PDA

View Full Version : Call me cynical, but


Arnab
January 3, 2004, 03:00 PM
I would love to see India win this match and series. Not because I like India, but because I would like to see Steve Waugh's career end in a fitting finale.

chinaman
January 3, 2004, 03:05 PM
Probably it's not cynical. Some people are getting bored with the Aussie dominance. Interestingly enough, it's not their fault and not even Aussie's fault either.

Arnab
January 3, 2004, 05:05 PM
No no, I have no problem with Aussie domination. I have a personal distaste for Steve Waugh and his unsportsmanlike tactics. He epitomizes all the dirty tricks that the Australians have become famous for. Standing at the crease waiting for the umpire's finger after clearly nicking, things like that.

[Edited on 3-1-2004 by Arnab]

oracle
January 3, 2004, 05:39 PM
I just saw a ESPN dedication to Gregg Chappell. His life and all his great
moments.
Actually they are doing for about 30 cricketeers if I am not mistaken.

The Interviewer asked him how he felt when he asked his brother Trevor Chappell to go for the underarm bowling incident in 72' against the Kiwis. He came clean and explained how it was impossible to comprehend (for the aussies) a loss and sometimes that boundary between cheating and rough play is really blurred.

fab
January 6, 2004, 02:38 AM
No no, I have no problem with Aussie domination. I have a personal distaste for Steve Waugh and his unsportsmanlike tactics. He epitomizes all the dirty tricks that the Australians have become famous for. Standing at the crease waiting for the umpire's finger after clearly nicking, things like that.



So where does it end? Should players who are not giving lbw by umpires walk if they know for a fact that their leg, was indeed, before the wicket? I don't for a minute believe in one rule for one scenario and differnet rule for another.

Anyhow, he ended it fittingly - 80 runs in the 2nd innings.. pity he couldnt get a century :)

Arnab
January 6, 2004, 03:06 AM
So where does it end? Should players who are not giving lbw by umpires walk if they know for a fact that their leg, was indeed, before the wicket? I don't for a minute believe in one rule for one scenario and differnet rule for another.

There's a BIG difference between getting a clear nick and being adjuged LBW. In one case, the batsman has a clear knowledge of whether he nicked it or not. In the other case, the batsman himself has NO definite idea to judge his own lbw. It's purely the umpire's decision.

And, there's no "rule" or "should"s to act like this. Courtney Walsh wouldn't have acted against the "rule" if he took the bails off when Qadir was out of his crease at the non-striker's end. But he was magnanimous enough to let it go. It's the sort of sportsmanship Windies have always epitomized.

That's why I always smile when I hear people talk about Steve's "character."

I am just happy that the conniving, deceiving ratface is gone from cricket.

[Edited on 6-1-2004 by Arnab]

Arnab
January 6, 2004, 07:54 AM
57.5 Nel to Lara, OUT: indifferent shot finds a bottom edge taken low
down by Boucher, Lara is well applauded by the crowd as he walked
not waiting for the ump

BC Lara c Boucher b Nel 86 (185m 138b 14x4 0x6) SR: 62.32

------------------
He was trying to save the match with 50 overs still to go. Could have waited for the umpire's decision. Didn't. That's sportsmanship. Chivalry. That's what makes him different from the ratface, opportunist, dishonest Steve Waughs.


[Edited on 6-1-2004 by Arnab]

oracle
January 6, 2004, 08:51 AM
http://http://thebladder.com.au/content/contribution/default.asp?fullreport=1920&ContributionType=1&ordering=2&sportID=16&AuthorID=

CRICKET
Former Skipper shattered by false call up
By The Lizard
Wednesday, 5 February 2003

Australian Test skipper Steve Waugh had a cruel moment outside his house this week when he went to get his Sydney Morning Herald on Monday.

"I was in my slippers getting the paper, when I read the front page and almost collapsed!" said Steve. "There was the Headline - AUSTRALIA PREPARES TO GO TO WAR" said Steve sheepishly who was used to having his name spelt wrong since junior cricket.

"Even worse, I saw the photo of John Howard and thought that the PM himself had intervened, given all those kind words he had for me after my Ton in the Sydney test"

After Waugh called the ACB to be sadly told there was no such reprieve for him, he decided to read the article in full. "I guess they opted to go with this fellow Bush instead, but they're wrong about the threat of Hussein. England wont even make the semi's!" said a dejected Waugh.

Source:the bladder

fab
January 7, 2004, 01:27 AM
In the other case, the batsman himself has NO definite idea to judge
his own lbw. It's purely the umpire's decision.
That is surely debatable in SOME cases.. (not all)

And, there's no "rule" or "should"s to act like this. Courtney Walsh wouldn't have acted against the "rule" if he took the bails off when Qadir was out of his crease at the non-striker's end. But he was magnanimous enough to let it go. It's the sort of sportsmanship Windies have always epitomized.

That's why I always smile when I hear people talk about Steve's "character."
Smile away, dude. SRW's character is strong and relentless - he was the perfect captain for the best cricket team in the world and non-walking is certainly not something HE started..

Speaking of Windies, rewind back to when they were the greatest team (and just as relentless as the Australians are now). Here are a few tidbits to jog your memory about what they "have always epitomized".

* Bowling 70 overs a day

* Breaking the stumps when Dean Jones was walking off the field after being bowled off a no-ball.

* West Indian players celebrating win against England by ripping the stumps off the ground BEFORE the umpire, Steve Bucknor, had raised the finger to give Phil Tufnell out. Bucknor was apparently still deciding (Michael Holding's opinion was that Tufnell was not out). In the end Bucknor couldn't recall the players so Tufnell was given out..

Btw, this is not criticism of the Windies, my point is that the pot should not call the kettle black.

And frankly, this whole "cricket is a game for chivalrousm noble gentleman" is codswallop at best. This mentality is just propagating the elitist Victorian ideal of
aristocracy and nobility which is virtually non-existent in the 21st century.
Sure, this notion worked in the 1800s but in this day and age with sport being
so competitive (for financial reasons) and most players (and viewers!) being
proleteriats by the standards of the "good old days" - this pansy Victorian
attitude just does not work. If someone does show good sportsmanship (like
Rafique in PK and like Lara in the example you cited) they should be applauded. But if a player doesn't walk, I don't
see why they need to be hanged as cheats as majority of players THESE days
(90% according to Michael Holding) don't walk since technically they have the right to wait for the umpire's decision. That would mean, according to you 90% of today's cricketers are also ratfaced, opportunist and dishonest.

If you mean that SRW is a ratface because he uses the tactic of mental disintegration, well that is a different topic all together. As, I'm sure you are very well aware, recent competitive cricket standards have been raised so high, that it is not just a matter of raw talent but also mental strength. And so what? Is this increased competition somehow SRW's fault?

Or perhaps you think he is a ratface because he endorses abusive sledging? I do not recall him excessively participating in abusive sledging similar to McGrath & friends. A notable exception could be of the incident with Lara of course - but so what? Most players have some unsavoury incidents in their career - they're not angels. Perhaps then, you think that Waugh endorses this kind of behaviour in his team mates? Well McGrath & friends have been a idiots since the days of Taylor and besides, the Australian team in general has always had a few ill-mannered members since the 70s. And so again, I fail to see how this is SRW's fault.

Maybe it's his highly motivated "win at all costs" attitude you dislike. I dunno about you, but this is exactly the type of motivation I'd like to see in a BD captain instead of the timid crap we're always given.

Sorry - tried to understand your point of view but couldn't as it looks like your disklike for SRW is based on a few flimsy and unfound reasons.

Orpheus
January 7, 2004, 04:08 AM
very nice reply fab.. let see Arnab's come-back without accusing fab of being brain washed by Aussie Media :D (kidding!)

this should be interesting!

Arnab
January 7, 2004, 04:59 AM
There's no pot calling the kettle black. This is ME calling both the pot and the kettle black. I am willing to ridicule Windies players as well.

I am actually curious to know in which tests the three examples you gave happened. And your examples are woefully inadequate in description. Bowling 70 overs? Under what circumstances? Dean Jones out of a no-ball? What kind of out? Caught out? What kind of no-ball? Over stepping? Then how the heck the bowler could know? The third example sounds a little legitimate, although EVERY team on earth rips the stumps off the ground after they win it. Which test was it? Was it an LBW decision? Bat-pad catch? What was Tufnell's reaction?

My philosophy is very simple. Honesty. Conscience. And consistency in determining what is honest and how to treat it. If you, fab, are willing to truly "applaud" Lara, Walsh, Rafiq et al for their honest, magnanimous, chivalrous acts, then you should not hesitate to "ridicule" dishonest, "win-at-all-costs-even-of-it-is-wrong", opportunistic acts. If you think there is something called "good sportsmanship", then you can't blame me if I decry the acts of "bad sportsmanship."

