Gilchrist, walking, appealing and sportsmanship

[Slow Love™]

Haven't got much to say on this, but I do think that out of all this kerfuffle over the Aussies' behaviour, I think Gilchrist will come out of this having lost the most, in terms of goodwill.

 

[ozone]

Mate, if Gilly, from his angle, standing up to Symonds, doesn't see Dravid's bat hidden behind the pad and the ball brushing the pad instead, he is either blind as a bat or a total dishonest person. I think it is pretty obvious which one he is.

He's playing the game. The way I look at it is that sometimes you get a plumb LBW decision or blatant catch behind given not out. Not necessarily due to the batsman, due to the umpires being human and making mistakes. This is then evened up when you get a dodgy decision given and the like. The only reason these decisions have been brought up so much is that the umpires were diabollical in this game and made a lot of mistakes, all seemingly against India.

Gilchrist is not the great sportsman everyone has made him out to be, but not because of this one incident. There are hundreds of appeals made in every test series which he knows are not out (didn't hit it, sliding down leg, etc.), but because of one incident 4/5 years ago, he is worshiped as the only walker in modern cricket.

Sportsmanship in todays game should not be about whether an appeal is made when those appealing know it is not out, it should be the way in which the teams deal with the decisions made.

 

[Rollypolly1]

Gilchrist is not the great sportsman everyone has made him out to be, but not because of this one incident. There are hundreds of appeals made in every test series which he knows are not out (didn't hit it, sliding down leg, etc.), but because of one incident 4/5 years ago, he is worshiped as the only walker in modern cricket.

Precisely. He is as dishonest as they come,yet one/two instances of him walking has got certain sections of the crowd in ga-ga land. Its rather simple really- Gilly knows the art of image-building.

Sportsmanship in todays game should not be about whether an appeal is made when those appealing know it is not out, it should be the way in which the teams deal with the decisions made.

Disagree, mate. If you know it is not out and you are appealing for it, it is dishonest. Period.

 

[Ikki]

Precisely. He is as dishonest as they come,yet one/two instances of him walking has got certain sections of the crowd in ga-ga land. Its rather simple really- Gilly knows the art of image-building.

Bull-crap.

Disagree, mate. If you know it is not out and you are appealing for it, it is dishonest. Period.

Here is what Gilchrist said himself:

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/ausvind/content/current/story/329488.html

Talking about his appeal against Dravid, Gilchrist said: "There are times when you don't know. So, you ask the question. Every player has right to ask the umpire. I will say I don't appeal if I don't think they are out. If I am not sure, I will ask the umpire and I'll accept his decision."

Doesn't sound dishonest at all. In fact, it is fully respectable that he'd appeal for the reason given.

 

[ozone]

Precisely. He is as dishonest as they come,yet one/two instances of him walking has got certain sections of the crowd in ga-ga land. Its rather simple really- Gilly knows the art of image-building.

Firstly, the statement highlighted is total crap.

Secondly, I really don't think the first thing that crossed Gillys mind when he nicked that ball in the WC was 'hmm, in a few years I'll be able to appeal and then get away with any dodgy ones because they'll all think I'm really honest'.

And finally, something I really should have said before, If you can find me one player in world cricket who has never appealed for something which they thought was not out, I will eat my gall bladder.

 

[Rollypolly1]

Bull-crap.

I don't care what Gillchrist said. I've played the game long enough to KNOW that from the angle and distance Gillchrist was, NO WAY could he have missed seeing Dravid's bat hidden behind the pads and the ball brushing the pad instead. Yet he appealed for caught behind. That is as dishonest as it comes, mate. And i don't give a toss what Gillchrist has to say about it, since it is out there for everyone to see.

 

[silentstriker]

I don't care what Gillchrist said. I've played the game long enough to KNOW that from the angle and distance Gillchrist was, NO WAY could he have missed seeing Dravid's bat hidden behind the pads and the ball brushing the pad instead. Yet he appealed for caught behind. That is as dishonest as it comes, mate. And i don't give a toss what Gillchrist has to say about it, since it is out there for everyone to see.

Everyone does it.

 

[Rollypolly1]

If you can find me one player in world cricket who has never appealed for something which they thought was not out, I will eat my gall bladder.

LOL. What a non-sequitur. So you want me to find something based on what other people THOUGHT were out/not out ? What am I ? a mind-reader ?

