Nah, Eric was very on-message there, IMHO.tbh, if you want to hate on Gilchurch, an easier target would be his comments on Murali in his autobio.
Ah yes, the born-again Christian widely recognised as the worst sledger in the game. Clearly never asked himself "what would Jesus do?" when a vulnerable young player was at the wicket.
people?lol at people trying to rubbish Adam Gilchrist. One of the nicest people, not just cricketer, I've ever met.
What about the "the whole world is watching, champ" incident then? As pointed out in another post though, it depends on if view it as a mind game and from the instances I have seen and I did talk to him a few times as well in Chennai, he did seem to regard as some kind of a moral obligation of players and did sound holier-than-thou about it.How was he being a prick? McMillan is a known ****head who has had plenty to say to many opposition players over the years, Gilchrist mentioned that he should have walked to try and put some guilt in his mind, obviously worked.
Gilchrist has said time and time and time again that he doesn't care if people don't walk. He has no problems with his team mates not walking, it's just a choice of his to walk. He's not saying he's better than people who don't walk.
word.Mike Hussey. THE MAN.
I've met Gilchrist a number of times both inside and outside of cricketing environments (not that I would consider him a friend or anything), I've had drinks with him more than once, and I can categorically say you're absolutely off the mark if you think he has a 'holier than thou' attitude to anything, let alone his walking. I don't know how anyone could have that opinion on him, he is such a genuine, down to Earth human. He treats everyone, whether a billionaire or a bum, the same.What about the "the whole world is watching, champ" incident then? As pointed out in another post though, it depends on if view it as a mind game and from the instances I have seen and I did talk to him a few times as well in Chennai, he did seem to regard as some kind of a moral obligation of players and did sound holier-than-thou about it.
And BB, do you think no one ever asked Lara about the Walking thing?
I'll be honest and say I don't know.And BB, do you think no one ever asked Lara about the Walking thing?
Oh.. I totally agree. I have only had one opportunity to shoot a couple of questions at him and that is hardly enough to think of him to be anything. I mean, even in my time of going down to watch players practice in Chennai, I have had more opportunities to talk with Warney, Gilly and even Wasim Akram than Lara.. I just meant with respect to the walking thing.I'll be honest and say I don't know.
I bow to no-one in my admiration for the little genius, but he's too complex and singular person to be unambiguously called "really nice". I remember the contretemps between him and the umpires when Dhoni had been caught but there was some doubt over whether the catcher had trod on the boundary rope.
It could have been an important point, but was rendered moot as Dravid had declared anyway. However that didn't stop a ten minute toss-arguing exercise ensuing.
That is very admirable. However, if bowling second, you don't want to bowl on a full stomach and if batting second, then plenty of time for him to have his tea .I think Steven Finn deserves a mention, I recall reading that during a domestic T20 or CB40 game he stayed out for most of the tea break signing autographs for kids in the crowd rather than go and take his tea.
On vaguely related note, remember cracking up laughing when I saw him advertising some bottled water before a film at the cinema. Wasn't even Aqua Pura, which is the nicest tasting water ever! [/tangent]Alistair Cook is bound to be a decent chap as well, shuns the limelight to go work on his farm when not playing cricket.
I can't remember the exact comments but surely having an opinion doesn't make Gilchrist a bad person? It's not like he called him anything racist - simply he felt he extended the laws of an allowable bowling action.tbh, if you want to hate on Gilchurch, an easier target would be his comments on Murali in his autobio.
Nah was just saying going after him for walking is a dead-end in comparison. What he said in the book wasn't so much 'not nice' as being a bit loose with the known facts about the timeline of changes to the law and the evidence behind them. I don't think there's malice behind what he said but there's definitely ignorance; I just did a search for the original study in 2000 where they first tested Murali's deliveries and his off-spin and top-spin were tested at about 3.5 degrees of flexion and his leg-spin at about 8 degrees. Gilchrist conflated Murali's elbow flexion angle with the 15 degree limit and suggested they'd set it just above his to keep him in the game for political reasons when only his doosra was in breach and not every time he bowled it, shown in a later study. Be a bit surprised if no-one mentioned this to him so either he's just wrong or wilfully ignorant for whatever reason.I can't remember the exact comments but surely having an opinion doesn't make Gilchrist a bad person? It's not like he called him anything racist - simply he felt he extended the laws of an allowable bowling action.