Thoughts after round 1 of the NRL

I have to admit I am not feeling super excited about the NRL (yet). I dont know whether it is because I have my head down keeping an eye on the upcoming major league baseball action, or merely because the Panthers look pretty bad after round one.

Either way, I was not overwhelmed by enthusiasm following the weekend's games.

Roosters v Rabbits
This was not much of a game to watch. The Roosters laid an absolute dog-shot on Craig Wing in the 7th minute, taking him out of the game, and out of the next 7+ weeks. This really put the brakes on for Souths for a long time. The Roosters did not play a particularly flashy brand of footy, but they were effective at what they did. They took advantage of some inexperience in the Bunnies' backline and scored a number of tries from kicks. They also scored a couple of nice tries from blindside plays or set plays. Minichiello looked very good at the back, and Anasta also had a good game. The one worrying thing for the Roosters was that they seemed to clock off early. Im not sure if this was from a fitness issue, or a discipline issue, but Souths came back well at the end. Led by Isaac Luke, they took full advantage of some gaps that opened up around the ruck.

A scrappy game with no real brilliant play

Titans v Cowboys
After the Roosters v Souths game, this was much easier on the eye. Flashy, fast and frantic. There was some brilliant playmaking in this game, and a number of excellent tries. The Cowboys were not too bad, but it looked Thurston's timing was out a bit. That will return in time, and they will be a formidable opponent. But on Friday they missed too many tackles, and the Titans took full advantage. The Titans half, hooker, fullback (and 5/8) combo is very good, and they look promising for the year.

Bulldogs v Eels
I listened to this game, and it was the proverbial game of two halves. Parra were awful in the first half. The Dogs were awful in the second. Not really much more to say about that. Both sides have a lot of potential, but Parra seemed to be the stronger of the two, and went on to win . They exposed a potential weakness in the Doggies outside backs, in particular Matt Utai, who is getting on in years, and looked like a real liability under the high ball.

Manly v Cronulla
Nobody (except Sharks fans) could have given Cronulla much of a chance of winning this game. But they did, It was another scrappy affair, but they were the more disciplined, structured side. As much as I dont really like Ricky Stuart, he does coach a structured approach. Manly are going to miss Michael Monahan this year, and the pressure will be on Matt Orford to really step up and show his worth. The Eagles were made to look like geese in last years' grand final, and they really need to back up a good 07 with a good 08 to prove their worth. ,They are still not a proven force in my mind.

Newcastle v Canberra
Didnt hear or see much about this game. What can you say? Home field advantage was probably the key difference here.

Penrith v Brisbane
A disappointing start for the Panthers. Like 2007, there is a lot of promise about the team at this time of the year. Some key signings, and some good reports out of pre-season training made me optimistic about this game. I still tipped Brisbane though, and that was a good decision! Dont know how to excuse this one for Penny, Brisbane seemed to get on a real roll and we just couldnt stop it. I didnt realise some of the quality signings that Brisbane made. Peter Wallace is a decent signing playing alongside Lockyer. Joel Clinton is not much of a signing. But they also have Ashton Sims, and PJ Marsh, who are very effective impact players. Things look good for Brisbane at this stage, and if they can keep up these sorts of performances, they will be very hard to stop.

Wests v Saints
Didnt see or hear much of this one either. Sounds like the Dragons are up to their same old tricks. But possibly they just need a bit of time to gel. They are usually slow starters I think. Brownie will want them to pick up their act soon, or he might find his head on the chopping block. Wests were good, but injuries to Payton and Marshall will make things tough in weeks to come.

Melbourne v Warriors
Same old story for Melbourne here. They have had some interesting encounters with NZ in the past, but not last night. Too many errors cost NZ the game. They can certainly score points and have explosive impact, but fitness and handling issues (as always) seem to be concerns.

