Adam Gilchrists "crusade"

[Goatman]

Having just read Flemings comments on Gilchrist's "crusade" I'd thought I should just pop by and voice my unwaivering support for Gilchrist, in all circumstances. I am inclined to believe that Ponting is totally right in saying that Gilchrist is a fair minded man, who respects other people right not to walk if they don't want to. However, even if he was on a one man crusade I would give him all the respect possible for doing so.

The world of cricket would be all the better for more people with the integrity of Adam Gilchrist.

[BlueyM]

I have to agree with Goatman.

While I personally do not favour a batsman walking, I respect those that do, and I believe that Adam Gilchrist' only "crusade" is to bring back gentlemanly and sporting behaviour to International cricket.

There have been any number of foul mouthed and boorish players (from many countries) that have slowly brought the game into disrepute over the years, and for the life of me, I fail to understand why one player who is attempting to restore some dignity to the game, is being slammed in the media.

I applaud Gilchrist's stance.

[Zainub]

We all have a conscience, don't we? But how many of us actually bother listening to it? Only a few, Gilo is one of them, I'm afraid though, that at the highest level of this game he is alone. And that for me is an unfortunate reality. One I frequently regret. His practice of walking is a rare act of straightforward gamesmanship that being frank is otherwise totally unseen and unheard of in international sport now-a-days. I disagree with Fleming, I know that for them, and for others playing at this level, cricket is a source of livelihood, but I still I don't believe, and wouldn't for all the money in the world that doing the right thing can ever let you down. I under stand it up to individuals to decide if they want to walk or not, but saying I won't walk because if I do, I might lose my job, that's not true, and for the greater sends out the wrong messages to any young cricketer following the game. Walking should be encouraged, not discouraged, after all cricket would be a lot better off if people listened to their conscience more often. I know Mike Atherton will say pigs won't fly, but If McGrath can make a test match 50, after 103 test matches, there is no reason why I can't hope for a time when we're not as unfortunate as we are today where only one test cricketer is an acclaimed walker. Allan Border perhaps will argue that hypocrisy is alive, but something is better than nothing, and each small step will make a difference.

[Chuck Palumbo]

Its alright Gilchrist saying he always walks when he is averaging 40+ and his place is always secure in the team but for some others like Mcmillan whos place in the team is under scrutiny its not so straightforward.

I say that the umpires are paid to make decisions and batsman paid to make runs and it should always be like that.

[Zainub]

Gilchrist actually averages 60 plus. But that's not the point, is it? I'm a beleiver that honesty is the best policy. And it was proved in the Brisbane test match ...McMillan got out the very next delivery anway...so standing his ground didn't pay off, and Gilo had the last laugh. I'm convinced that walking is the right thing do to. And umpires for the greater part also appreciate walkers, because it makes their job easier.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Chuck Palumbo

I say that the umpires are paid to make decisions and batsman paid to make runs and it should always be like that.

I agree with all of this, you could be wrong walking, but in any case, players have been given out who know they never got that touch, or knew the LBW was iffy.

Umpires are the officials, not the players, and over the span of a player career decisions will even themselves out.

Ern

[Zainub]

[size=2]

Originally Posted by BBC Sport Acedemy, Cricket: Rules: Ettiqutte[/size

] Cricket has always been seen as the gentleman's game - and that means there are certain traditions of the game which must be respected. The Academy takes you through the etiquette. Walk when you're out. Sadly this is a tradition that has gone out of the game at the highest level. But there'll be times when you know you've got an edge through to the wicketkeeper that the umpire's missed. But whether you own up and walk is your decision.

I'm fine with people not walking, because I respect their right not to, although admitedly I'll put in an effort to convince them that its the better thing to do. But end of the day, I'm still fine with non-walkers, because ultimately they are entitled under the laws of the game to do so. Although I'm not fine with people discouraging it, and people calling those few who walk hypocrites. I think people should walk because that's the right thing do to. It's not about devaluing or disrespecting the umpire's decesion, umpires, namely David Shephard, appreciated and welcomed walkers, they don't find it an insult.

[vvvrulz]

I very much support the decision made by Gilchrist to walk, it adds a new dimension of sportsmanship to the game. I recall Inzamam walking agaisnt India in one of those critical test matches during this year's series, I applauded him for leading from the front, If you know you're out for sure, then why stick around?

Of course, those that don't walk should not be put under any scrutiny, I for one never walked in my short club career.

[Beny]

Its a sad reflection on humaity that Umpires need exsist at all. We can't trust those involved to do the right thing and so we have to pay grandpa to officiate.

[vvvrulz]

Well some calls are genuinely hard to make from a players point of view. LBW's and such.