And please, spare me the "victorian" bullcrap. I am not a part of the British elite. But I was raised by parents who put values on honesty. It's not just about cricket.

And also spare me the "so what?"s, because then there's no reason for arguing and posting anything. Everything can be settled by "so what?"s.

Let me tell you HOW I have grown such a profound, personal and specific distaste for Steve Waugh for his "win at all costs" attitude. Remember the 1999 Aus tour in WIndies? Remember the fifth One day international that was declared "tied"? I happened to watch that match live on TV. The ruling was that the Australians were prevented making the 3rd run because of the crowd invasions. Bullshit. Waugh, on strike on the last ball of the match, needed 4 runs to win, 3 to tie. But what he could actually muster was that ugly slog sweep of his to send the ball straight to the man on midwicket boundary. The guy on the non-striker end was, fittingly another ratface, Warne. There was no way there was gonna be a boundary. There was no way they were gonna make the third run for the tie. But the stupid crowd, probably sensing the same, started invading the stadium even before the ball reached the fielder. Amidst the chaos, When the bowler actually got the ball back and dutifully knocked off the stumps at the bowler's end, the fatso Warne was huffing and puffing to finish his second run and that alone could have been a third umpire call. So, Windies win by one run, right? NO!!! 30 minutes later the match is called "tied." I couldn't f**** believe my ears. Apparently, Steve Waugh said that he couldn't finish the tying third run because of crowd trouble. What a conniving little b****! He BARELY finished the second run when Arthurton knocked off the bails. How could he possibly finish the third run? The bails at the non-striker's end was already off. Was he gonna turn back the hands of time and fly 22 yards in one second by magic? How could he possibly come up with such bullshit? And all this just to deny Windies their deserved victory and a lead of 3-2 in the series? He just exploited the incident of crowd invasion so that Australia doesn't "lose." It's the kind of nonchalant dishonesty and opportunism that makes my blood boil with absolute rage. It's the kind of lie that absolutely makes you wanna hate the person because of his blatant, in-your-face, remorseless lying. Kinda like Bush's lies and justifications for this Iraq war. That was the straw that broke the camel's back for me about Waugh. And it just takes one act like this to reveal the true face of any dishonest dipshit out there.

I don't see why they need to be hanged as cheats as majority of players. THESE days (90% according to Michael Holding) don't walk since technically they have the right to wait for the umpire's decision. That would mean, according to you 90% of today's cricketers are also ratfaced, opportunist and dishonest.

When did I say they should be hanged like cheats? But yes I will always ridicule them for their dishonesty and taking advantage of the system. And where did you get that Holding quote? Even if it is true (I haven't watched any cricket on TV in the last four years), yes, I will call all these 90% cricketers opportunist and dishonest. And I would also blame this to the "professional", "amoral businessmanlike" attitude of some Aussies. Players from other nations probably learned from these Aussies.

Notice I didn't say ALL the Aussies. From what I saw on TV over the years, Ponting was a prominent player who acted honestly most of the time. I remember that in a one day match he caught a ball, but fumbled and dropped it later. Waugh, Warne, Mcgrath -- all those connivig bitches saw it, but still came around Ponting for high fives. The umpire, probably convinced by the ratfaces' fake "Aussie-style" smiles and celebrations, gave the batsman out. But Ponting started shaking his head, came over to the umpire and made him reverse his decision. You should have seen the faces of those aholes, how their smiles disappeared. Ponting always scored high points in my book after that.

[Edited on 7-1-2004 by Arnab]

[Edited on 1-8-2004 by chinaman : Moderation]

James90
January 7, 2004, 11:02 AM
Arnab what's you opinion on Gilchrist and the WC Semi Final?

Arnab
January 7, 2004, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by Habibul_fan
Arnab what's you opinion on Gilchrist and the WC Semi Final?

Which world cup? 2003? I haven't seen even one match off the last world cup. I don't remember Gilchrist doing anything during the 1999 world cup semi.

Arnab
January 8, 2004, 01:31 AM
I just found a wonderful article on the net written by someone named Avinash Varma on the very issue of "nicking a catch and not walking":

A Sign of Our Times?

Steve Waugh snicks a ball from Daniel Vettori into the hands of wicketkeeper Richardson. An appeal for caught behind is turned down by Umpire Robinson. Later in the innings, Adam Gilchrist gloves a ball from Chris Cairns into the wicketkeeper's hands only to be turned down again by the same umpire. A footnote to these two incidents is that these events occurred on the last day of a test match, during the last innings with possible impact on the result of the match and the series. Both these have been described in the media as umpiring errors. And that is troubling.

There must be something really rotten in Denmark if we are ready to condemn an umpire for mistakes of oversight or incompetence, yet unwilling to criticize a player for dishonesty. Or is it the sign of our times?  I could pass off my own feelings as antiquated and naļve, but what about the innocent expectations of the thousands of youngsters who throng the grounds in India, Australia and England to watch cricket?  By not putting the responsibility on the shoulders of Waugh and Gilchrist for doing the right thing by walking, we have made truisms out of some ugly aspects of modern cricket; the first being that the batsmen may not have known that they had nicked or gloved the ball, the second being, that it is the umpire's responsibility to give verdicts on the field, and the third being that in a competitive and a tense match situation, you can't expect a batsman to walk even if he is out. 

These "truths" should be deconstructed before they assume a life of their own. I haven't played first class cricket but I would still stick my neck out and say that any batsman who claims that he can't tell if he nicked the balls or not will never lay a steady hand on either the Bhagvad Geeta, the Koran, or the Bible. If a batsman is as accomplished as he thinks he may be, he must surely know when that ball scrapes the side of his bat, or brushes his glove on its way to the wicketkeeper. In fact good batsmen will instinctively know even when they are lbw.  So when a batsman denies having any knowledge of a faint edge, I would certainly question his integrity, if not his batsmanship. And if by some mischance, the batsman did not hear or feel the nick, how does he or anybody else for that matter, expect the umpire to give a right decision?  After all who is closest to the action? Not the wicketkeeper, not the slip or the silly point fielder and certainly not the umpire!  The batsman is the closest and if he can't tell, why then hold the umpire any more responsible? Giving a benefit of doubt to the batsman is after all, a decision only by default.

The second and third arguments are equally preposterous, because underlying those are the lopsided notions of responsibility and competition on the cricket field. The fact that the modern concept and practice of on-field thuggery passes for gamesmanship would make Orwell proud to know just how deeply entrenched double speak is in our lives. The result is that an already lonely vigil of the umpires in the middle has become that much lonelier sans the necessary support of the players.  Errors graduate quickly into bungling errors, bungling errors into blunders and before we know it the entire cricketing world finds itself playing out a scene from a badly choreographed opera.  All this because of a perception that the umpire did not meet his "responsibility" of giving the right decision.  A few such errors will give the erring umpire a "reputation" and a string of such errors may well earn him a poem.

We all know that this is unfair yet we don't expect the batsmen to walk.  Because nobody walks these days - a favorite line being offered by analysts and players alike.  An uncomfortable thought if one wants to define the act of bringing the game into disrepute.   Acts of basic honesty and sportsmanship are often ridiculed and rarely lauded as was the decision by Gundappa Vishwanath twenty years ago, to call England's Bob Taylor back after being given out.  Letting an umpiring blunder take its natural course might have made all the difference to India's fortune in that game, but I suspect something akin to a conscience must have twitched inside Vishwanath that afternoon.  It became Botham's test match but what Vishwanath did then now reminds us how far we have slipped along this road of meaningless competition and how anachronistic the notion of sportsmanship has become.   The era of gamesmanship arrived firmly the day Dennis Lillee decided to brandish an aluminum bat and Greg Chappell asked his younger brother to bowl an underarm ball to a New Zealand tailender. What has followed since then is a steady stream of unscrupulous activities by the players to see just how much they can get away with. It is ridiculous therefore, to demand competence, honesty and integrity from the officials and condone dishonesty and puerility from the players.

If Brian Lara can walk, why can't the others? And as a fielder, I shouldn't have to rely on TV replays later in the day to realise that what I thought was a fair catch was in fact not, and that the ball had indeed touched the ground while catching it. Can it be that Lara still possesses that one quality - honesty - that practically every cricketer of this generation has thrown into the gutter for sake of glory?  If that is the case then why are we holding the umpires to an impossibly higher standard of conduct and skill than those who play the game?  How can we then support this idea that former players make the best umpires just because they know what goes on out there in the middle?  Imagine Steve Waugh, Michael Slater or Gilchrist as umpires ten years from now.  How much honesty or integrity would you, either as a player, or as a spectator expect from them knowing what you know of their own actions during their playing days?  Cricket's chattering class talks endlessly of using the technology to improve the standard of umpiring.  Would it not be more appropriate to start first by expecting some honesty from the players before that too gets fossilized in the misplaced competitiveness of our times? 

