Yob Ponting now attacks Gavaskar

[CC1981]

I don't get what is so disgraceful about not walking. Ever seen a bowler call back a batsman coz he got 'caught up in the moment but there was no nick' ?? Sorry, it is the umpire's job to give a batsman out/not out. Not the batsman's job to walk away if he is out. There is no moral highground in walking/not walking - batsmen get the bad decisions, so it evens out if the batsman does NOT walk and benifit a few times.

[Lord]

I don't get what is so disgraceful about not walking. Ever seen a bowler call back a batsman coz he got 'caught up in the moment but there was no nick' ?? Sorry, it is the umpire's job to give a batsman out/not out. Not the batsman's job to walk away if he is out. There is no moral highground in walking/not walking - batsmen get the bad decisions, so it evens out if the batsman does NOT walk and benifit a few times.

exactly

[DomainK]

I don't get what is so disgraceful about not walking. Ever seen a bowler call back a batsman coz he got 'caught up in the moment but there was no nick' ?? Sorry, it is the umpire's job to give a batsman out/not out. Not the batsman's job to walk away if he is out. There is no moral highground in walking/not walking - batsmen get the bad decisions, so it evens out if the batsman does NOT walk and benifit a few times.

I agree with that. When a batsman gets a bad decision (which is too frequent these days), he has to walk anyways. So when he is not given out by a piece of bad umpiring decision, he does not have to spoil it by walking. Showing honesty is not a bigger priority than your team's interest. Yesterday your team had bad luck when you were wrongly given out. Today its your team's good luck that you survive .... why accept the bad luck and reject the good luck? But yes, when you are clearly out......so clearly that a five year old from the crowd can see it from the crowd, you gotta walk. Otherwise you look like an idiot.

[Guest HariSampath]

I don't get what is so disgraceful about not walking. Ever seen a bowler call back a batsman coz he got 'caught up in the moment but there was no nick' ?? Sorry, it is the umpire's job to give a batsman out/not out. Not the batsman's job to walk away if he is out. There is no moral highground in walking/not walking - batsmen get the bad decisions, so it evens out if the batsman does NOT walk and benifit a few times.

Yes I have seen it. Gundappa Vishwanath the Indian captain recalled Bob Taylor after he was given out caught behind in the golden jubilee test in 1980 . England was down and out with 5-6 wkts lost, when Taylor was given out caught behind . He told the Indian captain at 1st slip he hadnt nicked it. Vishwanath walked upto the bowler , spoke to him, walked back to the slips consulted Gavaskar, who shrugged indifferently. Then Vishwanath went up to the umpire and said his team was withdrawing the appeal, and asked Taylor who was half way walking back , to resume his innings. Ian Botham and Taylor rescued England with a huge partnership, Botham getting 100 and England won the test. It was not just any test, but a Golden jubilee test for 50 years of Indian cricket and it was a fine sporting gesture from GR Vishwanath, one of the greatest cricket personalities to have graced the game of cricket, who never looked at the umpire when he had nicked the ball , even once in his career. To me, those are the standards of behavior to judge the spirit of the game. Like I said earlier, i do not subscribe to the theory " you get some bad ones, so try to take advantage whenever possible"..I cant agree with this, and yes I have my own interpretation of a moral code in the game...just as you have yours.

[CC1981]

Yes I have seen it. Gundappa Vishwanath the Indian captain recalled Bob Taylor after he was given out caught behind in the golden jubilee test in 1980 . England was down and out with 5-6 wkts lost, when Taylor was given out caught behind . He told the Indian captain at 1st slip he hadnt nicked it. Vishwanath walked upto the bowler , spoke to him, walked back to the slips consulted Gavaskar, who shrugged indifferently. Then Vishwanath went up to the umpire and said his team was withdrawing the appeal, and asked Taylor who was half way walking back , to resume his innings. Ian Botham and Taylor rescued England with a huge partnership, Botham getting 100 and England won the test. It was not just any test, but a Golden jubilee test for 50 years of Indian cricket and it was a fine sporting gesture from GR Vishwanath, one of the greatest cricket personalities to have graced the game of cricket, who never looked at the umpire when he had nicked the ball , even once in his career.

