View Full Version : The Indians aren't walking.
King Elvis
11 Oct 2008, 15:53
Why aren't these guys walking?
Isn't it cheating to remain at the crease when you know you're out?
Why aren't these guys walking?
Isn't it cheating to remain at the crease when you know you're out?
So why didn't Ponting walk when he hit it back to Kumble?
senrulzisback
11 Oct 2008, 15:56
Why aren't these guys walking?
Isn't it cheating to remain at the crease when you know you're out?
There are only two countries in the world that play THAT honestly.
England and Australia.
ManWithNoName
11 Oct 2008, 15:57
So why didn't Ponting walk when he hit it back to Kumble?
Because the ball bounced?
Because the ball bounced?
Pretty sure the replays showed that it didn't? Either way, he was entitled to stand his ground - as he was unsure.
Just as Sehwag was unsure whether or not he'd hit it into the ground before it reached Hayden.
Homer Jnr
11 Oct 2008, 16:06
Because the ball bounced?
Don't talk sense here.
Homer Jnr
11 Oct 2008, 16:06
Pretty sure the replays showed that it didn't? Either way, he was entitled to stand his ground - as he was unsure.
Just as Sehwag was unsure whether or not he'd hit it into the ground before it reached Hayden.
What else did his bat hit?
Marklar_33
11 Oct 2008, 16:09
What else did his bat hit?
Can you read?
So why didn't Ponting walk when he hit it back to Kumble?
Because it isn`t he and the Australians who have been taking the high moral ground in relation to walking and claiming catches.
If we are going to get lectured by the Indians, then they should lead by example.
Until then, the Indian cricket team can be rightly and accurately labelled complete and utter hypocrites.
DT_fanatic
11 Oct 2008, 16:14
lol^
show me anything where any indian cricketer has had a problem with not walking when you're out.
there's no point in posting if your opinion isn't going to have any substance.
Because it isn`t he and the Australians who have been taking the high moral ground in relation to walking and claiming catches.
Want to point out where India have taken the 'moral high ground' in relation to walking?
If we are going to get lectured by the Indians, then they should lead by example.
Yeh, next time a batsman is unsure whether he's out or not, he should screw waiting for the umpire to make a decision - he should just walk for the hell of it.
Homer Jnr
11 Oct 2008, 16:19
Can you read?
I know Sehwag isn't a nuclear physicist, but I think a drunk wilderbeest would know that was out immediately.
King Elvis
11 Oct 2008, 16:19
lol^
show me anything where any indian cricketer has had a problem with not walking when you're out.
there's no point in posting if your opinion isn't going to have any substance.
Short memory.
The coup de grace came with this statement, delivered at the post-match press conference at Sydney: "Only one team was playing in the spirit of the game."
Symonds was absolutely lambasted for not walking, and we were labelled cheats.
The 747
11 Oct 2008, 16:19
Why is it a surprise that the Indian team are hypocrites?
Everyone is aware of that except the Indians (I suspect a few of their fans know it too). They whine about the spirit of cricket and then:
Appeal for balls hit through cover
Appeal for lbw when the ball obviously pitches outside the stumps and glare at the umpire
Refuse to walk when they are clearly out
Sledge and then complain about being sledged
Threaten to go home when things don't go their way
Get busted tampering with the ball, claiming catches, excessive appealing, dissent etc far more than any other team
Insult the oppostion through the media constantly
And blame every loss on the umpiring
All this stuff goes on in cricket but they like to pretend that they never do any of it and it is the other team's fault for everything
The 747
11 Oct 2008, 16:20
lol^
show me anything where any indian cricketer has had a problem with not walking when you're out.
there's no point in posting if your opinion isn't going to have any substance.
Didn't happen to catch the Sri Lankan series where they kept calling for review even though the Indian batsman has clearly edged the ball? :rolleyes:
Of course not
DT_fanatic
11 Oct 2008, 16:20
Short memory.
Symonds was absolutely lambasted for not walking, and we were labelled cheats.
oh dear :o
im pretty sure he was referring to michael clarke's claiming of half-volleys as catches :thumbsu:
Symonds was absolutely lambasted for not walking, and we were labelled cheats.
It wasn't over Symonds not walking,
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24468633-
5006069,00.html
In a spiteful match better remembered for the racial spat between Harbhajan Singh and Andrew Symonds, terrible umpiring, Michael Clarke's catch at slip to dismiss Sourav Ganguly and Ricky Ponting's appeal for another catch also had Indian blood boiling.
"We suffered the most in the catches pact during the last series," Sehwag told ESPN-STAR. "There is no point in having such an arrangement when the Australians are claiming one-bounce catches. We'd have won the Sydney Test if they hadn't claimed catches off half-volleys in that game."