How important could it have been for Steve Waugh and his men to win the final test against New Zealand for him to not walk on being caught behind?  How important was it for Gilchrist to look nonchalantly away after feeling his gloves brush against the ball on its way to the wicketkeeper?  Does the fact that the match was delicately poised absolve the players of all sense of honesty?  How important was it for Kallis and company to claim a fair catch when Kallis must have known that the ball from Ganguly's bat had touched the ground while catching it. Important enough that in all those incidents and many more before their time, the players involved had made a conscious choice to mortgage a small part of their own integrity in the name of competition. 

That is indeed sad because just ten days ago the Australian captain waxed eloquently and rather unnecessarily about how no one, regardless of reputations, is above the laws of the game.  There is (thankfully) no law in cricket that says that a batsman must "walk" or for a fielding team to recall a batsman given wrongly out. We do know however, that some players can talk the talk.  It would be refreshing though to see some of them back that up by actually walking the walk.  The pun, I must admit, is entirely intended.   

- Avinash Varma


[Edited on 8-1-2004 by Arnab]

Arnab
January 8, 2004, 02:04 AM
Claiming false runs and not walking while clearly nicking are not the only things that makes Waugh such a ratface. Remember the Aus tour of Windies in 1995? Waugh claimed the catch of Brian Lara at gully after having clearly taken a bounced catch. In these situations, what Lara usually does is ask the fielder if he is sure, then walks off if the fielder says he's sure. Steve Waugh couldn't have been sure, but vehemently claimed the catch and sent Lara off anyway. Australia ultimately won that first match of the series.

Look up cricinfo reports about how Steve Waugh's "integrity had been brought into question after his gully catch had got rid of Lara in Bridgetown."

This guy is born dishonest. It's in his blood.

[Edited on 8-1-2004 by Arnab]

[Edited on 1-13-2004 by Nascer]

[Edited on 1-17-2004 by Nascer]

Hasib
January 8, 2004, 02:17 AM
It is actully better not to walk. This is because sometimes the umpire can give you out when you don't nick it. So do you defy the umpires dicission and stay?

fab
January 8, 2004, 02:31 AM
There's no pot calling the kettle black. This is ME calling both the pot and the kettle black. I am willing to ridicule Windies players as well.
No you didn't. To quote you, this is the following generalisation you made

"It's the sort of sportsmanship Windies have always epitomized."

If they always epitomize this sort of behaviour, then I couldn't have come up with these examples to begin with.

Why do you think the minimum daily over rates were introduced? During their years of greatness, the Windies loved using 4 pacers and bowl only around 70 overs a day. A Mike Holmans from RSC did some research on the matter (if you want to read the full thread search for Over rates and WI). Here is what he found:

"Here is a succession of excerpts from the Wisdens of 1981-83, Editor's
Notes by John Woodcock, match reporting by John Thicknesse.

Notes By The Editor - 1981

The Over-rate Problem

Before moving on to other matters, I do enjoin umpires to keep a close
eye on over rates, especially in Test Matches....Unfortunately the
International Cricket Conference allowed their annual meeting last
August to pass without giving more than a shadowy undertaking to keep an
eye on what is becoming a cause for serious concern in the Test game.
Meeting as they did immediately after a Testseries in which England and
West Indies had seldom bowled more than fifteen overs an hour and
sometimes as few as twelve, the time was ripe for taking firm action.
But nothing positive was done.

Notes By The Editor - 1982

The Declining Over-Rate

As it happened, last summer's Test series was sufficiently absorbing for
the slowness of the over-rate to pass without much adverse comment. [I
should think not : the series referred to is the 1981 Ashes series] What
aggravates the situationis the wayteams take drinks, asthey never used
to do, when it is neither particularly hot nor perishingly cold, and the
habit which fast bowlers have acquired of leaving the field for a change
of shirt and socks and very often for a rub down at the end of a spell
of bowling. Especially in West Indies this has become common practice,
though it can but give the bowler an advantage. Batsmen will be doing itnext, when they reach a hundred."

As I mentioned, Dean Jones was BOWLED out on a no-ball and started walking without looking at the umpire.

"Dean Jones of Australia was bowled by a Courtney Walsh no-ball at Georgetown in 1990-91 but did not hear the call. He began walking off and Carl Hooper then ran him out. The umpire should have called Jones back, as a change of law in 1980 allowed for batsmen to be reprieved if they had left the ground because of a misapprehension."

I remember watching a replay of it a couple of years after it happened and thought it was hilarious.

And about the Tufnell incident, I got it from an article by Michael Holding:

"This unsporting life by Michael Holding

Also, with the last ball of the series from Courtney Walsh, Phil Tufnell was given out caught by Clayton Lambert at short leg. Well within his rights - and I think the ball actually came off either his thigh pad or his hips - Tufnell stood his ground waiting for the decision from Steve Bucknor. Long before he could raise his finger, the jubilant West Indian players had whipped the stumps out of the ground as souvenirs and were dancing their way back to the pavilion to celebrate. I believe that Bucknor was carefully considering whether to give Tufnell out or not out - more likely not out - but was forced into giving him out because of the confusion that might have ensued in trying to call the players back and calm down the excited crowd for the game to continue. There was a similar incident in Barbados. Nixon McLean was the last man out in the West Indies innings when the England players began to leave the field before waiting for an umpiring decision. It all constitutes a subtle and unwelcome way of influencing officials."

Please note I do NOT hold anything against the Windies for this. I just think it's a bit rich to use them as an example of "always epitomizing sportsmanship" when they clearly don't.

My philosophy is very simple. Honesty. Conscience. And consistency in determining what is honest and how to treat it. If you, fab, are willing to truly "applaud" Lara, Walsh, Rafiq et al for their honest, magnanimous, chivalrous acts, then you should not hesitate to "ridicule" dishonest, "win-at-all-costs-even-of-it-is-wrong", opportunistic acts. If you think there is something called "good sportsmanship", then you can't blame me if I decry the acts of "bad sportsmanship." Indeed you are entitled to your opinion if they are based on facts. You first started off by saying that SRW was a conniving, deceiving, dishonest, opportunist ratface without giving an IOTA of evidence as to why you think he is one. Later you did however give one reason, which turned out to be a biased account of an ending of a match! (Which i shall disect in next post as this is getting too long) Btw, here is an example where SRW didn't employ his "win-at-all-costs" motto:

"April 1999, Bridgetown, Barbados:

West Indies beat Australia to level the one-day international series
3-3, but only after Steve Waugh agreed to re-instate Sherwin Campbell
following a run-out which sparked a riot.

Bottles rained on to the pitch, one just missing Waugh's head as his
team ran off the field. Campbell was run out after a collision with
bowler Brendon Julian in mid-pitch. Waugh said he agreed to re-instate
the batsman after local police advised him that his players' safety
could not be guaranteed."

And also spare me the "so what?"s, because then there's no reason for arguing and posting anything. Everything can be settled by "so what?"s. My apologies for the confusion, there may be a cultural difference of the use of "so what?". By "so what?" I meant "big deal", as in, "big deal that SRW had an incident with Lara", virtually every player has some unsavoury incidents during their career, Gavaskar, Lilee, Botham, Viv Richards, Imran Khan, Runatunga, Miandad, heck even Michael Holding. Name a player and I'm sure someone can find something bad they did. So do you judge people based on one or two incidents?

Arnab
January 8, 2004, 02:34 AM
Originally posted by Hasib
It is actully better not to walk. This is because sometimes the umpire can give you out when you don't nick it. So do you defy the umpires dicission and stay?

What? That made no sense.

When you don't nick, you should NOT walk, for obvious reasons. If the umpire gives you out, you did nothing wrong, but the umpire made a wrong decision. The umpire has no stakes in the game. He doesn't make errors to specifically help one team than the other. Result: nobody's being dishonest here. It's an error.

But when you DO nick, and you KNOW you've nicked, and if you're honest, you should walk. If you don't walk, and subsequently the umpire gives you not out. then the result:

1. You're being a dishonest batsman and 2. You're manipulating the umpire to make an erroneous call, knowing fully well that you're being dishonest.