Good for Vishy - but someone should ask him how often did he get the bad ones compared to getting called back by the opposition captain - or how often he called back the opposition batsman compared to how often they copped a rotten one. And no, i don't consider such a gesture to be sporting - i consider it to be a gesture of an amatuer who is playing as if it is a backyard Sunday game between his little brother and cousin sister.

To me, those are the standards of behavior to judge the spirit of the game. Like I said earlier, i do not subscribe to the theory " you get some bad ones, so try to take advantage whenever possible"..I cant agree with this, and yes I have my own interpretation of a moral code in the game...just as you have yours.

I do subscribe to the theory of you get some bad ones, so you must take advantages to even the scales - or else you are a stupid sucker who will play something/devote time,effort and attention to something that is fundamentally skewed against you. There is only one moral code to the game : winning and not being found at fault with the letter of the law. Rest of it all is just cherry on the top - i admire the nice guys, but unless you are a hyper-talent like Tendulkar of Ambrose, being a nice-guy often leaves you at a disadvantage. As far as i am concerned, i am paying money to see a rollicking contest and the team i support win. Whatever it takes, within the letter of the law, to win and give an etertaining contest, is kosher with me. This is professional sports, where winning is the primary obligation - not being nice and getting the 'aww you are soo nice' feeling. if that is your thing, great- but stick to backyard cricket with your children, not professional sport, which is essentially war without bloodshed. Walking is not only stupid, it is also betraying the spirit of winning. If my best friend/brother was the last real batsman out there and the team still needed 30 runs from 5 overs in a world cup final and he 'walked' after nicking one that nobody saw/heard, i'd be the first one to kick that retard's @$$ - for putting a lame definition of personal morality over that of the collective feeling of fulfillment and expectations, especially when it was not against the letter of the law of the game.

[Lord]

Good for Vishy - but someone should ask him how often did he get the bad ones compared to getting called back by the opposition captain - or how often he called back the opposition batsman compared to how often they copped a rotten one. And no, i don't consider such a gesture to be sporting - i consider it to be a gesture of an amatuer who is playing as if it is a backyard Sunday game between his little brother and cousin sister. I do subscribe to the theory of you get some bad ones, so you must take advantages to even the scales - or else you are a stupid sucker who will play something/devote time,effort and attention to something that is fundamentally skewed against you. There is only one moral code to the game : winning and not being found at fault with the letter of the law. Rest of it all is just cherry on the top - i admire the nice guys, but unless you are a hyper-talent like Tendulkar of Ambrose, being a nice-guy often leaves you at a disadvantage. As far as i am concerned, i am paying money to see a rollicking contest and the team i support win. Whatever it takes, within the letter of the law, to win and give an etertaining contest, is kosher with me. This is professional sports, where winning is the primary obligation - not being nice and getting the 'aww you are soo nice' feeling. if that is your thing, great- but stick to backyard cricket with your children, not professional sport, which is essentially war without bloodshed. Walking is not only stupid, it is also betraying the spirit of winning. If my best friend/brother was the last real batsman out there and the team still needed 30 runs from 5 overs in a world cup final and he 'walked' after nicking one that nobody saw/heard, i'd be the first one to kick that retard's @$$ - for putting a lame definition of personal morality over that of the collective feeling of fulfillment and expectations, especially when it was not against the letter of the law of the game.

true:two_thumbs_up:

[CC1981]

Showing honesty is not a bigger priority than your team's interest.

BINGO ! Walking is selfish in that regard- by putting personal honor above that of the team's need. I'd happily be the guy who bowls underarm to achieve a victory for my team - because then I AND a lot of others are winners, instead of me imposing my personal definition of morality over the entire team and ensuring that we ALL are losers because of my selfishness.