Skippers Ponting and Anil Kumble had a catching pact to take the word of fieldsmen in disputed catches for the opening pair of Tests last summer.
SwampCreature
11 Oct 2008, 16:21
Why aren't these guys walking?
Isn't it cheating to remain at the crease when you know you're out?
Its because the Indians are hypocritical whingers King. That is why.
DT_fanatic
11 Oct 2008, 16:22
Didn't happen to catch the Sri Lankan series where they kept calling for review even though the Indian batsman has clearly edged the ball? :rolleyes:
Of course not
oh so they used a review just for the heck of it, even though they knew they would be wasting it, did they? that'd be a smart thing to do :o
King Elvis
11 Oct 2008, 16:23
oh dear :o
im pretty sure he was referring to michael clarke's claiming of half-volleys as catches :thumbsu:
Revisionist bullshit.
Want to point out where India have taken the 'moral high ground' in relation to walking?
Yeh, next time a batsman is unsure whether he's out or not, he should screw waiting for the umpire to make a decision - he should just walk for the hell of it.
So no Indian cricketer was upset when Symonds didn`t walk last summer? Seriously, you are kidding me.
Weren`t we lectured by Captain Integrity on the Spirit of Cricket after the Sydney test? Are you saying the Spirit of Cricket includes staying put at the crease when you know you are clearly out?
By taking the high moral ground on how the game should be played they have set themselves up for criticism every time they don`t stick to the principles they have preached.
As I said they are hypocrites. And you are blindly defending them.
DT_fanatic
11 Oct 2008, 16:28
Revisionist bullshit.
not at all.
you're pretty much saying they had no issue with clarke claiming that catch. do you realise how ridiculous that sounds?
crudbucket
11 Oct 2008, 16:29
I'm with India on this one, we have umpires out there to make decisions.
If people want to walk that's fine, but lay off the non-walkers after all they are the ones who are actually playing by the rules !
The 747
11 Oct 2008, 16:32
oh so they used a review just for the heck of it, even though they knew they would be wasting it, did they? that'd be a smart thing to do :o
Yes it was kinda stupid :o but happened anyway. I have no idea why they did it. Sachin did it twice FYI.
King Elvis
11 Oct 2008, 16:34
not at all.
you're pretty much saying they had no issue with clarke claiming that catch. do you realise how ridiculous that sounds?
not at all.
you're pretty much saying they had no issue with Symonds not walking. do you realise how ridiculous that sounds?
The 747
11 Oct 2008, 16:34
not at all.
you're pretty much saying they had no issue with clarke claiming that catch. do you realise how ridiculous that sounds?
Did you have an issue with Ganguly trying to claim a clear bump catch in a World Cup final? Any chance of an answer to that? :D
DT_fanatic
11 Oct 2008, 16:36
not at all.
you're pretty much saying they had no issue with Symonds not walking. do you realise how ridiculous that sounds?
yes, because they never mentioned it. as opposed to clarke's catch.
now unless you were a fly on the wall in their dressing room at the end of day 1, your opinion is invalid.
DT_fanatic
11 Oct 2008, 16:38
Did you have an issue with Ganguly trying to claim a clear bump catch in a World Cup final? Any chance of an answer to that? :D
ofcourse, that was wrong...just as wrong as clarke's was.
as for those referrals, i didn't get to watch the series so i can't comment on it. im just assuming there would have to be doubt in a batsman's mind, hence the decision for their referrals.
The 747
11 Oct 2008, 16:42
ofcourse, that was wrong...just as wrong as clarke's was.
as for those referrals, i didn't get to watch the series so i can't comment on it. im just assuming there would have to be doubt in a batsman's mind, hence the decision for their referrals.
The bolded bit is exactly the reason why India are hypocrites.
Ganguly's was clear and obvious to everyone.
Clarke's catch was inconclusive on replay.
but yet you believe they are morally equivalent. And won't admit an Indian did anything wrong without saying "but x player did it too!!"
DT_fanatic
11 Oct 2008, 16:46
The bolded bit is exactly the reason why India are hypocrites.
Ganguly's was clear and obvious to everyone.
Clarke's catch was inconclusive on replay.
but yet you believe they are morally equivalent. And won't admit an Indian did anything wrong without saying "but x player did it too!!"
err, clarke's one was not as obvious but it was a half-volley. it was conclusive.
anyway, what's the difference? both claimed catches that weren't.
atleast we've (hopefully) settled on the fact that there was no problem with not walking...god knows how many times that has been brought up since they sydney test.
ssfc0203
11 Oct 2008, 16:52
FFS neither side is going to agree on anything, then why create a thread on it every second day? You're not going to get much except hyprocrite, liar and cheat.