Hasib
January 8, 2004, 02:37 AM
When you DO nick it and NOT given out you shouldn't walk... coz in the long run it will even out!

fab
January 8, 2004, 02:40 AM
Your description of the 5th ODI in Georgetown does indeed make out SRW to be a conniving little, as you say, ******* - But are you sure that is exactly what happened that day? Below is a slightly unbiased account of what really happened that day (according to Cricinfo)

LINK (http://www.cricinfo.org/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/1998-99/AUS_IN_WI/SCORECARDS/AUS_WI_ODI5_21APR1999_CI_MR.html)

"One ball left in the match. Keith Arthurton to bowl to Steve Waugh. Australia need four runs for victory, three runs to tie. Two runs or less means a West Indian victory.

Waugh hits to mid wicket. It appears obvious that it won't reach the boundary. The crowd start streaming onto the ground, even as the shot is played.

Waugh and batting partner Shane Warne run two. They go for three. The throng of the crowd makes it impossible for the batsmen to complete their run. The stumps at the striker's end disappear, stolen by the fans. Meanwhile, at the bowler's end, Arthurton has broken the wicket, apparently while Warne is out of his ground.

West Indies win the match by one run... or do they?

A match that nearly didn't start, delayed because of rain till 3pm and then played thirty overs a side. The only international match played at the Bourda ground, Georgetown, Guyana this season, and played before a packed house.The fifth one-day international between the West Indies and Australia ended in such chaotic crowd scenes that match referee Raman Subba Row decided to view the video of the final ball in consultation with the two captains and the three umpires before declaring a result.

An hour later, Subba Row announced the result: It was a tie.

Replays showed that Arthurton broke the wicket when Warne was in his ground at the completion of his second run. Once the batsman went for their third run, Arthurton could only effect a run out at his end if he removed a stump from the ground with the ball in his hand. Unfortunately the spectators removed the stumps before he did.

Subba Row, in explaining his decision on television, said it was a difficult decision to reach but that ``common sense must prevail'' and ``cricket had to be the winner''.

The pitch invasion was the second of the afternoon. At the end of the penultimate (29th) over of the Australian innings, some ``fans'' ran onto the field and stole some stumps, which were recovered by the police. Ground security proved to be woefully inadequate as the pitch invasion one over later was much worse. Steve Waugh almost had his bat wrenched from his hands as he was fleeing the ground. He later said that he had received whiplash after being charged at by one spectator, and had been the subject of verbal threats from others. Subba Row held back the announcement of the result until the players had safely left the ground for their hotel.

For Subba Row there was an element of deja vu. At the same ground in 1993 he declared a tie in a one-day match between Pakistan and the West Indies after similar crowd scenes accompanying the final ball."

It seems as though the last ball of that over was a COMPLETE farce and played under extraordinary and unfair conditions. How can players perform when there are spectators running around on the field, NO wickets to break, and not to mention the security threat for the players themselves!? Also, it seems that the video replays showed that fatso Warne DID make his ground so that point of yours is moot. I am sorry but the crowd deserved what they got. Officials should be strict on this matter on all accounts. It is absolutely unacceptable that the crowd should run onto the field fullstop let alone BEFORE the match had even FINISHED! Indeed cricket was the winner that day and I have no idea how this makes SRW a conniving b***** as had it happened to any other team with any other captain I'm sure the outcome would have been the exactly the same.

In fact, how convenient for me that the same incident DID happen on the same cricket ground in 1993 thus proving my point:

"Date-stamped : 08 Dec93 - 10:05
SOURCE: The Guardian DATE: 05 April 1993 SPO PAGE: 16 Cricket:
Pakistan lose and tie the same match

ESHA NESS was not the only winner to lose out this weekend. West
Indies thought they had beaten Pakistan in the final one-day
international in Georgetown - and clinched the series 32 - until
the match referee Raman Subba Row overruled match regulations and
declared a tie.
The confusion occurred after hundreds of spectators poured on to
the pitch as Ian Bishop hit what he thought were the winning two
runs. They brought the sides level, with West Indies claiming
victory on the basis of fewer wickets lost.
However, Pakistan protested that their fielder, Wasim Akram, was
impeded by the crowd. His fumble at long on enabled Hooper to
complete the second run to take West Indies to 244 for five. Pak-
istan posted 244 for six.
Two hours later Steve Camacho, the secretary of the West Indies
Cricket Board of Control, announced that Subba Row had ruled that
the match was a tie."

It seems like the Windies were the losers on both accounts, which is unfortunate for them, but their officials obviously need to work on their crowds' behaviour. So tell me, in your books is Wasim Akram a dishonest opportunist for this reason as well? :)

[Edited on 1-9-2004 by chinaman : moderation]

[Edited on 1-13-2004 by Nascer]

fab
January 8, 2004, 02:46 AM
Hasib gives a very valid reason for not walking.. unfortunately i do not have the time to expand it now, but will do so later.
ciao

Arnab
January 8, 2004, 02:56 AM
Please note I do NOT hold anything against the Windies for this. I just think it's a bit rich to use them as an example of "always epitomizing sportsmanship" when they clearly don't.

But I DO hold it against the Windies players for this. And I obligingly "retract" my statement of Windies players "always epitomizing sportsmanship". I guess I will stick to Lara and Walsh then.

Although, I don't see how you reached the conclusion that Windies "only" bowled 70 overs a day. They bowled in between 12 and 15 overs an hour, which in a six hour playing time, means anywhere in between 72 to 90 overs. It's not West Indies's fault that they had 4 briliiant pacers who took more time than the spinners to bowl. Even in modern cricket, fast bowlers waste the same amount of time, and the captains of the teams use their spinners to zip through the overs when the needs arise to meet the over rate. Case for example, just last december, South Africa was fined 30% of their match fees for not meeting the over rate. Why? Because they didn't have enough spinners. Graeme Smith actually complained about the inherent "unfairness" of the rule. So it's a shady affair to begin with.

He[Dean Jones] began walking off and Carl Hooper then ran him out.

Kudos to Jones and shame on Hooper!
And I feel good that I have always liked JOnes for his batting and always considered Hooper an incompetent fool.

On a similar note, I remember Hansie Cronje (of all people!! I know!) do the opposite once. The batsman was caught out of a no-ball and started walking. The umpire didn't notice or call it a no-ball. But seconds later they were showing the no-ball on the big TV screen. Hansie ran to the batsman and called him back. For all his dishonesty outside the field, Hansie was actually a genuine sportsman ON the field.

It all constitutes a subtle and unwelcome way of influencing officials

And I completely agree with Holding on this!

[Edited on 8-1-2004 by Arnab]

Arnab
January 8, 2004, 03:15 AM
I am sorry but the crowd deserved what they got.

We are NOT talking about whether the crowd deserved what they got. We are talking whether Waugh was being honest in his claim that he could have made that third run.

Obviously NOT. You can rely on my words because I actually SAW the match live.

1. When Arthurton knocked off the bails, Steve Waugh and Warne barely finished the second run, as the replays showed.

2. Even if there was NO crowd invasion after Waugh played that shot, and there was absolute calm, Arthurton could have ripped off the stumps as soon as Warne left the ground for the match-tying third run. No matter what, a West Indies win was INEVITABLE. In fact, I am gonna bet that if the crowd never entered the stadium, they wouldn't have even gone for the third run. It would be absolutely comical. BUT, the conniving ratfaces that they are, they took advantage of the chaos and strated running for the third run. Actually, I remember quite vividly what happened. It was hilarious. Warne, after finishing the second run and seeing Arthurton knck off the bails, was caught in two minds whether he should run or not. Steve, on the other hand, when reached the striker's end finishing his second, was watching the spectators ripping the stumps off the ground. Then he turned around and saw Warne doing nothing and that Arthurton took off the bails. ANY sane batsmen would in this situation assume that the match is over. But not our conniving, scheming Steve. He actually started running for the third run himself! Unbelievably farcical! He was probably scheming a plot right then and there how to exploit this into coaxing a result.

Take a look at the actual cricinfo commentary on this:

now there's talk of the run out occuring when the batsmen were both
in their crease, and then they tried to sneak the 3rd afterwards, which sounds a little dodgy

Of course it sounds DODGY, because the third run was NEVER possible under any circumstances!

Immediately after the match, and for 15 minutes, Windies were officially (and rightfully) declared the winner by 1 run (or at least on TV). But then, the Australians complained and coaxed for a "tie", and apparently succeeded.

So, I still back my argument that Steve Waugh "consciously" manipulated the chaotic situation to coax his case for a "tie" that his team never deserved. Given that West Indian star player and captain Lara missed this match because of injury, but was poised to come back for the final two matches, and that Windies would actually go into those two matches with an advantage of 3-2, it was a classic case of dishonest opportunism by Steve.

