other team deserves more then you, to win the game.
It's all a matter of preference. And if one's preference gets him kicked off the team, then too bad. If he'd like to go against his preference because that's what he HAS to do, then good for him :)
 

Rik

Well-known member
krkode said:
Has that happened to anybody?
Yes, I got 3 0s in a row when I 1st started playing, 2 LWBs going down leg-side and a catch that bounced. Luckly I was given more chances.
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
Rik said:
Yes, I got 3 0s in a row when I 1st started playing, 2 LWBs going down leg-side and a catch that bounced. Luckly I was given more chances.
Perhaps you should amend your original statement, then to

'got out for 3 successive ducks and SHOULD never have played again'
 
Top