Does it really matter if their batsman don't walk? I played cricket for years, and never walked. Let the umpire give you out.
Haddin might as well have claimed his half volley catch of sehwag yesterday.
Let the umpire decide absolutely everything, that should be the theme this series.
Not saying there's anything wrong with that, but it does come to a point where a batsman is so obviously out that an umpire won't even bother to put up his finger....then realises he has to send the batsman off.
The Sim Dog
11 Oct 2008, 17:53
Don't know about the other results but Sehwag not walking looked bloody ridiculous. Fair enough if it's contentious but this one just wasn't. He's played enough cricket in his life to know he was out.
saintsownthedome
11 Oct 2008, 19:44
The problem as I see it, is that the Indian media have continualy preached that they are hard done by, especially against Australia. They seem to forget that cricket is a game where you go through swings and roundabouts - sometimes you get em and sometimes you dont.
The players, just like most people believe a lot of what they read and now they have this complex of always being hard done by. Kumble's effort of dissent in the first innings after a leg before appeal, and the batsmen hanging around when there is very little doubt on their dismissals seems to evidence this.
The sooner they realise that things even out in the end, the better they will be.
There are only two countries in the world that play THAT honestly.
England and Australia.
Your wrong mate - its individual players from various countries that play honestly rather than teams. When there is money to be earned, people are going to act in their own self interest - not ALL people, but the vast majority, and they would be stupid not to.
Chris Gayle, Brian Lara and Gilly are the most honest players I have seen.
dr nick
11 Oct 2008, 21:14
The only situation a batsman should walk is park cricket when your mates are umpiring.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
11 Oct 2008, 21:51
Problems as i see it.
The umps these days are in their 50's to late 50's.
For mine, that is too old and im not having a dig just saying that i dont know many men that age that have decent hearing and eyesight as well as concentration for 6 hours in the hot sun.
We need younger umps.
Also, mugs like Billy Bowden and Bucknor do no-one anyfavours by
a) waiting for an age to give some guy out for suspense or whatever, Bowden used to do this often, gave the commentators somethign to talk about, but all the Aussie players voted him as the least respected up, probably because he carries on like a mug.
b) Nodding to give a guy out, Bucknor used to do this all the time. Stick your finger up ya mug and get on with it.
India were a disgrace today, smashing it to slip, smashing it to cover and not walking. Mugs if you ask me.
Ricketts
11 Oct 2008, 22:11
Of course the Indians aren't walking. They're a bunch of bitter individuals and cheats.
And then they try and claim that it's us that are the bad sports / cheats for claiming non-catches, despite them clearly being catches.
All their catch claims are from absurd half volleys which aren't close to being out, and they don't walk when it's a massive edge to the wide side of 1st slip (Sehwag :rolleyes: ) or a half volley which wasn't even close to being a bump-ball (Tendulkar :rolleyes: ).
And they think we're the cheats! Ha!
Let's not even start on their appealing...
The 747
11 Oct 2008, 22:40
Anyone see Ganguly trying to claim he hit the ball which got him LBW?
:rolleyes:
Blue Dimension
11 Oct 2008, 23:41
Does it really matter if their batsman don't walk? I played cricket for years, and never walked. Let the umpire give you out.
Blatant edges that go to slip easily...and they're not walking.
It's actually embarrassing watching them. It makes them look bitter and childish.
Short memory.
Symonds was absolutely lambasted for not walking, and we were labelled cheats.
What cr@p. Symonds WA NOT lambasted as you put it. Umpire Buckner was. Everyone agreed that you can wait for the umpire if it is a faint edge or possibly a bump ball (like Sewags). Now Michale Clarke cutting the ball to first slip... Now that was a bit different
King Elvis
12 Oct 2008, 01:09
What cr@p. Symonds WA NOT lambasted as you put it. Umpire Buckner was. Everyone agreed that you can wait for the umpire if it is a faint edge or possibly a bump ball (like Sewags). Now Michale Clarke cutting the ball to first slip... Now that was a bit different
Symonds was bagged massively for not walking at the time; from the Indians, and even from a few tossers in the local media.
Your last sentence highlights the problem - there is no difference between the two. You leave the crease when the Umpires tell you to, simple as that.
Of course, if we didn't have morons like Bucknor taking 5 minutes to make a decision to attention-whore themselves, it wouldn't be such an issue.