And about the Wasim Akram's incident, I am not gonna say anything definite because I didn't watch the game (There was no cable tv channel showing it back then in BD). But if I did watch it, and saw that Wasim was bs-ing, then yes, I would definitely have called him a cheat.

Here's an article excerpt from "Jamaica Gleaner" on the "tie":

On Wednesday, Australia, replying to the West Indies 173 for five, were 170 for seven and needed four runs to win when Steve Waugh hit the last ball of the match from Keith Arthurton towards long-on and the crowd invaded the field as the batsmen took off for the first run with the ball going towards Stuart Williams.

Two runs would have meant victory for the West Indies, three runs, according to the present rule, would have tied the match and four would have handed Australia victory.

With the crowd all over the field, Australia got two and, after viewing the film, after discussing the matter with representatives of both teams, Raman Subba Row, who was also the match referee in 1993, ruled it a tie.

In 1993, Pakistan may have been unfortunate not to have been awarded the match. Although it is possible that even without the invasion, Fazal could have fumbled long enough for the second run to be made safely or could have sent in a bad return, there was no doubt the invasion interfered with the fielder.

On Wednesday, the shoe was on the other foot and the West Indies were unfortunate not to have been awarded the match. Although the crowd invaded the field and although it is possible that Arthurton, in the tension of the moment, could have done something surprising with Australia desperately attempting a third run, there is hardly any doubt Australia would not have made it for a third run to tie the game, much less a fourth to win it.

The ruling of a tie on each occasion seems to have been a cop out - a weak decision.

[Edited on 8-1-2004 by Arnab]

Pace Setter
January 8, 2004, 05:55 AM
How can you judge the intent of a players actions from the viewing stands, or for that matter, the TV? The job of the batsmen and keeper are to avoid getting out and to concentrate on flying red balls. The batsmen have half a second to make a decision on how to deal with a delivery, and in a serious competition, that is all they can concentrate on. Anyone who has participated in serious sport will tell you that the possibilities of making any type of error during this intense half a second is triplefold.

Despite these being professional batsmen and fielders, they are still prone to making errors or judgement on whether they have nicked a ball, edged or gloved it, or hit something else on their body. The batsmen's job is not to accurately recall which one of these events occured. That's why we have umpires. The batsmen also doesnt have immediate access to TV replays to confiirm his suspicions on whatever happened during the delivery.

The umpire is out there to concentrate on these things, and even if a batsmen nicks it or a fieldsmen claims a catch that bounced, they have to make a decision on what happened within a second, and of course if there is the slightest of doubt they will appeal for the catch or stand their ground until the umpire makes a decision.

Expecting the batsmen to walk is ridiculous unless he's sure he nicked it with absolutely no doubt. Expecting a batsmen to walk on every bad umpiring decision is akin to forcing a student to remember every question from an exam after he has finished it.

Judging Steve Waugh's intent from the TV screen or at best over 40 metres away from the action is a bit harsh on one of the greatest forms of inspiration for Australians and many around the world whom he has encountered

Arnab
January 8, 2004, 06:14 AM
Pace setter, have you ever played cricket? If you have and I am assuming batted and nicked, you must know that a batsman can pick up the slightest of nicks that kisses his bat. And I am talking about it from MY experience. These are world class players with enough experience and mental stability under pressure situations, and should know it when they are clearly nicking. Don't give me that "half a second"/ tension argument. The batsmen always know. That's why Lara walks all the time! I remember Lara walking off a Venkatapthi Raju delivery that Mongia Caught back in 1993. Raju and the umpire were CONVINCED that Lara missed it by a hair. Raju was already starting to lament the miss. The umpire, Venkat, was shaking his head to a solitary appeal by Mongia, who also picked up the nick. It was the FAINTEST of touches. But Lara walked off, despite the lure of scoring his first test century in India! It's the same reason why Gilchrist walked off against Sri Lanka (Side note to James: this I found on the web, now I know what you're talking about). They are both professionals and they knew when they nicked.

of course if there is the slightest of doubt they will appeal for the catch or stand their ground until the umpire makes a decision.

And I am saying that I personally will always ridicule the practice. I am not defending the umpire's incompetence. But I am decrying the player's KNOWING dishonesty.

Expecting a batsmen to walk on every bad umpiring decision

That is a gross generalization. We are not talking about walking on EVERY bad umpiring decision. We are specifically talking about knowingly nicking here, where the batsman has the FIRSTHAND knowledge of what really happened.

----------
And I don't give a s**** about how many people Steve Waugh has inspired. That's a totally different scenario and does not absolve his dishonest acts. When I see an act of dishonest oportunism, I will call it. And Steve Waugh has done this repeatedly throughout his career.

-------------------

BTW, welcome to the board. You an Aussie?

[Edited on 8-1-2004 by Arnab]

[Edited on 1-9-2004 by chinaman : Moderation]

Pace Setter
January 8, 2004, 06:52 AM
Most nicks that arent given by umpires are thin edges, not thick obvious ones. Yes I've played cricket, and I agree that batsmen can tell, even if it's a very fine edge. However, with the exception of a swipe well away from the body, tension and pressure can influence your judgement and touch. In the case of the bat being near the body, it can difficult to tell whether a bat has been shaken by the ball or whether the impact on the bat has been caused by the pad/body, especially in a tense situation with fans screaming at you.

Im saying that some of these fine edges can sometimes be mistaken for something else during this small portion of a second. The same doubt in the players mind goes for fieldsmen that claim catches that have bounced. Im sure you, as a cricket player, will have encountered plenty of occasions when you have been unsure of catches that are marginal.

"We are specifically talking about knowingly nicking here, where the batsman has the FIRSTHAND knowledge of what really happened."

It's likely that a lot of batsmen that do know they have nicked one will stay in their crease and wait. However, with marginal balls that create doubt and a few other factors, its not a cardinal sin for the batsmen to not walk if he has ANY doubt at all on whether it was a nick or something else.

Arnab
January 8, 2004, 07:18 AM
Originally posted by Pace Setter1. I agree that batsmen can tell, even if it's a very fine edge.

2. However, with the exception of a swipe well away from the body, tension and pressure can influence your judgement and touch. In the case of the bat being near the body, it can difficult to tell whether a bat has been shaken by the ball or whether the impact on the bat has been caused by the pad/body, especially in a tense situation with fans screaming at you.

3. Im saying that some of these fine edges can sometimes be mistaken for something else during this small portion of a second.

4. The same doubt in the players mind goes for fieldsmen that claim catches that have bounced. Im sure you, as a cricket player, will have encountered plenty of occasions when you have been unsure of catches that are marginal.

5. It's likely that a lot of batsmen that do know they have nicked one will stay in their crease and wait.

6. However, with marginal balls that create doubt and a few other factors, its not a cardinal sin for the batsmen to not walk if he has ANY doubt at all on whether it was a nick or something else.

1. Thanks for agreeing.

2 and 3. Agreed. But this doesn't happen very often at all. The Lara example of picking up the FAINTEST of edge clearly belies this argument and you're contradicting your agreement in 1. And the examples of Steve Waugh are "very clear" nicks, mostly played "away" from his body. And he has done this repeatedly. It was not a matter of confusion or doubt, it was a conscious manipulation of the fact that the batsman always gets the benefit of the doubt in these situations and as Michael Holding puts it so eloquently: "constitutes a subtle and unwelcome way of influencing officials."

4. When the fielder is in doubt, the honest thing to do is NOT appeal, and make it clear to the umpire that he doesn't know. The umpire then of course gives the benefit to the batsman. That's why they settle this matter nowadays with the help of third umpires.

5. And I don't like this practice. Personally.

6. Of course it's no "cardinal sin." But MOST, if not all the time, the batsman KNOWS. And I find it dishonest and opportunistic. Again, it's a personal thing. But I am not alone with these views. I can vouch that at least Michael Holding, Brian Lara and Avinash Varma have the same view as I do on this.

[Edited on 8-1-2004 by Arnab]

Hasib
January 8, 2004, 07:43 AM
Anrab, what I mean by evening out is that in the long run if u don't walk you get roughly the even number of times where you are given out when you shouldn't be and times when not given out when you should be.

Pace Setter
January 8, 2004, 07:49 AM
1. "The Lara example of picking up the FAINTEST of edge clearly belies this argument and you're contradicting your agreement in 1"

I guess there is a contradiction there. However I was referring to the batsmen knowing he had an edge in a "normal situation". This "normal situation" being in a position with limited distraction (i.e in the nets, in an empty park; not in a packed stadium)

2. "And the examples of Steve Waugh are "very clear" nicks, mostly played "away" from his body. And he has done this repeatedly. It was not a matter of confusion or doubt, it was a conscious manipulation of the fact that the batsman always gets the benefit of the doubt..."