My rankings after round 1

1. Brisbane
2. Melbourne
3. Gold Coast
4. Wests
5. Easts
6. Parra
7. Newcastle
8. Cronulla
9. Cowboys
10. Souths
11. Bulldogs
12. Manly
13. Canberra
14. Warriors
15. Saints
16. Panthers

An open letter to a band

Dear The Living End

1998 was a long time ago now. I was still in school. I worked at McDonald's. I lived at home.

Now, I've finished school, moved into a much better job, moved out of home and am getting married. 1998 seems like so long ago. But, as I sat on the 5.31pm Central to Emu Plains limited stops service, something magical happened.

I used to love The Living End passionatley. I would listen to your albums over and over and over again. I would always rush out to buy the new albums as they came out, and I went to see you live more than 20 times. But, as I am sure you know yourself, things change; and my tastes in music have ebbed and flowed over the ten years (yes, it is almost ten years) since I first heard the sweet sounds of your band. Don't get me wrong, I think that all your albums have been great. I will admit that they are probably not as memorable or 'classic' as your first, but they have all had a decent flogging in my neck of the woods.

However, tonight - using the magic of the 'shuffle songs' feature - my iPod reminded me of just how fantastic you are. It took me back to a night when as a 17 year old I studiously waited until just the right moment to record Live at the Wireless. Fly Away was the song it chose. A song that was never a Living End stalwart, but the live performance on this occasion had everything that I loved about the band. The tempo was probably almost double that of the recorded version. The drumming was fast, frantic and furious. The guitar fills in between vocal lines were tight and sweet. The bass was drubbing, and the vocals were raw and to the point. All of a sudden so many memories came back to me. I remember listening to this song many times when I thought the world was against me as a 17 year old. I remember thinking 'should I stay or fly away'. I remember smiling in awe of the pure talent that the song captured.

Sitting there on the dirty, lonely train, after a tough day and week at work, this moment of solitude with a band I loved was something special. It made a shiver run down my spine. I love when that happens.

If that wasn't enough, just two songs later my wise iPod chose to play a live version of Prisoner of Society from the Channel V bus in 2005. This was a psychotic gig with thousands of people screaming along, invading the stage and just being MENTAL!!!! Again I had a shiver run down my spine.

While I might not listen to as much TLE as I used to, we had something special and always will :)

So thanks. It is amazing just how powerful an effect a piece of music can have on you.

High end sets - the thorn in the player collector's side?

Being a player collector, I want to collect as many of my chosen player’s cards as possible. For many players, this would be a pretty much impossible task that would be take forever, and cost an arm and a leg. For instance, searching all sets for Alex Rodriguez on beckett.com brings up a whopping 10681 items. Since A-Rod is such a superstar, this is not really unexpected. He is probably in just about every insert set since 1995, and of course, Topps gave him a whole 500+ cards last year with their road to 500 set.

Since I am neither a billionaire, or a Yankees fan, I don’t bother with him. But, I still have favorite players. Take Kevin Kouzmanoff. He might not have the stardom or the power that A-Rod has, but he had a hot bat in the minors, hit a grandslam in his first MLB at bat, and had a good run late in 07 - right about when I was getting interested in cards again.

Back in August 2007, beckett.com showed the Kouz as having about 250 cards. Today, there are 421 of them. 98 of the extras are found in the UD Exquisite Collection Rookie Signatures set which retails for about $300US. Are they 98 exciting different variations? Are they a continuity set, or a sub set? No. They are boring parallels.

Take for instance the Exquisite Ensembles tri-signed card. You have the 'normal' card numbered to 35 and shown below:
Then you have the parallel numbered to 3:

Aside from the not-so-good pic, there isnt much difference is there?

And then of course the is the mandatory 1 of 1 of the same card. (no scan available as i havent seen it pop up on ebay yet)

This kind of annoys me. Essentially these are the same card, with the only difference being a serial number added by UD.

Next up we have the patch cards:

Numbered to 199

Numbered to 99

And....numbered to 25 (looking at $300US for this baby).