[Lord]

BINGO ! Walking is selfish in that regard- by putting personal honor above that of the team's need. I'd happily be the guy who bowls underarm to achieve a victory for my team - because then I AND a lot of others are winners, instead of me imposing my personal definition of morality over the entire team and ensuring that we ALL are losers because of my selfishness.

its banned now,so cant do that:winky:

[Rajan]

Yes I have seen it. Gundappa Vishwanath the Indian captain recalled Bob Taylor after he was given out caught behind in the golden jubilee test in 1980 . England was down and out with 5-6 wkts lost, when Taylor was given out caught behind . He told the Indian captain at 1st slip he hadnt nicked it. Vishwanath walked upto the bowler , spoke to him, walked back to the slips consulted Gavaskar, who shrugged indifferently. Then Vishwanath went up to the umpire and said his team was withdrawing the appeal, and asked Taylor who was half way walking back , to resume his innings. Ian Botham and Taylor rescued England with a huge partnership, Botham getting 100 and England won the test. It was not just any test, but a Golden jubilee test for 50 years of Indian cricket and it was a fine sporting gesture from GR Vishwanath, one of the greatest cricket personalities to have graced the game of cricket, who never looked at the umpire when he had nicked the ball , even once in his career. To me, those are the standards of behavior to judge the spirit of the game. Like I said earlier, i do not subscribe to the theory " you get some bad ones, so try to take advantage whenever possible"..I cant agree with this, and yes I have my own interpretation of a moral code in the game...just as you have yours.

i remember that incident and in all fairness that gesture cost us the test and gave Vishy an Honorary membership at MCC! But Vishy called Taylor back only after Taylor was very reluctant to leave the field and indicated to vishy that he was not out. what is poignant is the fact that in a previous series in England, Tony Greig claimed a bat pad off Gavaskar at silly point and won a decision, but later admitted to Sunny that he knew very well that he did not nick it. so why should Vishy call back the batsman? IMHO not necessary. through out his career he would have had his share of rough decisions in New Zealand, Pakistan,West Indies and Australia. he was never called back by any captain.why shud he be different? covering himself in glory at the cost of the team is not necessary. he shud have kept quiet.

[Dinx - the Jinx]

@ Hari - Machan.. you are looking at the events of Sydney individually and arguing for no end. If looked at individually, your arguments are correct and you win. But please have a holistic approach about the whole issue and then lets see whether Gavaskar was right in his criticism of Ponting. Event 1. Ponting asks every captain in the world to agree to the pact where a fielder's world should be taken in disputed catches. If the opposition captain agrees, he agrees based on the assumption that Ponting and all his men will act honestly and will claim only those catches that are perfectly clean. Even if they had a small % of doubt, they will ask the umpires to refer. With that assumption only Kumble agreed to the pact. Event 2. Clarke edges one to first slip and stands as if it was not out. If it was a caught behind to keeper we can agree that he doesnt have to walk until the umpire gives him out. Since he stood his ground, it clearly shows that he is not honest, but still within the rules i.e exercising his right to stay until the umpire rules him out, which is perfectly acceptable. But at the same time, he cannot be considered as someone who will be honest. If required he'll throw honesty out of the window. Lets assume the umpire dint rule him out for that catch to slip. Clarke would have continued batting. So, there is no h onesty with this man. Event 3. There is a catch that Clarke takes, which is definitely not conclusive. Having seen Clarke's honesty in Event 2; why should the umpires blindly believe that he will be honest this time around and take his word (or rather Ponting's word when he made that famous gesture of 5th umpire) on the catch instead of referring to the 3rd umpire (had it been referred I bet on my balls that it would have been declarednot out). Is it because of the stupid pact the Ponting was successful in enticing Kumble into signing? If yes - Ponting and co had been cunning ie they pretended like saints i.e they will only say the truth, got the opposition into signing something and when it really mattered, threw the pact out of the window. Event 4: Ponting claims a catch at forward short leg/silly point after clearly grounding the ball. This was not a catch watsoever. Agreed - he has the right to appeal (like Gavaskar has done during his playing days). But in this match Ponting is not just acting as a fielder who is just exercising his rights as a fieldsman/captain. He is acting as a fifth umpire, where his word on the catch has to be taken as true and the batsmen can be ruled out. Having got Kumble to sign that pact, Ponting had a responsibility here to be 100% honest. which dint exhibit throughout the match. If there were no such pacts and if no matter what the fielder says, the umpires are going to use their judgement or goto 3rd umpire when they are not sure, then we would not be questioning Ponting's integrity here. Its only because of the pact and when we saw evidence of him clearly disrespecting the pact in order to win the match, Gavaskar and the rest of the media were questioning him. Take for instance the recent Stuart Broad appeal against Rohit Sharma for an lbw when the ball clearly hit the bat and not the stumps. It was a nothing more than a funny incident and has been laughed at for a while and forgotten. No one is questioning Staurt Broad's integrity here because he probably thought it hit the pad and asked a rather vociferous question to the umpire. He was well within the rules and only thing is he can be found guilty of excessive appealing and nothing more. Whereas the case against Ponting and Clarke were more serious. They enticed the opposition captain to believe that they will be honest at all times and got them to sign a treaty. And once they had the power to rule bastmen out they started using it against the spirit in which that treaty was signed. It doesnt need a Gavaskar to point it out. Even a Tom dick and harry like me can see the truth here and criticise Ponting here.