It was very clear to you, yes. You are sitting as a fan, under no pressure and seeing the action from a third persons' view. My point is, Steve Waugh may not have been sure if he had nicked it or not, with the compounded effect of shouting fans, complete concentration on the about-to-com delivery and doubts about whether the motion of the bat was influenced by any part of his body. He does not want to make the mistake of walking off without being sure he was actually out, (imagine if he made the mistake of walking off if he was NOT OUT), and Im sure if he had a thick edge that deviated significantly from the bat, (resulting in it ending up in the slips or a diving keeper) he would have walked.

3. "When the fielder is in doubt, the honest thing to do is NOT appeal, and make it clear to the umpire that he doesn't know."

Im talking about those flyers that you think you've caught but has actually landed JUST short. In many cases you can tell if it fell short, but im sure you've encountered situations where you thought you'd JUST caught it, only to be denied because of doubts. Steve Waugh may not have actually caught some of them, but may have just thought he did.

4. I do agree that batsmen have a responsibility to walk if they know they have nicked it, but it should also be a responsibility for fans not to criticise them for not walking, especially when they were not in the batsmen's situation and therefore were not aware of any factors affecting the batsmen's decision to NOT walk

5. Thats it from me for now. Have fun.

[Edited on 8-1-2004 by Pace Setter]

Arnab
January 8, 2004, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by Hasib
Anrab, what I mean by evening out is that in the long run if u don't walk you get roughly the even number of times where you are given out when you shouldn't be and times when not given out when you should be.

Hasib, I know what you mean. I don't believe things happen that way. There is no real Santa Claus. Pigs don't fly. And things don't "even out" in the long run, ok? Stop deluding yourself and start thinking logically. I know you're young, so it's good to start doing that while you're still young.

Hasib
January 8, 2004, 09:06 PM
This has nothing to do with Santa Claus etc.!!! Think logically. It is about accepting the Umpires dicission. Some times bad dicissions happen, at times they go in your favour at times they go against you. You can't just say that because I'm young. That is attacking the source of an argument rather than the argument it self!

Arnab
January 8, 2004, 09:22 PM
Sigh, I have decided to waste one last post on you. Things I do for the kids.

What is your "argument"? That bad umpire decisions "even out"? How do you know? Have you noted every bad decision in the history of cricket and analyzed their consequences? Obviously not. Then what is the basis of your argument? Logic? No. Careful analysis of historical data? No. Wishful thinking that some invisible entity will "even things out"? YES!! Is this kind of thinking illogical? Yes.

Go ask your science teacher/debate team captain in your school if you still don't understand what I am saying.

Hasib
January 8, 2004, 09:30 PM
The logic that you seem to overlook was stated by formar South African Captan Eddi Barlow. He said this to an Umpire, Dicky Bird, who agrees with him. Bird is the considered the best umpire in histroy and is the most respected.

Arnab
January 8, 2004, 09:32 PM
What logic? Give me the clear, full statment by Barlow in his own words and then I will consider it.

[Edited on 9-1-2004 by Arnab]

Hasib
January 8, 2004, 09:41 PM
I read this in a book by Bird but I read this over a year ago. The book is called
"Dickie Bird: White Caps and Bails". If you can't find it I will check again... but in late January/ February when my school opens coz the book was from my school library.

Carte Blanche
January 9, 2004, 01:46 PM
I watched that ODI between Aus and WI live too (yeah, those sleepless nights watching cricket, sigh!). Arnab is right. Warne barely even made his ground, and its the 2nd run we're talking about, not the 3rd. Should have been a WI win.

Carte Blanche
January 9, 2004, 01:50 PM
I think I also remember a dirty trick for which SRW was criticized during the '99 WC. Although I can't remember the exact details, it was during the match against WI. Waugh and Bevan knocked off the remaining required 30 odd runs in about 20 overs, in such a slow rate that it denies WI a super six berth.

[Edited on 9-1-2004 by Carte Blanche]

Arnab
January 9, 2004, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by Carte Blanche
I think I also remember a dirty trick for which SRW was criticized during the '99 WC. Although I can't remember the exact details, it was during the match against WI. Waugh and Bevan knocked off the remaining required 30 odd runs in about 20 overs, in such a slow rate that it denies WI a super six berth.

[Edited on 9-1-2004 by Carte Blanche]

They wanted to deny NZ (who beat Aus in their group match). NZ eventually made it, scoring 120-odd runs against Scotland in 17 overs.

Carte Blanche
January 9, 2004, 06:43 PM
Oh ok. My bad.

James90
January 10, 2004, 06:31 PM
But the sheep shaggers did that against Australia denying them a spot in the VB Series Final two years ago

Arnab
January 10, 2004, 07:03 PM
Fab wrote:

Btw, here is an example where SRW didn't employ his "win-at-all-costs" motto:

"April 1999, Bridgetown, Barbados:

West Indies beat Australia to level the one-day international series
3-3, but only after Steve Waugh agreed to re-instate Sherwin Campbell
following a run-out which sparked a riot.

Bottles rained on to the pitch, one just missing Waugh's head as his
team ran off the field. Campbell was run out after a collision with
bowler Brendon Julian in mid-pitch. Waugh said he agreed to re-instate
the batsman after local police advised him that his players' safety
could not be guaranteed."

I don't know how I missed this one, but this is also another incident that proves Waugh's dishonesty. Campbell, the non-striker, was going for a quick single. Brendon Julian, the bowler, in his follow-through, moved (in the replay, it showed he was sneaking backward glances to know which direction Campbell was going) and stood in Campbell's way to take the run, acting as if it happened accidentally. It was a poorly chorepgraphed drama by Julian. Campbell fell on the ground behind the obstructing Julian around half-pitch and watched haplessly as Austrlian ran him out. If that's not dishonesty, then I don't know what is. Steve Waugh HAD to reinstate Campbell, just to save his face.

[Edited on 11-1-2004 by Arnab]

Arnab
January 11, 2004, 04:44 AM
Apparently, you just might have missed the point of the thread. I, personally, consider Steve Waugh's "mistakes" to be actually "acts of deliberate and dishonest opportunism". I have been following Waugh for a LONG time, as long as I have been watching cricket actually. This has nothing to do with his nice stats. I am personally happy he is gone. He was an ugly batter to watch (another example would be Gary Kirsten), employed ugly tactics on the field (no parallels here), and the less future players emulate these attributes of him, the better.

fab
January 11, 2004, 08:32 AM
Right.. first thing's first. I am not SRW's faithful dog by any means. I have seen pretty much all his games in AU, and I'm afraid I didn't see the sneakiness of him that Arnab did.

Second regarding the virtue and innocence of BCL - remember the Cullinan being out (handled ball!) due to BCL's ludicrous appeal? That was a great show of sportsmanship. And what about the numerous temper tantrums he dishes out to his fellow team players and opponents? I'm not talking about sledging, I'm talking about going into the oponent team's room and abusing a team member. Again, a fine show of sportsmanship. If I remember correctly, there was a time when this guy was quite an embarrassment to WI... Anyhow, if these are qualities you admire, that's up to you dude.

And Walsh... there have been a few times when he didnt walk when he was CLEARLY out - one example 3rd test Pak v WI 2000 which resulted in Pak loosing the series! If you walk once, you should always walk. If you walk selectively that makes you more of a cheat since you don't walk when it doesn't suit you! Sheesh

Again, to people who are BCL and CAW fans, I'm not trying to denigrate them, just trying to show that these guys are human beings not chivalrous robots preprogrammed to act consistently like Arthurian knights.

Carte, *you* may have seen that Warne barely made the second run, but replays show that he DID make it, and that they did go for a third. Either way, the game was disrupted and did not finish in normal circumstances. Can you disagree with that? ANY captain (not just SRW) would use that to their advantage. And I already gave an example of that of Wasim Akram. You guys didn't give your opinion about HIM btw, you think he's a cheat too then?

fab
January 11, 2004, 08:37 AM
I don't know how I missed this one, but this is also another incident that proves Waugh's dishonesty.
..
Steve Waugh HAD to reinstate Campbell, just to save his face.
What? You just said that it was Julian who obstructed Campbell on purpose. What does that have to do with SRW? Did SRW telepathically tell Julian to get infront Campbell in order to get him out? And save who's face - SRW's or Julian's? :duh:

Arnab
January 11, 2004, 06:00 PM
fab, your posts are getting nuttier every time.