While there are some noticeable differences in these cards, the artificial rareness is just insane. The fact that people will pay significantly more for these short numbered parallels really annoys me, and I will be surprised if these cards maintain that sort of value over time. Especially when in the last ten years there have been more than 400,000 memorabilia cards made!

Another annoyance is when UD put 'regular players' (if you want to call them that) on the same card as superstars. Take for instance the Ripken All Rookie set:

This card, featuring Hall-of-Famer Cal Ripken Jr, and a heck-of-a-long-way-from-being-a-hall-of-famer Kevin Kouzmanoff, and numbered to 8, recently went for more than $200 on ebay! This is a real kick in the teeth Kouzmanoff collectors. How could we justify spending more than $200 for that card? It is very difficult. Ripken collectors (of which there are probably many many more, and therefore statistically more likely to include people willing to pay big bucks for this sort of thing) would probably not be all that enamoured by this sort of card. However, those completists out there would cough up anyway.

This sort manufactured rarity and importance is a real shame (and a sham!). I dont see why the card companies do things this way. I guess they want to make sure that people who bust expensive product always get something with some sort of re-sale-ability. But surely there has to be a better way?

Movie Review - Cloverfield

This is the ticket to the best movie of the year so far:

Actually, Cloverfield could well turn out to be the best movie of 2008.

Cloverfield is more than a movie. It is an experience. A ride. A gripping, edge of your seat, in your face adrenaline shot. It is must see stuff. Walking out of the cinema after it ended I was elated. My heart was pumping, I had a grin from ear to ear and I just wanted more. Not many movies make you feel that way.

If you had seen any previews of Cloverfield, you will have a rough idea of what it is about. Some unknown thing attacks New York, the whole event is filmed by a bunch of twentysomethings, and the film is found by the Department of Defense in the area 'formerly known as Central Park'. The movie poster gives a bit of a taste of what to expect:

So yes, Cloverfield is a monster movie. But it is done a bit differently to the typical monster movie, and it is done extremely well. The film is shot in the 'Blair Witch' style, and it is all about really putting the audience in the middle of the action. As a monster movie, Cloverfield is pretty good. But it is the immersive way that it is shot that makes it special. Some people have found the handheld camera technique offputting (and I have to admit that generally I dont like it myself, but in this case it was very effective), and the lack of any real soundtrack is something different. But the whole thing makes for a totally real, believable experience.

The movie does a fantastic job of capturing the chaos, confusion and fear that would be felt in the face a large scale disaster. Some reviewers have panned the characters as being stupid, and without commonsense, and others have said that the movie really highlights a self centred obsession apparently present in "generation Y". Yes, I agree that the decision made by Rob - the main character - to go back into the middle of the chaos to try and save his one true love was ridiculous, stupid and against all comm sense. However, this is a movie, and some degree of artistic licence has to be granted. Apart from this stupid decision though, I think that the characters behave in a very realistic way. In such a terrifying, chaotic nightmare as the situation in Cloverfield, I dont think too many people would be sitting around considering their options. They would definitely be trying to get the heck out of the city ASAP, and would do as they were told by the police/military/whoever was running the show.

The handheld camera technique is done impressively. Luckily, I was not one of the people who got seasick while watching the movie. Again, some reviewers have criticised the film for being unrealistic in that Hud - the cameraman goes to outrageous lengths to film in all situations. I disagree. There are plenty of situations where we only get to see what is going on because he puts the camera down. What really works well is that the handheld perspective really makes you feel like you are there. When our protagonists are running through a leaning building, it really feels like they are on an uneven surface. When they are in a helicopter plummeting to earth, it really feels like you are in the chopper alongside them. I literally found myself looking for a way out of the chopper. In this regard, Cloverfield is really like one of those 'virtual reality' rides they have at theme parks.

