Gilchrist, walking, appealing and sportsmanship

[netmatrix]

OK, after watching Gilchrist's appeals behind the stumps over the years, this has been bugging me for a while. But I decided to give Gilchrist the benefit of the doubt and believed that Gilchrist was an all round good sportsman and bloke. Until today.

Everyone loves to talk it up about how Gilchrist is such a great sportsman because he is a "walker". He's just living off that one incident in 2003. I reckon nearly everyone has walked once in their career. Even Yuvraj did today.

Let's face it, Lara started walking much earlier than Gilchrist ever did, but you don't see everyone bring that up every time this debate comes up do you?

And today, two blatant cases where Gilchrist demonstrated that he is no different to the non-walkers.

First the Dravid appeal. Besides Dravid, Gilchrist would have had the second best view in the ground about whether that hit the bat or not. I need not say no more as I'm sure most of you have seen the incident.

Next, the appeal for Dhoni, that was referred to the thrid umpire. Replays showed that it clearly bounced before Gilchrist. There was even a puff of dust from the bounce. And here's what Cricinfo had to say about the incident:

55.2 Hogg to Dhoni, no run, loud appeal for a catch off the boot, Bucknor walks across to Benson and asks for the third umpire, Dhoni came on to the front foot and tried to drive, he got an inside edge into the ground near the heel of the front boot, it then bounced towards Gilchrist who appealed for the catch

Some of you guys are going to say that walking is not the same as appealing. You're right, but isn't the central principle of walking, sportsmanship?

They say that walkers who walk when it suits them are worse than non-walkers. I agree and I think the same thing can be applied to sportsmanship.

They say that you see the true side of sportsman when the pressure is on. Today Australia was pushing desperately for a victory. I think we saw the true side of Gilchrist today.

 

[sideshowtim]

Poor thread. First of all, Yuvraj hit the bloody cover off the ball, of course he's gonna walk in that situation. The situation in 2003 was different as the umpire gave it not out yet Gilly walked...

Now onto you criticising him for the appeals. Both of those incidents, live, looked very, very close and were worth a shout. It's easy to call him a cheat when we have the benefit of incredibly slow motion replays and can thus make our minds up based on that. Gilchrist doesn't have that benefit.

 

[LaConnect]

I agree 100% that this team does not give a damn about sportsmanship. They care about one thing: winning the match. I do not like it. I used to barrack for the Australian team, but I can't stand the arrogance and poor sportsmanship. It's a disgrace. Watch a replay of the catch Ponting appealed for when fielding at bat-pad today, when the ball hit the ground in his hand (making it not a catch, even if it had been hit.) He looked like he was about to throw a tantrum.

Symonds cheated. Michael Clarke cheated. Gilchrist cheated. What great role models and ambassadors for the game.

When the heat was on, they sacrificed the game of cricket for the win. Enough already.

I'm a sad aussie barracking for India in the final 2 matches.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Haha, how many new members have we gotten over the last 5 days? Crazy stuff.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I suspect Gilchrist had a pretty good idea Dravid hadn't touched the ball, his looked a reactive appeal triggered by everyone else going up to me & he even shaped to take the bails off before joining in, but can you really crucify a bloke for asking a question? He'd taken the ball cleanly so was entitled to ask the question. The umpire dropped a bollock, pure & simple.

Punter & Clarke on dodgier ground IMHO. There's absolutely no way Ponting could've been 100% sure he hadn't grassed that catch, depsite his assertions to the contrary & Clarke's didn't look too flash from the camera behind the slips either. It made it look as if it bounced up, but as we know cameras are notoriously fallible in such cases so if the square-leg ump okayed it we should accept it.

 

[silentstriker]

I have no problem with him asking a question. But this is the same thing as walking/not walking. I am not sure why he walks when he has edged the ball but wants to get other people out when he knows they haven't edged it? It's up to the umpires to judge, not the players. I have no problems with appeals, but I don't really think of him as a paragon of virtue either. It's a bit of back-handed move too...walking a lot and building up a reputaiton, and then appealing for clear not outs. But hey, if it helps his team, I don't mind it. Umpires should decide, not the players.

 

[tendulkar]

i know everyone has seen it but honestly, have a look again. @ around 2:50

http://youtube.com/watch?v=z125uLHDlUU

how could gilchrist possibly appeal for that?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Nah, I don't reckon it's the same as walking. Somewhat related, but fairly different IMO.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I have no problem with him asking a question. But this is the same thing as walking/not walking. I am not sure why he walks when he has edged the ball but wants to get other people out when he knows they haven't edged it? It's up to the umpires to judge, not the players. I have no problems with appeals, but I don't really think of him as a paragon of virtue either. It's a bit of back-handed move too...walking a lot and building up a reputaiton, and then appealing for clear not outs. But hey, if it helps his team, I don't mind it. Umpires should decide, not the players.