[Rajan]

Dinakkar: Event 3. There is a catch that Clarke takes, which is definitely not conclusive. Having seen Clarke's honesty in Event 2; why should the umpires blindly believe that he will be honest this time around and take his word (or rather Ponting's word when he made that famous gesture of 5th umpire) on the catch instead of referring to the 3rd umpire (had it been referred I bet on my balls that it would have been declarednot out). Is it because of the stupid pact the Ponting was successful in enticing Kumble into signing? If yes - Ponting and co had been cunning ie they pretended like saints i.e they will only say the truth, got the opposition into signing something and when it really mattered, threw the pact out of the window. dont bet on something so precious, especially when the adjudicator here is the 3rd umpire from australia, who in the same test had NOT adjudged Symonds out in the first innings when his foot was in the air , when Dhoni stumped him. i would not be surprised if the same umpire says Ganguly was out and next thing u know, u will find your ba!!s on the line!

[Dinx - the Jinx]

Now coming to Ponting's comments on Gavaskar - Gavaskar did claim catches which were not clean and did not walk when he knew he had nicked it. Same time, he dint goto every other opposition captain at the beginning of the series and ask for an agreement saying let both of us be honest about catches and take wach others word and later on do the exact opposite. Gavaskar appealed for catches - well he had right to appeal. I'm sure in the same matches, the opposition would have also appealed for n number of clear not outs and I dont think Gavaskar would have had any problem with that. Gavaskar threatening to pull out Chetan Chauhan during that test - It may sound very poor sportmanship. But you should look at the history of poor decisions that the Aussie umpires had been handing out to visiting batsmen over the years and especially the ones from sub continent. A Windies team or an English team would have still gone on to win those matches because of their superior team strengths. In the 1970s and 80s India were just having limited resources and were trying to match Australia using those limited resources. In such a situation, when the umpirers are also joining hands with the aussies and make life miserable for us, how long can you take it. And thats when Gavaskar would have reached a boiling point and threatended to do what he did. This is no comparison to the crimes that Ponting has been committing over and over again. So Ponting cannot cite this behavior of Gavaskar as an example to hide behind the crimes of his own.

[Gambit]

bump ball ??? lol...are u kidding ? straight off the bat and the fielder catches it 5 feet in the air jumping a bit, and the aussies dont even appeal...suddenly they realise Sachin wasnt walking and then umpire had to lift his finger. Not only CB series, he hasnt walked anytime in his career, even last year in the home ODIs against Aus. Sachin is no saint, just as Ganguly Dravid, Dhoni, Yuvi et al no one in today's cricket is a honest cricketer, I consider all of them cheats who will do anything hoping to get away.

You obviously haven't seen much of Sachin. I can recall atleast two instances off the top of my head where he walked when the umpire was still thinking. One being in Pakistan on the 2006 tour(2nd test) and the other one being caught off Kallis by Boucher at Mumbai in 1st test in 2000 when he made 97.