1. Cullinan's handling the ball:

Here's what happened:

Not guilty, this time

Tony Becca - 29 January 1999

West Indies captain Brian Lara found himself in the middle of a minor controversy in Durban on Wednesday when his appeal led to umpire Dave Orchard ruling Daryll Cullinan out handled ball.

Although Law 36 states that ``either batsman is out handled ball if he touches it while in play with his hands, unless it be done at the request of the opposite side'', only one other batsman in the history of one-day internationals has been dismissed for handling the ball, and although there are those who support his action, there are many who believe what Lara did was not cricket and that once again he has embarrassed West Indies cricket.

As far as those fans are concerned, law or no law, Lara should not have appealed - for the simple reason that it is common practice, at every level of the game, for batsmen, including West Indians, to play the ball, pick it up and lob it to a fielder without anyone appealing.

On those occasions, however, certainly the ones I have seen, the ball came to a stop harmlessly before the batsmen picked it up. That was not the case with Cullinan.

In Durban on Wednesday, Cullinan cut a delivery from left-arm spinner Keith Arthurton, the ball hit the pitch, bounced and he caught it. The ball had not come to a stop, it is possible that if it had been allowed to drop it could have spun on to the wicket and although the batsman's action in catching it may have been instinctive and not designed to prevent it from dropping, bouncing and rolling on to the stumps, Lara had every right to appeal.

In condemning Lara, fans say he should have remembered the Durban Test match when Franklyn Rose was run out and Hansie Cronje called him back. That was indeed noble of the South African captain, but although Rose was out, Cronje's conscience probably would have bothered him had he not reacted in that way - for the simple reason that Rose, the non-striker, was knocked to the ground as he took off for the run by the bowler who bounced into him while going for the ball.

There is hardly a captain who would not have called back Rose, or one who would not have appealed against Cullinan. Although Lara would have been protected by the law, although it is time batsmen stop handling the ball, it would have been a different story had Cullinan allowed the ball to drop and stop, picked it up, tossed it to a fielder and was dismissed on the appeal of the West Indies captain.

That, because it has become the norm, would have been an embarrassment - not what happened in Durban. In fact, if anyone deserves to be chastised, it is Cullinan. Had a West Indian batsman done what he did, hardly anyone in the West Indies would forgive him.

2. Lara's tantrum:

No, I don't like his prima-donna-esque tantrums either. But that's a TOTALLY different subject from what we are discussing in this thread: "dishonest opportunism" ON THE FIELD among players (especially Steve Waugh, who repeatedly resorted to these throughout his career, hence getting das boot from me). If you read MY posts, you probably will notice that I do not give a crap about "sledging" in particular.

3. Walsh's walking:

You mean Courtney Walsh? The man with the highest record for ducks in test match cricket history? The perennial number 11 for the west indies? When did he EVER have to "walk"? You present Walsh as if he is a premier WI batsman who always nicked fine nicks during crucial stages of a match and walked. News Flash: Walsh NEVER had to be in that situation to begin with. At least "I" haven't seen Walsh in that position all the time I have watched him. The man couldn't even hold the bat properly. He was either bowled or caught comprehensively. Plus I haven't seen the series (most probably because Lara wasn't in it). Can you enlighten me with some more info on this particular "not-walking" example, which obviously happened in the twilight of his LOOONG career?

4. Julian's obstruction:

Excuse me? SRW was the CAPTAIN of the team. He, along with everybody, SAW the whole incident with his own eyes, and went on as if nothing happened. Tell me, if such a situation arises and someone has to tell the umpire to retract the run out, who should do it? THE CAPTAIN, the guy who represents the team. But did he do it? NO! He was perfectly at peace with this dishonest opprtunistic act by his player and SUPPORTED his player. Yes, Julian is guilty for comitting the obvious crime. But Steve Waugh is guilty for turning a blind eye to the dishonest act, which, since he was the captain, proves his own complicity in the crime. What's SO hard to understand about this?

ANY captain (not just SRW) would use that to their advantage. And I already gave an example of that of Wasim Akram. You guys didn't give your opinion about HIM btw, you think he's a cheat too then?

5. Wasim Akram:

Fab, you're relying on the wrong example here. Yes, I think Wasim Akram is a sweet-tongued, smiling cheat, along with Steve Waugh. Wasim Akram is a shady character to begin with. Probably because of the highly corrupted nature of the country he comes from. Have you NOT followed the musical chair drama in the Pakistan team selection process throughout the 90s? Wasim Akram was kicked out of the team, then reinstated, then forced to retire, accused of ball tampering -- it's like sketch comedy. Is it any wonder that a Pakistani captain might take advantage of such a hypothetical situation? Incidentally, since we are talking about dishonest Pakistani captains, what do you think of Rashid Latif's dropped catch against Bangladesh, which was ONLY decipherable from countless TV replays. Do you think Latif made "a mistake" Or was it a dishonest opportunist act by him? Do you think Bangladesh team was being TOO HARSH on Latif by lodging a complaint later?

BTW, I also consider Wasim Akram the greatest pace bowler of all time.

It's your steadfast loyalty to Steve that surprises me. I CLEARLY showed you why he was deliberately dishonest in his claim for that tying run and was taking advantage of the situation, and you come up with new, lame, baseless, blanket justifications from "It was just a mistake"(riiight) to "Others did it too"(most of which are proven wrong or irrelevant to the topic of dishonesty) to "Anybody would do that."(yeah, as if everybody's a dishonest opportunist prick like SRW)

What is MORE worrisome is that you have ACCEPTED this type of behavior and have no problem with it in the first place. It's like saying "Everybody sells drugs, so what's wrong with me selling some?" "Anybody could've taken advantage of that situation, why blame Steve or Wasim?" It's a small, but significant, manifestation of the same line of flawed thinking that is historically termed as "fascism".

Please read this before you reply:

Source: http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cricket/story/0,10069,1118168,00.html

In the Times, Matthew Syed recalled Waugh learning from his captain at the start of his Test career in 1986. "Allan Border ... is reported to have said ... he was sick of being seen as a good bloke and losing. 'I'd sooner be a prick and win,' he said. Waugh, with his unabashed championing of sledging, has taken Border's philosophy to its logical and highly regrettable conclusion."

I wish I could get the entire article "Ugly legacy of abuse bequeathed by Waugh" By Matthew Syed on The Times, but you have to have subscription. Must be a great read. The article probably focuses on "sledging", which I don't really care much about. But Steve Waugh has left another ugly legacy as well, the legacy of "dishonest opportunism" in the name of "winning at all costs".

[Edited on 12-1-2004 by Arnab : Chinaman, selective moderation isn't helping; BTW I used some "language" in other threads in FC as well, why don't you go moderate those too?]

[Edited on 1-13-2004 by Nascer]

[Edited on 1-17-2004 by Nascer]

fab
January 12, 2004, 08:41 PM
fab, your posts are getting nuttier every time.Oh gimme a break :) 1. Cullinan's handling the ball:
Here's what happened:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not guilty, this time

Tony Becca - 29 January 1999
Ah yes, Tony Becca, writing from the West Indian perspective of course. Now lets see a story from the other side of the fence, namely South Africa.
link (http://www.dispatch.co.za/1999/01/28/sport/BCRICKET.HTM)
"Klusener, who might be considered a trifle unlucky to have lost out to Hansie Cronje for the man of the match award, topped the boards with an excellent 64, but the SA innings will perhaps best be remembered for the controversial dismissal of opening batsman Daryll Cullinan.

Just four short of his 50, Cullinan who had been dropped at slip by Carl Hooper when on 11, played at a Keith Arthurton delivery and as the ball was coming down to earth he caught it in his right hand.

Although it is unlikely that the ball would have spun into the stumps umpire Dave Orchard had no option but to send Cullinan packing following an appeal from West Indies captain.

Cullinan had no doubt handled the ball, and that of course is taboo. A batsman is entitled to ward off the ball, but not with his hand."

So in other words, although Cullinan ought of have known better, the ball WOULDN'T have hit the stumps, but BCL appealed anyway - sure it isn't dishonest but it smacks of opportunism. However, unlike you, I do not ball my eyes out like a cry baby when I see a captain arise to the opportunity that is presented to him/her. In my opinion that is what a competitive captain SHOULD do so opponent teams don't stupidly hand them opportunities on a platter.
2. Lara's tantrum: No, I don't like his tantrums either. But that's a TOTALLY different subject from what we are discussing in this thread: "dishonestopportunism" ON THE FIELD among players (especially Steve Waugh, who
And here lies the difference.. "Sportsmanship" isn't JUST about what happens on the field, it is about how they conduct themselves everywhere as apparently they are role models. They are supposed to be ambassadors of the game and their country. Sure, he is a paragon of virtue and integrity when he is batting , however his callous behaviour against team mates, rudeness and petty childishness off the field (e.g. refusing to shake hands with opponent teams,refusing to be interviewed by Michael Holding because he (Holding) criticised him (BCL)) that makes him a bad sport and shithead to boot.
You mean Courtney Walsh?
..
Can you enlighten me with some more info on this particular "not-walking" example, which obviously happened in the twilight of his LOOONG career?
Yes I meant Courtney Walsh, I wasn't aware there were/are other players with the initials CAW and last name Walsh.

