Oracle of Delphi
Arnold
Paladin
Shan Jayaweera
KC Hill
Cibbuano
Craig HillShould Mike Hussey walk? Only if he runs out of petrol
January 22nd 2007 00:48
After an absolute shellacking in the test match series poor old England just can’t take a trick. Firstly their batsmen, most notably Andrew Strauss and to a lesser degree Ian Bell couldn’t get any more unlucky if a black cat had been strung up under a ladder in door way of their hotel rooms. And then Daryl Harper’s chronic finger cramps denied them the crucial wicket of Hussey at an important time during what may have turned out to be a morale boosting win in Brisbane.
To England’s credit there were only a few cursory words exchanged in hushed tones (lest we hear them repeated via the broadcaster's stump microphones) between the players on the field and publicly at least that was the end of the matter so far as they were concerned.
Predictably enough there has been some outcry in the media about whether or not Hussey should have walked when given not out by the umpire. Hussey handled himself with poise and composure in a tight situation and if he makes the decision not to walk then that should be the end of it. Individual players have their own thoughts on the matter and in the past the Kiwis have made valid points to the likes of Adam Gilchrist that walking is a personal preference and under the rule book a player in entitled to stand his ground until the umpire’s finger goes up.
It was the New Zealanders themselves that provided a fine example last evening to back up Hussey’s decision not to walk. With 13 balls remaining and only two wickets in tact Hussey swung unsuccessfully at a McMillan bouncer. The vociferous appeal by the players was designed to distract the umpire and prevent a wide call (some may suggest this is an unsporting act in itself) despite the fact that Hussey had missed the ball by a good 3-4 inches.
Had Hussey been given I’m sure there would have been no outcry about the Kiwis appealing with an alernative motive in mind. Very few players get called back when poor appeals backed by poor decisions occur in the middle.
Debating the morals of walking and appealing when a player is not out is unproductive. Calls for the return of the good ole days where nobody in engaged in any form of gamesmanship are similarly unproductive. It can safely be assumed that despite the glorified history of yesteryear’s cricketing gentlemen that people have been pushing the boundaries of the game since those very boundaries were invented, nothing has changed and nor will it.
To England’s credit there were only a few cursory words exchanged in hushed tones (lest we hear them repeated via the broadcaster's stump microphones) between the players on the field and publicly at least that was the end of the matter so far as they were concerned.
Predictably enough there has been some outcry in the media about whether or not Hussey should have walked when given not out by the umpire. Hussey handled himself with poise and composure in a tight situation and if he makes the decision not to walk then that should be the end of it. Individual players have their own thoughts on the matter and in the past the Kiwis have made valid points to the likes of Adam Gilchrist that walking is a personal preference and under the rule book a player in entitled to stand his ground until the umpire’s finger goes up.
It was the New Zealanders themselves that provided a fine example last evening to back up Hussey’s decision not to walk. With 13 balls remaining and only two wickets in tact Hussey swung unsuccessfully at a McMillan bouncer. The vociferous appeal by the players was designed to distract the umpire and prevent a wide call (some may suggest this is an unsporting act in itself) despite the fact that Hussey had missed the ball by a good 3-4 inches.
Had Hussey been given I’m sure there would have been no outcry about the Kiwis appealing with an alernative motive in mind. Very few players get called back when poor appeals backed by poor decisions occur in the middle.
Debating the morals of walking and appealing when a player is not out is unproductive. Calls for the return of the good ole days where nobody in engaged in any form of gamesmanship are similarly unproductive. It can safely be assumed that despite the glorified history of yesteryear’s cricketing gentlemen that people have been pushing the boundaries of the game since those very boundaries were invented, nothing has changed and nor will it.
| 100 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Go to Craig Hill's home page by clicking here
Comment by Norm
Consumption Malfunction
Equal and Opposite
Arses and Elbows
Footy Power
this is one for you, Gilchrist.
The height of hysterical hypocrisy.
Because although he walks when he's batting, he appeals when he knows the batsmen hasn't hit it when he's keeping.
Get off your morally elevated real estate Gilly!
Norm.
Comment by Anonymous