[Guest HariSampath]

dinakkar...I watched that entire series in Aus, 198081 and I even now remember every decision of Rex Whitehead. Thats NOT my point. I know all about Ponting , Clarke et al and all the things that happened in Sydney, like everyone else. My point is simply this : Cricketing morality and honesty has disappeared almost totally last 20 years, so its no use pointing fingers. Secondly , Ponting is not claiming he is a saint, but he is simply having a go at Gavaskar for acting sanctimonious. In fact Ponting doesnt even seem to know as much as I do on all of Gavaskar's blatant gamesmanship..he is just referring to Melbourne, wonder what Ponting will say if he becomes aware of so many events I point out on Gavaskar. Just as Gavaskar points out Ponting and Clarke's lack of credibilty ( and rightly so when comparing a batter who stands after edging to slip, and later claims a catch)...Gavaskar has to apply these standards of credibility to ALL players in all countries...and not simply go on a bashing spree of Aussie bad behavior alone...let Gavaskar be honest enough to say on air " Yes, in my career I hadnt walked after knowing I had nicked, I had claimed catches off balls pitching one yard in front of me, I had never asked my team mates to be honest"...and then let him criticise Ponting. I will listen then. At the moment, I just repeat my earlier post. Gavaskar is correct about Ponting. And also, Ponting is correct about Gavaskar. Neither of them is an excuse for the other.

[Rajan]

You obviously haven't seen much of Sachin. I can recall atleast two instances off the top of my head where he walked when the umpire was still thinking. One being in Pakistan on the 2006 tour(2nd test) and the other one being caught off Kallis by Boucher at Mumbai in 1st test in 2000 when he made 97.

i have watched Sachin not walking, after knicking a few times. in the last CB series itself once, off Lee. back in early 90's, in the kolkotta test, where Azhar hammered 187 off england, SRT was on 33 when he knicked one behind. he knicked one off Danish kaneria in mohali in 2005, did not walk.frankly too many. i am sorry if any one is hurt for what i am going to say, Bombay players never walk! most of the indian cricketeres too. rare exception- Dravid on 95 in his debut innings and may be some bowlers/tailenders who wanted to run away from batting.:--D

[Guest HariSampath]

You obviously haven't seen much of Sachin. I can recall atleast two instances off the top of my head where he walked when the umpire was still thinking. One being in Pakistan on the 2006 tour(2nd test) and the other one being caught off Kallis by Boucher at Mumbai in 1st test in 2000 when he made 97.

I have followed ALL of Sachin...in fact I was not referring to some occasions when he had walked. In fact the first time when I saw him standing after being so palpably caught behind was only last year in the home ODI series against Aus...all his career, he was never a walker when there was some doubt, like all Mumbai players, but at least he used to walk when he was convinced it was ridiculous to stand...it was the very first time last year I saw him stand after a very very clear nick that he obviously knew too, no way anyone can not know. My very first post at ICF was about this too, maybe I will try to dig it up :D

[Gambit]

i have watched Sachin not walking' date= after knicking a few times. in the last CB series itself once, off Lee. back in early 90's, in the kolkotta test, where Azhar hammered 187 off england, SRT was on 33 when he knicked one behind. he knicked one off Danish kaneria in mohali in 2005, did not walk.frankly too many. i am sorry if any one is hurt for what i am going to say, Bombay players never walk! most of the indian cricketeres too. rare exception- Dravid on 95 in his debut innings and may be some bowlers/tailenders who wanted to run away from batting.:--D

As have I. I'm just pointing out instances to show Hari's statement wasn't true.

[Gambit]

I have followed ALL of Sachin...in fact I was not referring to some occasions when he had walked. In fact the first time when I saw him standing after being so palpably caught behind was only last year in the home ODI series against Aus...all his career, he was never a walker when there was some doubt, like all Mumbai players, but at least he used to walk when he was convinced it was ridiculous to stand...it was the very first time last year I saw him stand after a very very clear nick that he obviously knew too, no way anyone can not know. My very first post at ICF was about this too, maybe I will try to dig it up :D

I was refuting your statement - "Not only CB series, he hasnt walked anytime in his career" by pointing out innings where he walked. And both those dismissals did not appear to be out instantly at all.

[zubinpepsi]

well, i remem sachin saying that its the umpires job to decide and hes been paid for it, so he wont walk off..

[SachDan]

I was refuting your statement - "Not only CB series' date= he hasnt walked anytime in his career" by pointing out innings where he walked. And both those dismissals did not appear to be out instantly at all.

Yeah..I remember the one in Mumbai.It was caught down the leg side while attempting a leg glance.Umpire was never gonna give that out.Still he walked that too on 97 !