Some monster/disaster movies leave you feeling unsatisfied, if you dont get a real good look at the monster. That is not the case in Cloverfield. You get many up close and personal shots of the great beast, and the special effects are first class. I think it is a real art to have such great special effects while using the handheld camera technique

Where Cloverfield is not satisfying is that it just leaves you wanting more. You want to know what happened with the monster. What happened with the characters? Who got out? Based on the fact that we are watching footage that has been found by the Department of Defense, you can assume at least that they were able to get back into the city and do some sort of clean up. But did they kill the monster? Who knows. There has been already talk that there may be a Cloverfield 2, and that this could take the form of being an alternate view taken and recorded by someone else in the city at the same time. I am not sure what I think about this at this point. I think it has potential, but I would hope that it is done as well as this movie.

One cool thing though is that if you are interested, there is an absolutely massive online community around Cloverfield. I had no idea about this 'viral marketing' that had been underway. But it seems that producer JJ Abrams crafted a very detailed, complex alternate reality to promote the movie. Each of the main characters had myspace pages, and there are fictional companies with websites that dont seem to relate directly to the movie. Many people have spent many hours analysing all these viral marketing things, and it seems some were disappointed that the movie was not more relevant to the alternate reality stuff. Im not too keen on getting sucked into that stuff too much, but it is interesting to read about.

The Good

Everything!

The Bad

Nothing

Score

Ten out of Ten. Will watch again and again and again.

Me First and the Gimme Gimmes - 19 Jan 08

Me First and the Gimme Gimmes are a bloody awesome band. Is there really anything else to say? I dont think so. They would have to be one of the funnest, happiest, cleverest and talented bands I have had the good fortune of seeing. How anyone could go to a Gimmes show and not have a good time I simply cannot fathom. So when I headed off to the Manning Bar to see them last night, I knew I was gonna be in for an awesome show. I caught them twice when they played here in 2003, and they were amazing. Their latest album Love Their Country, is fantastic, so I could not pass up the chance to go see them live.

Supporting act Yidcore were unexpectedly good. Like the Gimmes, they were very entertaining, and quite funny. Their cover of Wind Beneath My Wings was a highlight, and I have since found out that they actually recorded an entire cover album of Fiddler on the Roof. That's cool. And when the singer carries around a rubber chicken, and the guitarists dress like this:
you cant go wrong. I will have to try and listen to some more of their stuff, they were good.

The Gimmes came on about 10.30, and from go to whoa they were first class. Every one of them, even part-time members Eric Melvin and Fake Jackson, were fantastic. Joey had a disgusting handlebar moustahce, and Melvin's 'ball brusher' was a constant source of jokes. I was a bit surprised to see Melvin playing bass, I had thought he would play guitar and Scott would play bass, but I guess Scott is a better guitarist.

The set list was:

• Country Road


• All My Loving


• Favorite Things


• Mandy


• On the Road Again


• Much Too Young (To Feel This Damn Old)


• Goodbye Earl


• Summertime


• Over the Rainbow


• Jolene


• Science Fiction Double Feature


• Me and Julio Down by the Schoolyard


• Rainbow Connection


• Desperado


• On the Run


• Sloop John B


• Isnt She Lovely


• Stairway to Heaven (with Lindsay from Frenzal on guitar)


• I Believe I Can Fly


• Sunday Morning Coming Down


• ENCORE: Blowin in the Wind and Danny's Song

All in all it was a sweet set. I was hanging out for Sunday Morning Coming Down, and it was the perfect track to play before the encore. The sound quality was awesome, the banter was funny, and the crowd really got into pretty much every song. I could not fault the show. Everything about it was awesome. I wish I had have gone to see them both nights they were in Sydney.

I love this band.

Movie Review - American Gangster

Exactly how much truth is in American Gangster is the subject of much conjecture. A whole bunch of ex-cops have sued the film's producers for defamation, as a significant part of the film, which is supposedly 'based on a true story', involves exploring issues of corrupt police. There have been further claims that much of the material regarding Lucas' mode of operating have also been drawn into question. Regardless of how much truth there is in the film, it is an interesting and impressive work.