Sigh. The things I do for children...

--

Test # 1497
Pakistan in West Indies, 1999/00, 3rd Test
West Indies v Pakistan
Antigua Recreation Ground, St John's, Antigua
25,26,27,28,29 May 2000 (5-day match)

Result: West Indies won by 1 wicket
Series: West Indies wins the 3-Test series 1-0

75.6 Wasim Akram to Adams, no run, loud appeal for caught behind,
declined by ump Doctrove, even Holding and others cannot agree
with that decision, a clear sound and visible edging
78.6 Saqlain Mushtaq to Walsh, no run, an appeal for bat and pad, ump
Cowie declines, replay shows it was a bat and pad and even Rameez
for once says that the appeal was correct
--

Well mate, then according to your logic both Jimmy Adams and your darling Courtney Walsh are dishonest ratfaces for not walking. In fact, such was the consequence of their dishonesty that not only did they win the match, but ALSO the whole damn series!

4. Julian's obstruction:
..
What's SO hard to understand about this?
I see. The way you worded it seemed like SRW somehow told Julian to block Campbell and thus it was SRW's fault. But you are right, SRW should have reinstated Campbell immediately instead of after Campbell threw a hissy fit and the crowds started rioting. Incidently, it seems that even after seeing countless number of slow motion replays of the run out people are STILL disagreeing about Julian's intentions. How SRW (who claimed not to have seen the incident in full) is supposed to know 100% positively if this was the case, in a split of a second, is beyond my comprehension. Looks like you are clutching at straws now.

BTW, your tunnel vision is on clear display. Michael Bevan was run out in a similar fashion in the same match however he was not reinstated by the Windies because he just walked and he (or his fans) didn't make a big deal out of it.

[Edited on 1-13-2004 by Nascer]

[Edited on 1-17-2004 by Nascer]

fab
January 12, 2004, 08:48 PM
5. Wasim Akram: Fab, you're elying on the wrong example here.
.. Is it any wonder that a Pakistani captain might take advantage of such a
hypothetical situation? Why is it a wrong example? BOTH games were disrupted and could not finish properly. BOTH captains had a right to complain to officials about their INABILITY to finish a VERY CLOSE match fairly. Whether or not they could have achieved what they claimed to have achieved in normal circumstances is IRRELEVANT because they weren't given a chance. What is dishonest about that for crying out loud? If Campbell can be reinstated for being obstructed by a fielder, why can't Wasim Akram and SRW do the same if they are obstructed by spectators?
What is MORE worrisome is that you have ACCEPTED this type of behavior and have no problem with it in the first place. It's like saying "Everybody sells drugs, so what's wrong with me selling some?" "Anybody could've taken advantage of that situation, why blame Steve or Wasim?" It's a small, but significant, manifestation of the same line of flawed thinking that is historically termed as "fascism". haha OK. Now you have TOTALLY lost the plot - I can't contain my laughter, dude. That has to be the most ludicrious analogy presented in defence of an arguement (that I have read anyway). Selling drugs is ILLEGAL, exactly what has SRW done that is against the law? What Steve and Wasim did was totally within their rights. If you disagree with that, then by jove next time a team that I am NOT supporting looks to be winning a VERY close match, I'll get a bunch of 100 drunk yobbos, storm the pitch, distract and obstruct the players and steal the stumps while I'm at it. In other words, I'll prevent my opposing team from doing what the NEED to do. Actually, that is a very good idea. We should have done that in the last BD vs Pak test match.
I wish I could get the entire article "Ugly legacy of abuse bequeathed by Waugh" By Matthew Syed on The Times, but you have to have subscription. Must be a great read. The article probably focuses on "sledging", which I don't really care much about. But Steve Waugh has left another ugly legacy as well, the legacy of "dishonest opportunism" in the name of "winning at all costs".
Of course you would love to read it. This 'Matthew Syed' prescribes to your view. You will probably agree with everything he says, so it is only natural that you will get a warm and fuzzy feeling after reading the article. It's like how I love reading BBC articles but spew when I read stuff from Fox News.

Anyhow, the bottom line is, I like SRW because:

* His Mental toughness & motivation
* Don't give up attitude
* Mediocre player who rose to grand heights BECAUSE of his attitude (according to your linked article)
* Excellent career statistics
* The countless times he single handedly pulled AU thru
* His charitable endeavours in India

Regarding his controversial BCL catch, I must admit that was pretty upsetting for me anyway, as I would prefer he was a squeaky clean character. But being a realist, I understand that such ideals of perfection are impossible to achieve. Perhaps because you are a little boy you still believe in the legends of King Arthur - but I do not. So okay, I agree perhaps he is not the most virtuous of captains, but it is because of the points mentioned above that I admire him.

Anyhow, to sum it up from your linked article..
Waugh, added the Melbourne Age, "embodied the qualities Australians celebrate in themselves - tough, somewhat taciturn and devoid of pretension".

(hmmph.. another lunch hour wasted on this petty bickering.. :D This is all I have to say on the matter dude)

[Edited on 13-1-2004 by fab : can't spell]

[Edited on 13-1-2004 by fab : can't spell]

Arnab
January 12, 2004, 09:59 PM
Indeedy. This is getting nowhere. And my winter vacation is officially over. I could go on and write several more humongous replies. But, fortunately, I am not going to waste any more posts on this issue. That ratface didn't deseve this much attention from me in the first place. :)

Look, the point is, I personally don't like this sort of dishonest opportunistic behavior (dunt matter if it's by a west indian or australian or whatever). No matter how many times you bring up the word "Arthurian" or whatever, that's NOT the viewpoint from which *I* am looking at it.

To hammer home the fundamental issue:

Why do you "applaud" some guy who shows doesn't take dishonest advantages of the situation? Do you understand the logic behind your applause? Or do you consider his honest behavior an "anomaly" or a "mistake" even? Do you think players should strive for such honesty or abandon them?

On the opposite spectrum, you have a guy who takes dishonest advantage of the situation. Now how should you react to this act, given that you have "applauded" honesty before? Logically, you should chastise the act.

But, the dilemma for you is this: You have already deified the guy in your mind. To you, he has always strived to achieve "perfection" and a "squeaky clean" character. I am saying he didn't even care about it in the first place! When you are already limiting your understanding of him like this, it's obviously going to be har dfor you to understand why he would do such dishonest acts, repeatedly throughout his career. So you justify by spewing out sweeping statements such as "well, everybody does that", "he's not perfect". When all else fails, you resort to useless ad hominems like "little child", "little children", "cry baby", blah blah blah. :)

Charity? Look, Dubya also does a lot a show-off charity work. Does that justify his dishonesty in the Enron Scandal? This is elementary logic gone awry.

I don't care why you like Steve Waugh. The subject of the thread is the complete opposite: how "I" dislike Steve Waugh for his dishonest opportunistic acts and that I am happy he is gone from cricket. I am not gonna miss his "attitude" for once, nor I give a damn about his pretense "charity work". And, although an off-topic subject, I also could care less about his "statistics" that he has amassed through his ugly batting style. From a stylistic viewpoint, yes, cricket needs players like Steve Waugh and Gary Kirsten, to show what 'ugly' batting looks like and the need to avoid it.

[Edited on 13-1-2004 by Arnab]

Hasib
January 13, 2004, 02:37 AM
Have you ever thought of the posibility of an accident?

James90
January 13, 2004, 06:57 AM
I'll use the Vaughan/Sarandeep Singh affair as an example. Sure in the rules he (Vaughan or Cullinan) was out but think about this. The balls just dropped down at you're feet, your not gonna run the fielders are walsing in to get the ball, naturally if you're a gentleman you're first action will be to bend down and give them the ball. But instead you have to have a commitee meeting about it before you are allowed to do so. Handling the ball as a favour is as bad as mankadding or running out someone whose lieing on the ground hurt. It's just not cricket!

[Edited on 13-1-2004 by Habibul_fan : Typing wrong words!]

[Edited on 13-1-2004 by Habibul_fan : Misplaced bracket]