DT_fanatic
12 Oct 2008, 10:34
Symonds was bagged massively for not walking at the time; from the Indians, and even from a few tossers in the local media.
can you back this up? with anything at all
can you back this up? with anything at all
Is Andrew Symonds a cheat for not walking? (http://www.sportingo.com/cricket/a6390_andrew-symonds-aussie-cheat)
Victory Without Honour (http://www.smh.com.au/news/editorial/victory-without-honour-walk-the-walk-watch-the-talk/2008/01/07/1199554568809.html)
There's two. :thumbsu:
Is Andrew Symonds a cheat for not walking? (http://www.sportingo.com/cricket/a6390_andrew-symonds-aussie-cheat)
Victory Without Honour (http://www.smh.com.au/news/editorial/victory-without-honour-walk-the-walk-watch-the-talk/2008/01/07/1199554568809.html)
There's two. :thumbsu:
That's the media talking.
Symonds was bagged massively for not walking at the time; from the Indians, and even from a few tossers in the local media.
.
Symonds was not lambasted by the Indians at all.
Show me a quote?
Show me an article?
Yes the media may have blown it up but the Indians didn't. Where the Indians had the problem, and after reading the rules and seeing replays, is when we (well Ponting & the Aussie team) asking people to 'take their word' at catches when replays showed it clearly half volleyed.
Back in Sydney Ponting ground the ball still in the act of catching and was sliding over the ground (the one that was not out anyway) but the rule say you must be in control of your body before you ground the ball. It was so clearly that Ponting wasn't but he kept on digging his heals in when he was
wrong.
Relevant quote from the Laws of Cricket
3. A fair catch
A catch shall be considered to have been fairly made if
(a) throughout the act of making the catch
(i) any fielder in contact with the ball is within the field of play. See 4 below.
(ii) the ball is at no time in contact with any object grounded beyond the boundary.
The act of making the catch shall start from the time when a fielder first handles the ball and shall end when a fielder obtains complete control both over the ball and over his own movement.
(c) the ball does not touch the ground, even though the hand holding it does so in effecting the catch.
http://philip9876.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/ponting.jpg
Mate Ponting was not in control of his body movement as he was sliding along the ground and if he was he would not have needed to put his hand down with the ball in it as the picture clearly shows.
That's the media talking.
Elvis mentioned the media in his post. ;)
Elvis mentioned the media in his post. ;)
True, but I think he was more so complaining about the Indians supposedly lambasting Symonds for not walking. ;)
DT_fanatic
12 Oct 2008, 13:42
Is Andrew Symonds a cheat for not walking? (http://www.sportingo.com/cricket/a6390_andrew-symonds-aussie-cheat)
Victory Without Honour (http://www.smh.com.au/news/editorial/victory-without-honour-walk-the-walk-watch-the-talk/2008/01/07/1199554568809.html)
There's two. :thumbsu:
like philhawk said, that's from the media
elvis has changed the goal posts slightly...first it was just the indian team complaining, now it's the media as well.
King Elvis
12 Oct 2008, 15:37
like philhawk said, that's from the media
elvis has changed the goal posts slightly...first it was just the indian team complaining, now it's the media as well.
The entire thing started with Symonds refusal to walk, it went to the next level after Pup's catch.
If you can't remember that, and the media reports linked by others don't show how much of a controversy it was considered by all and sundry, then that's your problem.
Tassie Girl Jnr
12 Oct 2008, 15:45
So why didn't Ponting walk when he hit it back to Kumble?
Because he's a cheat too.
aussiecricket
12 Oct 2008, 22:11
Because he's a cheat too.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
At the press conference after his innings, he looked really puzzled by the whole incident. He expected the ball to roll back towards Anil and was surprised when Anil caught it in front of his face. Ponting thought it was a bump ball and so did the umpire and it was only apparent on the super slow mo vision that it wasn't.
Today, Ponting walked off after Laxman confirmed that his low catch was clean. Took the fielder's word.
ssfc0203
12 Oct 2008, 22:21
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
At the press conference after his innings, he looked really puzzled
Misleading, he almost always looks puzzled.
King Elvis
13 Oct 2008, 09:54
Misleading, he almost always looks puzzled.
Probably puzzled as to how he can be the most winning-est Test Captain in history, even though we were meant to be on the wane.
The 747
13 Oct 2008, 11:00
Maybe he is puzzled that soon Ricky Ponting the person will rack up more Test wins than the India the country has in it's entire cricket playing existence :cool:
ssfc0203
13 Oct 2008, 13:20
Its not a go at him... he just always looks puzzled..
Its not a go at him... he just always looks puzzled..
Boo, just ruin the tangent the thread's gone on.
*Shakes fist*
ssfc0203
13 Oct 2008, 13:38
Boo, just ruin the tangent the thread's gone on.
*Shakes fist*
:D
My Ponting rants are long.. but they are reserved for actual matches ;]