American Gangster tells the story of how Frank Lucas grew to be an incredibly successful drug dealer in Harlem in the 1960s and 1970s. Using a new model of cutting out the middle man, Lucas purchases heroin direct from the opium fields in Asia and sells it on the street. Lucas is portrayed as a strong willed chap who has a sense of some sort of social justice. He learnt a lot of his trade from his old boss 'Bumpy' Johnson, who was also heavily involved in organised crime. 'Bumpy' laments early in the piece that the sense of community in Harlem has eroded, and no one looks after each other anymore. It is interesting then, that Lucas is somewhat inspired to look after himself, his family, and his community, by selling heroin in the neighbourhood.

Washington outshines Crowe in American Gangster Image; Universal

Washington is very smooth as Lucas. He captures a real passive-aggressiveness, and manages to bring some sense of morality and care to what is on face value a hard headed, uncaring, greedy character. In fact, Lucas as played by Washington is almost likeable. His scheme for importing the drugs, and his system of distribution and sale is impressive. He is thoughtful, he understands people, and he looks after his family. These are all good things. However, lurking below the surface is a sinister side, and Lucas is at times very brutal in his work.

Meanwhile, a young do-gooder cop named Richie Roberts, played by Russell Crowe, has been appointed to the federal drug teams trying to break the flourishing drug trade. Crowe's performance is not as slick as Washington's, but he certainly seems to fit into the era very well. Roberts has a chip on his shoulder, as his ex-partner OD's on Lucas' 'Blue Magic'. Roberts, and seemingly the entire law enforcement community, has no idea who is distributing Blue Magic, and the story follows Roberts' investigations which eventually bring down Lucas.

American Gangster is a very good story. Lucas and Roberts are very interesting characters, with lots of tensions internally, and also between themselves. Lucas can seem kind and caring, but also hard, violent and cocky. Roberts is a very dedicated to his work, but is a hopeless family man. He also faces difficulty within the police, as corrupt officers (or at least 'not quite as honest' officers) do not trust him, and are openly hostile towards him.

The scenery and sounds of this movie are great. While I was not around in 1970s Harlem, the film seems to portray a very real picture. The sound in the movie is incredible, one of my favorite things about the movie. There is good use of music and the environments really come to life with good attention to detail. Cars, trains, people, all sound great, and you really feel like you are in the middle of it all. Also, the scenes from the far East are well done, portraying the hustle and the bustle of Bangkok (I think) and also the contrasting peacefulness and beauty of the opium fields.

Something that I was not a huge fan of in this movie was a lot of the up close, in your face scenes of heroin use. I suppose you have to expect a bit of it in a movie like this, but it seemed to get to a point where it was just too much. If you are squeamish, you probably wont enjoy the scenes of people pulling the belt tight over their arm. But this sort of disturbing, confronting image lends depth to the character of Lucas and the dark world he inhabits.

American Gangster is a long movie. But it is the sort of movie where you dont realise how much time has gone by. It covers a few years, and really draws you in to the story. Some people have compared it to the Godfather, and I think it is a fair comparison. There are certainly some parallels between Frank Lucas and Don Corleone. The supporting cast do a very good job of creating the feeling of 'the family' and the tensions between rival gangs. I think that comparisons to the Godfather are probably more appropriate to this film, than comparisons to Frank Lucas' real life. The film is apparently inspired by an interview with Frank Lucas from 2000. In reading this article, you get the sense that Lucas is not really much like the Denzel version. It is apparent that Lucas enjoyed the infamy that his story brought him, and thus you have to wonder how much truth there is to it.

Overall, this was a very entertaining movie. The performances are strong, and the story is very good - who cares if it is true or not. I think that 'thought-provoking' is not quite the right description, but American Gangster does make you think a bit. There are a lot of ethical questions involved in the way Lucas does his business and in Roberts' approach to his career, and there are questions of what is the greater good what is really important in life?

The Good

The story, the acting, the scenery.

The Bad

The in your face scenes of heroin use, Russell Crowe's US accent (at times)

Score

8 out of 10. It will probably win some Oscars, and is certainly an entertaining movie.

