Symonds should have ‘walked’: Gilchrist

[Redbacks]

yeah, but you'd think the English classes could still get some points across!

oh my, spelling corrections from a collingwood fan

I used to have the spell checker on but I found I was becoming somewhat illiterate, obviously the problem hasn't been solved just yet

 

[pasag]

oh my, spelling corrections from a collingwood fan

 

[Tom Halsey]

Even better to have some little cheating bugger nick one and not walk then knock his stumps over shortly afterwards. Had that a few years ago, told the little bugger "gonna wait for the Umpire to give you out for that one??!!!!!!"

Strangely, I had to appeal for a bowled last year.

 

[GIMH]

At my BBQ in June, I hit wicket and refused to walk. The middle stump was at 45 degrees, I said it was already like that and stood my ground. TBF I did genuinely believe I hadn't hit it, or perhaps more accurately, I'd had about 20 pints and forgot about it straight away. I'm a ****ing joke.

 

[ozone]

Strangely, I had to appeal for a bowled last year.

Ha, I had a bloke bowled top of off stump given not out this season. Umpire reckoned the keeper (who was standing about 3 foot back from the stumps!) dislodged the bail.

 

[GIMH]

Was it on CW that I read about the bloke who played on for about ten minutes after knocking the bail off, then walked saying "I can't do it." Might have been in Wisden actually.

 

[tooextracool]

Despite there being a lot of criticism regarding Gilchrist's autobiography thus far, this article appears to be nothing but a journalist's attempt to stir something out of nothing.

There is a big difference between 'hinting' that someone should have walked, as hints are somewhat of a relative term, as opposed to saying outright that someone should have walked as this author is apparently suggesting with the title of his article. I doubt that Gilchrist has mentioned anywhere in his autobio the exact quote "Symonds should have walked" as had he done so it would have been mentioned directly in the article.

Also, maybe I am not reading this correctly, but how is this a contradiction?

Former Australia wicketkeeper Adam Gilchrist has hinted in his autobiography that Andrew Symonds should have “walked” after getting a nick on way to his big hundred during the spiteful Sydney cricket Test, but contradicted himself by saying that he felt uneasy when the all-rounder admitted the umpire’s error.

 

[Jono]

I guess the contradiction is, by walking, you are admitting the umpire's error anyway. Gilly's walking is admirable IMO, but he's made a few umpires look silly at times.

 

[Richard]

Walking is only admitting the Umpire's error if you wait for the decision then walk, which is poor.

Most people simply walk before the Umpire has had the chance to make a decision (occasionally waiting a second to see if the ball's carried).

 

[pup11]

Gilchrist targets Ganguly and Harbhajan now.

Jeez, does this bull**** talk from Gilchrist has any end, he is taking pot-shots at Ganguly and Harbhajan now, what he is saying might very well be the truth but you just can't go on accusing people like this over dead and buried incidents of the past without any solid evidence, like Richard said the way Gilchrist is going we might surely need one "Gilchrist autobiography thread", because the way Gilchirst is going there still might be a lot of people in his line of fire.

 

[Furball]

If someone can define to me, what it means to be 'Out' in cricket, then we can put an end to the walking debate, however no such guideline applies to being caught out, so walking is both nieve and pointless.[/QUOTE]

AFAIC, you're out when the umpire gives you out.

Walking undermines the job the umpire is there to do.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Gilchrist targets Ganguly and Harbhajan now.

Jeez, does this bull**** talk from Gilchrist has any end, he is taking pot-shots at Ganguly and Harbhajan now, what he is saying might very well be the truth but you just can't go on accusing people like this over dead and buried incidents of the past without any solid evidence, like Richard said the way Gilchrist is going we might surely need one "Gilchrist autobiography thread", because the way Gilchirst is going there still might be a lot of people in his line of fire.

Gilchrist needs to explain why Ganguly missed the next match at Mumbai too. Obviously Mumbai was a greentop too.

 

[Polo23]

Gilchrist annoys me. He bitches on about how everyone should walk, then appeals for catches/LBW's etc that he sure as hell knows arent out. Surely that contradicts his whole "spirit of cricket" stance?

I liked it when he had a go at Craig McMillan after he belted the leather off it to him behind the stumps and was given not out...unbelievably he told McMillan to walk, to which McMillan of course told him to get ****ed. I never once saw Gilchrist have a go at one of his own team mates for the same thing.

 

[pup11]

His spirit of the game stance is different matter all together, but here he assassinating characters of players that he has played with or against for all these years, this a sort of personal attack on all these players and tbh he has no concrete evidence to back his claims, yeah at the end of the day one might say why should anybody care about what Gilchrist has to say, its his opinion and he is perfectly entitled to have one, but being such a huge fan of his over the years for his conduct both on and off the field, all of sudden to see this side of him is pretty disappointing tbh.

 

[Matt79]

Gilchrist annoys me. He bitches on about how everyone should walk, then appeals for catches/LBW's etc that he sure as hell knows arent out. Surely that contradicts his whole "spirit of cricket" stance?

I liked it when he had a go at Craig McMillan after he belted the leather off it to him behind the stumps and was given not out...unbelievably he told McMillan to walk, to which McMillan of course told him to get ****ed. I never once saw Gilchrist have a go at one of his own team mates for the same thing.

He probably didn't really care, in a moral sense, whether McMillan walked, but was only trying to annoy him.

 

[Richard]

Walking undermines the job the umpire is there to do.