I've always been of the opinion walkers are potentially slitting their own throats, but it is their perogative I suppose. Selectively walking is more of a problem, which is why I found Sangakarra's headshake in the 1st innings of our 3rd test a bit disappointing, however sanctimonious that makes me sound.

WRT Gilchrist I think it's probable he thought Dravid hadn't edged it, but as all his teammantes had gone up he joined in almost out of instinct. It would be a weak umpire who was influence by Gilchrist's reputation as a walker when it came to claiming a catch.

 

[vic_orthdox]

WRT Gilchrist I think it's probable he thought Dravid hadn't edged it, but as all his teammantes had gone up he joined in almost out of instinct. It would be a weak umpire who was influence by Gilchrist's rpeutation as a wlaker when it came to claiming a catch.

Bingo.

 

[silentstriker]

I've always been of the opinion walkers are potentially slitting their own throats, but it is their perogative I suppose. Selectively walking is more of a problem, which is why I found Sangakarra's headshake in the 1st innings of our 3rd test a bit disappointing, however sanctimonious that makes me sound.

Agreed.

WRT Gilchrist I think it's probable he thought Dravid hadn't edged it, but as all his teammantes had gone up he joined in almost out of instinct.

I don't really buy that. He had a pretty clear view. He knew for sure but appealed anyway. Again, I am not blaming him. Most people appeal, as they should. It's the umpire's job, not his.

 

[shortpitched713]

I am not sure why he walks when he has edged the ball but wants to get other people out when he knows they haven't edged it?

He wants to help correct the inflated batting averages of the past 6-7 years, that crusader him.

 

[Majin]

i know everyone has seen it but honestly, have a look again. @ around 2:50

http://youtube.com/watch?v=z125uLHDlUU

how could gilchrist possibly appeal for that?

Don't have a problem with him appealing for it, you see people appeal for that sort of thing quite often, just highlights the shoddy umpiring when you consider that earlier in the video you saw Bucknor somehow manage to miss a pretty blatantly obvious edge from Symonds that could only have come off the bat and was apparently even heard by the crowd and not give it out, yet he gave that Gilchrist caught behind appeal out when the bat was nowhere near it and the flick of the pad was barely audible. Just terrible umpiring.

 

[Anil]

as for appealing on dubious grounds, every team does it including india...i have no basic problems with australia doing it, it was just pathetic umpiring that ruined india's day...and i agree to the point that it is hypocritical of gilchrist to hold himself up as the symbol of sportsmanship when he participates in these kind of acts...

 

[ozone]

Possibly agree that Gilchrist gets a lot of credit for one particular incident when others (e.g. Lara) have been walking for years, but it's definately different from appealing. AMB, every country in the world appeals when they know that its not out (including India) but it isn't there fault for appealing if it is given. Sometimes plumb LBWs or catches behind are given not out when they clearly are and so it evens itself up over time. The fact is, India have had some shocking decisions in this test (as have Australia, TBH) and umpiring is in the spotlight more than ever.

Plus, you can't single out Gilchrist over the Dravid thing because I reckon everyone around the bat new it wasn't out except for Mark Benson.

 

[Ikki]

Nope. Much different and I don't think he was being dishonest about appealing at all. I don't think he is 100% certain on every ball he catches but I think it a natural reaction to go up when the ball is that close to the bat and it goes past the batsman.

Watching the decisions again, it really pisses you off. I don't apologise as an Aussie fan, because it was not our doing, but as a Cricket fan I feel very sorry for India. I really don't wish these blunders on any test nation.

 

[jeevan]

Gilchrist hasnt asked to be put on a pedestal. Walking is just his shtick, as trust-the-fielder is Ponting's. Just another trick to work the system.

If you, incl the umpire, factor this in favorably in any situation - then you're the sucker.

 

[Richard]

No-one should appeal, even when merely "joining-in" with team-mates, if they genuinely think it's not out IMO, but did Gilchrist do this here? I don't think him a man of dubious integrity, so I have to doubt it.

 

[Julian87]

FFS walking is a batsman's choice. My own opinion is why walk when every now and then you will get given out caught behind off the pad or LBW when you nicked it?

 

[Richard]

Because then you've every right to make a fuss when you get said bad decision. (And maybe if more people do, the damn stuff will get sorted sooner)

If you don't walk, you don't.