Fallout from the Second Test

Wow, what a game of cricket. Five days of sport, two very evenly matched teams going head to head, generating almost as many headlines as runs! The racism claims, the debate over whether one should walk or not, the poor umpiring, and the abysmal over rate all combined to create a fever pitch atmosphere on the last day of play in the second test of the four test series between India and Australia at the SCG yesterday. Australia ended up winning on the day, but the fallout of the test will linger for a while. There were claims of racism, poor umpiring led India to seek the sacking of Steve Bucknor, there were accusations of poor sportsmanship. Many people have claimed that the Australian's policy of not walking is cheating. Meanwhile, India at first threatened to pull out of the rest of the tour and then spent two hours sitting on their bus while Anil Kumble supposedly held 'crisis talks' with management.

All of this fuss over a game of cricket.

What was so special about it all? Relations between the Australian and Indian teams have been festering somewhat since Australia's tour of India in October 2007. Australia won the series of seven one day internationals, while India convincingly won a one-off Twenty20 International. But it was not the cricket that made the headlines in that series, it was the controversial 'monkey chants' that greeted Andrew Symonds at various grounds, and some intense confrontation between the players on the field and in the media.

After India's underwhelming performance in Melbourne, the first two days of this test seemed promising. There was potency in some of India's bowling, there were runs scored by Laxman and Tendulkar, and the Australians seemed a bit uncomfortable. Hovering over all this was the fervent media discussion of Ricky Ponting's attempts to lead Australia to a record 16th straight Test win.

Australia entered the fifth day 215 runs ahead of India, with six wickets in hand. There was much conjecture over what the day would entail. Would Australia try and slog the ball early and declare quickly to get the win? Would they play it safe and look for the draw by batting as long as possible? The one thing that seemed clear was that India's chances of winning the game were very slim.

What eventuated, thanks in large part to Ricky Ponting's somewhat brave decision to save the declaration until shortly before lunch, was an enthralling, gripping end to what was an incredible match. Australia batted slowly in the morning sessions, and it was not until the session before lunch that the bats really started to swing. Gilchrist, Hogg and Lee all fell cheaply while trying to increase the scoring rate, and Ponting declared shortly before lunch, leaving India 331 to score in something like 90 overs (the number of overs itself was incredible and would have taken until 9 or 10pm to complete).

India, led bravely and stoically by Anil Kumble hung on until the very end. Kumble played a tough, brave innings, and for a while he received excellent support from the needle in Australia's side - Harbhajan Singh. It was not until part time spinner Michael Clark was brought into the attack that things started to go awry. With seven wickets down, and only a few overs left in the days play, Clark came on and took three wickets in one over to spell the end for India, and give Australia an unassailable 2-0 lead in the 4 test series.

Image taken from SMH.com.au

Monday morning, and the headlines are rife with controversy following the match. Right through lunch time they have continued to pour out. Firstly, Harbhajan was suspended for 3 matches following an ICC hearing on Sunday night. Then India made counterclaims that Brad Hogg had called an Indian player a 'bastard'. There were claims that India would fly home, abandoning the series. Ricky Ponting's integrity was called into question, and then he responded angrily. Ex-players weighed into the debates about sportsmanship and cheating. There certainly was something special about this game.

The fact is, it did raise some very interesting and contentious issues regarding racism, sportsmanship and drawing the line regarding what is acceptable and what is unacceptable.

Much of the controversy has surrounded the claims of racism, and Harbhajan's suspension for directing a racist word towards Andrew Symonds. India then made claims that Brad Hogg labelled an Indian a 'bastard'. Against the backdrop of the accusations levelled towards Indian crowds on the recent Australian tour, the tension between the two teams could not be higher. But it is the age old question, should what is said on the field be left on the field? Many people have pointed out that Australia has a history of being very good at sledging, whether by use of racism or otherwise, and as such they say that Australia's complaints in this instance smack of hypocrisy.