No, walking means Umpires make fewer errors - because they have fewer chances to make errors (and also that they're less likely to give a known walker out if he doesn't walk - meaning the chance is reduced again a little further). The fewer errors Umpires make, the less they'll be criticised.

A good walker (and not a selective walker - these are much worse than non-walkers) lessens Umpiring errors, as well as meaning the player is not trying to make himself look better than he is.

 

[Richard]

Gilchrist targets Ganguly and Harbhajan now.

Jeez, does this bull**** talk from Gilchrist has any end, he is taking pot-shots at Ganguly and Harbhajan now, what he is saying might very well be the truth but you just can't go on accusing people like this over dead and buried incidents of the past without any solid evidence, like Richard said the way Gilchrist is going we might surely need one "Gilchrist autobiography thread", because the way Gilchirst is going there still might be a lot of people in his line of fire.

Gilchrist needs to explain why Ganguly missed the next match at Mumbai too. Obviously Mumbai was a greentop too.

Well there was certainly plenty in it for bowlers of all kinds.

Of the Nagpur game, his comments are odd - aside from anything, this: "There was speculation that Sourav Ganguly was quarrelling with the head of cricket in Nagpur and a rumour that a spicy pitch might be prepared out of spite or revenge against the captain." Well, no, there was no speculation - everyone knew that the green pitch had been prepared deliberately on the instruction of that idiot Shashank Manohar at the head of the VCA in Nagpur (Manohar said as much), that he was deliberately trying to sabotage India's prospects by ordering a green pitch, and that he was doing this because he didn't get on with Jagmohan Dalmiya. I don't blame Ganguly for being exceptionally annoyed about this whole affair. What I think likeliest is that he had a slight injury which he might not have missed a "normal" Test because of but elected to miss this one due to his disenchantment at the whole Manohar-Dalmiya affair.

As for Harbhajan, well, I've never heard any suggestion that his illness for that match wasn't 100% genuine. Not like he skipped the game at The 'Gabba in 2003/04, which was also on a very green pitch (and on which he was slammed for 169 for 1 wicket). Strange to question his illness there indeed.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Well there was certainly plenty in it for bowlers of all kinds.

Of the Nagpur game, his comments are odd - aside from anything, this: "There was speculation that Sourav Ganguly was quarrelling with the head of cricket in Nagpur and a rumour that a spicy pitch might be prepared out of spite or revenge against the captain." Well, no, there was no speculation - everyone knew that the green pitch had been prepared deliberately on the instruction of that idiot Shashank Manohar at the head of the VCA in Nagpur (Manohar said as much), that he was deliberately trying to sabotage India's prospects by ordering a green pitch, and that he was doing this because he didn't get on with Jagmohan Dalmiya. I don't blame Ganguly for being exceptionally annoyed about this whole affair. What I think likeliest is that he had a slight injury which he might not have missed a "normal" Test because of but elected to miss this one due to his disenchantment at the whole Manohar-Dalmiya affair.

As for Harbhajan, well, I've never heard any suggestion that his illness for that match wasn't 100% genuine. Not like he skipped the game at The 'Gabba in 2003/04, which was also on a very green pitch (and on which he was slammed for 169 for 1 wicket). Strange to question his illness there indeed.

If only Gilchrist had held off publication a couple of weeks, he'd have been able to enlighten us to the fact that the current Delhi pitch is a greentop too

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

He probably didn't really care, in a moral sense, whether McMillan walked, but was only trying to annoy him.

Yeah exactly. It's a pretty ridiculous thing to complain about honestly.

"Well, Warney called my teammate a dickhead because he got hit for four, but I never saw him hurl abuse at Mark Taylor!". Given all the things said on a cricket field, I hardly think "why don't you walk, mate" is a big deal.

 

[Precambrian]

Well there was certainly plenty in it for bowlers of all kinds.

Of the Nagpur game, his comments are odd - aside from anything, this: "There was speculation that Sourav Ganguly was quarrelling with the head of cricket in Nagpur and a rumour that a spicy pitch might be prepared out of spite or revenge against the captain." Well, no, there was no speculation - everyone knew that the green pitch had been prepared deliberately on the instruction of that idiot Shashank Manohar at the head of the VCA in Nagpur (Manohar said as much), that he was deliberately trying to sabotage India's prospects by ordering a green pitch, and that he was doing this because he didn't get on with Jagmohan Dalmiya. I don't blame Ganguly for being exceptionally annoyed about this whole affair. What I think likeliest is that he had a slight injury which he might not have missed a "normal" Test because of but elected to miss this one due to his disenchantment at the whole Manohar-Dalmiya affair.

As for Harbhajan, well, I've never heard any suggestion that his illness for that match wasn't 100% genuine. Not like he skipped the game at The 'Gabba in 2003/04, which was also on a very green pitch (and on which he was slammed for 169 for 1 wicket). Strange to question his illness there indeed.

Harby is in there for obvious reasons. He is the devil incarnate as far as Aussies are concerned, so pretty much everything said against him, like this bull**** would be treated as truth.

Also, possibly Gilly is sniping against Harby's earlier comments that Gilly was no saint. But Ganguly's case, it was well known to all the greentop was a result of the ugliest politics. As to whether he was injured, nobody knows really, and Gilly is just stating that, it is a speculation. However, when there exists a trillion other things to speculate about in his career, and all over the world, it is strange why he zeroed in on this.

Maybe Gilly is no saint after all.