All i am saying is simple- Gillchrist, from the angle and distance he was from the stumps (symonds bowling, Gilly up to the stumps), there is NO WAY he couldn't have seen Dravid's bat hidden behind the pad and the ball touching the pad instead of the bat. Yet he appealed. As dishonest as they come.

 

[Rollypolly1]

Everyone does it.

Prove it then.

 

[silentstriker]

LOL. What a non-sequitur. So you want me to find something based on what other people THOUGHT were out/not out ? What am I ? a mind-reader ?

All i am saying is simple- Gillchrist, from the angle and distance he was from the stumps (symonds bowling, Gilly up to the stumps), there is NO WAY he couldn't have seen Dravid's bat hidden behind the pad and the ball touching the pad instead of the bat. Yet he appealed. As dishonest as they come.

But then all players are dishonest. Or none are.

 

[silentstriker]

Prove it then.

Prove what? Look at every single time all the players go up for LBW appeal when everyone knows it pitched outside leg, or outside off and the player was playing a shot.

 

[ozone]

LOL. What a non-sequitur. So you want me to find something based on what other people THOUGHT were out/not out ? What am I ? a mind-reader ?

All i am saying is simple- Gillchrist, from the angle and distance he was from the stumps (symonds bowling, Gilly up to the stumps), there is NO WAY he couldn't have seen Dravid's bat hidden behind the pad and the ball touching the pad instead of the bat. Yet he appealed. As dishonest as they come.

You seem to like that statement. I'm not a big Gilchrist fan, but even I would have to say that he's a angel compared to some of the players who have played the game.

 

[ozone]

Prove it then.

Little bit more proof, anyone who has ever had an appeal, had it turned down and then had a smile and joke with the umpire about it (Murali comes to mind but I don't know why as I can't think of an example of him doing it).

 

[Rollypolly1]

But then all players are dishonest. Or none are.

And the basis for making such a claim is ??

Look at every single time all the players go up for LBW appeal when everyone knows it pitched outside leg, or outside off and the player was playing a shot.

Prove that it is 'all the players'.

I notice you have a penchant for making statements that have no integrity in itself.

 

[Rollypolly1]

, but even I would have to say that he's a angel compared to some of the players who have played the game

Such as ?
Sorry but a cheat is a cheat is a cheat. Period. Gillchrist appealed for something that CANNOT be out from his vantage point in any shape or form. There is no doubt in that at all- bat hidden behind pad, Gilly could see it, way outside of line and yet he appealed. Ie, dishonest.

 

[ozone]

I notice you have a penchant for making statements that have no integrity in itself.

And I suppose saying Gilchrist is as dishonest as they come does?

 

[Rollypolly1]

And I suppose saying Gilchrist is as dishonest as they come does?

Ofcourse it does. Like i have said umpteen times, from where Gilly was standing, no way could he have thought it was out if he were an honest man. Bat hidden behind pad, everything WAY out of line and ball brushing the top of the pad. Yet he appealed. Wicketkeepers dont always appeal for everything- there are times when they don't back-up the bowler because of THEIR vantage point. But in this case, Gilly quite clearly made a totally dishonest appeal and got away with it.
But hey, when the captain of your team is as dishonest as they come, i can't blame Gilly too much. Afterall, everyone follows the captain's lead.

 

[BoyBrumby]

The more complaints about bad Umpiring decisons, the more likely something is to be done to stop them happening.

At least, that's the way. No complaints = no change made. Mostly, at least.

What exactly are you advocating there, Rich? That players stand in open defiance of umpires' decisions? Because a mechanism for reporting bad decisions already exists. Personally I think it's to Dravid's great credit that he took such a smeller on the chin without resorting to childish histrionics & I've no doubt the decision will be mentioned in the report on the umpires' performances.

 

[silentstriker]

Prove that it is 'all the players'.

I notice you have a penchant for making statements that have no integrity in itself.

OK, please give me a video of any game in the history of cricket and I will show you numerous examples. Including this past game, where both sides went up for appeals a lot.

 

[Rollypolly1]

OK, please give me a video of any game in the history of cricket and I will show you numerous examples. Including this past game, where both sides went up for appeals a lot.

You shall get nothing from me mate. You made a claim and i said prove it. The burden of proof lies with you and that includes the work that goes along with it. You claimed two things- 1. Either all players are honest or all players are dishonest 2. Everybody appeals for everything.

Now, be a chum and prove your claims or else retract them/qualify them as nothing more than opinion.