It is a tough call as to whether this sort of incident should be left on the field or not. Ultimately, the ICC has decided that racist comments are out of bounds, and the match referee has determined that Harbhajan's comment was a breach of the code of conduct. For this reason, one cannot really argue with the decision to suspend him. I don't want to condone racism, but it is disappointing though.


Greg Baum, writing for the Sydney Morning Herald outlines the history of the use of the word 'monkey' as a racist taunt. I have to agree with Baum though, that really this matter should have been sorted out on the fields, with the umpires instructing Harbhajan to pull his head in. I think it really is arguable that the term 'monkey', in the context of the cricket game, and all the circumstances, at best has a very weak connection with racism. I can't speak for Andrew Symonds, but surely he is big enough and nasty enough to handle the situation? It is hardly a case where Symonds has been disadvantaged or mistreated as a result of Harbhajan's actions. In fact, at the end of the day, Australia won the match.

Things were shaping up very nicely for the rest of the series. Harbhajan has a remarkably abrasive effect on the Aussies, and this is highlighted by Pontings lacklustre performances agaisnt him in recent times. Harbhajan does not seem to be the sort of fella that would back down from a fight, and he was a real talisman for India in the first two tests. It is sad that he will miss the rest of the series. Unless of course India appeal the decision.

And then there is the issue of walking and the sportsmanship of owning up to dropped catches. Adam Gilchrist has long been known as a 'walker'. Many other high profile players though are not. In this match, Andrew Symonds, Michael Clark, Ponting, and Sourav Ganguly all stood their ground after appeals had been made. Andrew Symonds caused quite a stir when he came out and said he knew he was out when India appealed for a catch when he was on 30, but he stood his ground, was not given out, and went on to make more than 150 runs.

Many people (both Indian and Australian) have labelled this as 'cheating'. I think this is an unfair, but perhaps not inaccurate, assessment. To 'cheat' is generally to use deception or some other misleading conduct to derive personal gain. 'Cheating' could be interpreted more broadly than this, or more narrowly to mean 'breaking the rules'. On this narrow basis, the actions of the 'non-walkers' is definitely not cheating. The rules of cricket do not place any obligation on a batsman to walk if he 'knows he is out'. In fact 'knowing he is out' is a bit of a misnomer, when he cannot be out until ruled out by an umpire.

Should batsmen have to walk? There is no requirement to do so at present, but should they 'be good sports' and do it anyway? It could be said that not walking sets a bad example and that, as role models to children, cricketers should set high standards of ethical conduct. However, there is merit also in children understanding different roles people hold, and the way systems of rules and discipline work. Under this view, batsmen should allow the umpire to make their decision, and should not walk. While I understand that some think it is unfair that a batsman who knows he (or she) is out should not have to walk, I think that he (or she) should leave it to the umpire to make the decision. What goes around comes around, and you only have to review Ricky Ponting's dismissal in the first innings (a very dodgy LBW) to see how things go around.

There is a lot at stake in an international cricket match these days. Leaving it to the goodwill of the players is a risky business. India and Australia apparently had a 'gentleman's agreement' that each side would take the other's word regarding questionable catches in this series. However, barely a day after the second test Anil Kumble questioned the honesty and integrity of the Australia's in respect of some close catches. This highlights the difficulties when the players become involved in the decision making. India were certainly not innocent of some attempts to manage the remaining time, and thus Kumble's comments have to be taken with a grain of salt.

If the ICC determines that the game would be better if batsmen walked, then so be it. But until then, I think it is the 'walkers' who are the ones playing outside the rules. Sure they might have higher standards of ethics, but this is not an ethics competition. It is a cricket match.

Image taken from SMH.com.au

There is a much used phrase that something is 'just not cricket'. After the Second Test, a re-working might be appropriate - 'it is not just about cricket'. It is about so much more than that. And it is a shame that so much attention has been devoted to these other issues, overshadowing some first class cricket from the likes of Tendulkar, Laxman, Lee and Symonds, and leaving the rest of the series to be a dead rubber.