Parkinson's recent interview ends on a bright note:See Cricinfo - 'Cricket's taken too seriously now'

Interesting stuff.

I like Michael Parkinson, not because of his fame or what he does on television, but because he's a cricket fanatic and when I'm at my parents house he always gives us a wave as he goes by in his beautiful slipper launch! Nothing like a bit of name dropping eh?

He also wrote an interesting introduction to Dickie Birds autobiography.

Can't say I agree with him on walking though, however noble and moral it might be, that's what umpires are for - to take decisions. Why make it easy for them? As far as I'm concerned, not walking when you 'think' you're out simply makes up for the times when you get a bad decision and every player gets bad decisions at some point or another, or at least a marginal one that goes against you.

I certainly don't see it as 'cheating' per se, simply playing the game by the RULES that everyone else has to adhere to, how can that be cheating? The rules are there for everyone.

I actually have a problem with those players who do walk strangely enough as I beleive they're doing it to their advantage. Some clearly don't but many do. If they walk on straight forward simple decisions and on more simple marginal ones, they build up a reputation with umpires for being a 'walker' and the umpires know who those players are. Given an important match situation and a marginal decision and they choose NOT to walk, that can prey on the umpires mind in giving the decision favourably towards them, knowing them to be 'walkers'.

Now that really is cheating in my opinion.

So I'd rather ALL players waited for the umpire decision then no-one can accuse anyone of duplicity.

The camp is split between those who think walking is a good thing (me and Parky) and those who don't (Scott not being alone as earlier discussions here make quite clear). I'll respect both opinions on this, even while disagreeing with one of them. I don't agree with the argument that standing your ground when you know you are out is not cheating, however. That flies in the face of the word of the Laws and the application of logic.

The Laws are pretty clear on this: you ARE out if you are bowled, or caught, or run out. The Laws say so, and the umpire's word on the matter is irrelevant. The point on appeals is that the umpire cannot give a batsman out unless an appeal is made. But if the batsman knows he hit the ball on its way to the keeper then, assuming he knows the word of the Law (and he should), he knows he is out. And if he knows he is out and stands his ground, he is cheating. That's the word of the Law and the application of logic, and it's unarguable as far as I see it.

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

As a player, i will be happy to start walking. But first, i want to stop being given out by crappy LBW decisions......

That's never going to happen, so i am never going to walk. If cricket was my career and my 7 figure paychecks were on the line, i would'nt risk that by walking no matter what...

__________________
The thought police are everywhere..............

As someone who bats and bowls I can see it both ways. That said, I NEVER walk. Too often I get caught behind and plumb lbw decisions not given my way as a bowler so why should I give the opposition those decisions when I'm batting? Some would argue that makes me as bad as those who openly cheat, sorry about that.

Well i don't subscribe to that Notts. How many times do you see the cordon go up for an appeal when they think they heard a nick (when the batsman missed it) or a bowler get an LBW, when it hit the batsman outside the line of off-stump?

Batsmen get shafted all the time in cricket, and even if they don't get shafted, there are so many legitimate ways they can get out. The last thing they should be doing is walking when they finally get a little bit of luck...

__________________
The thought police are everywhere..............