Cricket Questions - To walk or not to walk - Part 2 - Opinion
In his autobiography, Gilchrist went on to claim that he had zero support from his team over his walking reservation, and he had to be content with keeping his views to himself. This is perhaps a well known indication that a player, who wishes to uphold
the dignity of the game, garners lesser support in modern times, in comparison to those players who are constantly willing to innovate and challenge the classical school of thought.
There have been those however, who have considered walking to be contrary to the popular belief, that it depends upon the discretion of the batsman. http://www.senore.com/Cricket/Stephen-Paul-Fleming-c91190 went on to reprimand Gilchrist in the 2004 Test series between both sides
in http://www.senore.com/Cricket/Craig-Douglas-McMillan-c51683, prompted Gilchrist to be enraged and ask McMillan to walk considering
that he knew that he had nicked the ball. The batsman who was infuriated went on to tell Gilchrist that walking is pretty much based upon the discretion of the player, everyone does not have to walk. That incident managed to stoke plenty of controversy after
the match as both players were seen arguing on the boundary line.
McMillan’s assertion might sound logical to the modern player. Yet that logic is shrouded in light of the fact that cricket has well and truly gone to the dogs nowadays. Players are constantly involved in sledging and degrading the opposition to the point
of confrontations turning violent. Heated debates with the umpires have also taken place which pin points at a game which is slowly losing its gentleman like color. This stands in stark contrast to the days where an umpire’s judgment was considered as sacred
and legally binding for those who are affected by it. Conformity towards norms and regulations was also considered to be the line of action that had to be taken by all the players on the field. For Gilchrist to set an example which is a throwback to the old
days, can thus be considered as a commendable effort.
The http://www.senore.com/Cricket/Bangladesh-c747 was a prime example of how players in the modern era resort towards taking chances regardless of the consequences. The
option of taking chances for a player like Gilchrist loomed high. Gilchrist might have been l*****g his http://www.senore.com/Cricket/Sri-Lanka-c758 in an all important Semi Final clash. Yet for him, vague flashbacks of how English players managed to
keep their ground even after they were given out were far more important.
Not many players in modern times have the ability to constantly reflect and learn from being enlightened as http://www.senore.com/Cricket/England-c56013, who managed to revolutionize the
manner in which cricket was approached and strove hard to alleviate the game of many ills such as betting. Those were the 1880s and one can argue that striving for the aesthetic sense of the game in modern times is completely unrealistic to say the least.
Disclaimer: Any views and opinions expressed in this article are solely of the author and do not represent Bettor.com's official editorial policy.
Tags: