The game of cricket is full of purists like land mines buried on the peripheries of a war zone. Inevitably they blow up at the wrong moment and maim the wrong people.
By S R Pathiravithana
It was not so long ago we had the likes of Ian Chappell and Michael Holding screaming their guts out howling out to the ICC to probe into the dropping of two Sri Lankan players for their match against Australia in the super eights stage. The allegation was match fixing which tantamount to cheating. If those cricket purists were trying to make out that the Sri Lankan cricket hierarchy erred by the law of cricket in that game how would they describe the despicable Gilchrist stunt of hiding a foreign substance in his batting glove to get an undue advantage over the Sri Lankan bowlers who had bowled pretty well up to that stage in the World Cup.
When we were watching the onslaught by Gilchrist on the Lankan bowlers we were wondering as to how he got this new lease of life. A man who was struggling to live up to his potential was batting far beyond even his true capabilities. This normally belligerent Mathew Hayden looked like a passenger waiting at bus stand for a bus which was already late. : Gilchrist faced 104 balls and hit thirteen fours and eight sixes while all the other batsmen Hayden, Ponting, Symonds, Watson, in all faced 127 balls collectively and hit just seven fours and two sixes. And generally in the Australian camp it is Hayden and Symonds who are the batsmen who are reputed for their awesome massacre of bowlers. Nevertheless when we saw the unholy batting display of Gilchrist we accepted ‘seeing is believing’ and resigned ourselves to our fate.
How legal?
JEROME GASPERSON writes from Australia: I read the article “How legal was Adam Gilchrist’s ‘hidden ball’?” You have very valid points and there are a few more unanswered questions that are worth pursuing further.
The other points to note are:
# Gilchrist never used the “squash ball” in the past and also in any of the other 10 games prior to the finals. Did the “squash ball” help?
# Gilchrist was out of form and didn’t score many runs in the whole World Cup tour apart from the finals. Did the “squash ball” provide Gilchrist the required assistance to bring him back to form?
# The World Cup final was between Sri Lanka and Gilchrist (not Australia). All other inform Australian batsmen were struggling to score except the out-of-form Gilchrist who had this “squash ball” to enhance his grip or did it?
# Most of his shots, mainly his eight sixes, were massive and cleared the grounds. Did the “squash ball” help?
# The number of sixes hit by Gilchrist amounts to eight in the finals, compared to two in the previous 10 games. Is it because of the “squash ball”?
# Gilchrist’s average without the last innings would have been a mere 30.40 compared to the 45.30 after the finals. Did the “squash ball” help to boost his average?
# Gilchrist’s strike rate without the last innings would have been 91.57 compared to the 103.89 after the finals. Again, did the “squash ball” provide that extra power?
Given the above and the points you raised, your natural tendency would be to believe that the “squash ball” might have given him that extra edge or did it?
His 2007 World Cup Statistics are as follows:
Matches 11, Innings 11, Not Out 1, Runs 453, Highest Score 149, Average 45.30, Balls faced 436, Strike rate 103.89, Hundreds 1, Fifties 2, Zeroes 0, Fours 58, Sixes 10.
I am not taking anything away from Adam Gilchrist’s excellent innings. That was an amazing innings which will be remembered by many for years to come. However, the question still remains: is it legal to use such equipment and will it provide assistance?***************************
Alas! But before we could get over bitterness of swallowing our pride the squash ball began to circle. As the news came by we read - “By Gilchrist’s own admission, he had ’something’ in his left glove all through his knock. In fact, upon reaching the century, Gilchrist first doffed his bat towards his teammates in the pavilion, acknowledged the applause of the spectators, and then kept repeatedly pointing to his left batting glove with his right hand.
At the post match press conference Gilchrist admitted that the message was directed to his Western Australian batting coach Bob Meuleman who is also a squash player of repute in his state. It is said that upon Meuleman’s advice, Gilchrist had been carrying a squash ball in his left, bottom hand to help him with his grip.
Then carrying a foreign substance which is not approved by the laws of cricket - does it look good on Australia’s legality of the World Cup win. We will just have a look at what Law number 3 of cricket laws have to say.
Cricket Law III
3.6. Conduct of the game, implements and equipment Before the toss and during the match, the umpires shall satisfy themselves that: (a) the conduct of the game is strictly in accordance with the Laws. (b) The implements of the game conform to the requirements of Laws 5 (the ball) and 6 (The bat), together with either Laws 8.2 (Size of stumps) and 8.3 (The bails) or, if appropriate, Law 8.4 (Junior Cricket). (c) (i) no player uses equipment other than that permitted. (ii) the wicket-keeper’s gloves comply with the requirements of Law 40.2 (Gloves).
Prior to this Dennis Lilee’s aluminium bat and Ricky Ponting’s graphite-coated bat were not permitted by the cricket authorities. At the same time Hansie Cronje’s earpiece stunt of having a chat with the coach Bob Woolmer while the match was in progress was also shot down in mid air by the authorities. Then the question that arises is did Gilchrist seek and obtain approval from the cricket’s authorities before he used such a device? Did he inform and seek approval from the match umpires and the opposing captain Mahela Jayawardena on such an experiment?
The laws of cricket are very precise on protective gear as given above. Then this device cannot be termed as a protective gear and only be termed as a power enhancing substance. Nowhere in the cricketing laws have they approved the squash ball as a protective gear.
Vijitha Herath of the University of Paderborn, Germany, writes on the issue:
Apropos the claim that Adam Gilchrist had a squash ball in his left glove during his innings at the finals of the cricket World Cup. Let me offer a scientific perspective.
A squash ball is a rubber ball. Unlike a cricket (leather) ball, it compresses when pressure is applied on it. When the pressure is released, it takes its original shape. In short, it acts like a spring (e.g.: a motorcycle shock absorber).
So what happens when a batsman has a squash ball in the palm of his bottom hand?
When a batsman swings the bat until it hits the ball, there is pressure on his bottom hand. This pressure compresses the squash ball thus storing energy in the ball similar to spring. Just after the ball hits the bat (ball still touching the bat) this pressure starts to relax while the bat is moving forward.
At the same time the energy stored in the squash ball releases its energy to the bat in the form of kinetic energy. The result is that the bat moves faster than normal (without a ball in the glove).
As a result, the release-speed of the cricket ball becomes faster resulting in the ball travelling further before hitting the ground. Therefore it results in more sixes and fours being scored.
The downside is because the bat travels faster than normal the batsman might lose control of the bat. This happened once in the Adam Gilchrist’s innings when the bat slipped out of his hands and fell behind the wickets. If you have any doubts please try to do it yourself and see the result.
In brief Gilchrist’s use of the squash ball allowed him to hit the ball further in the field.
The above explanation clearly gives you an insight into the fact that the squash ball was used not purely as a protective gear but, as a performance enhancer to a player who was playing his last World Cup innings and did not care of the consequences, but was hell bent on rubbing some glory upon himself.
Then at a beauty pageant if the winner is discovered as person with an immoral past she is stripped off her title. In athletics if a participant is found that he/she has taken performance enhancing drugs they are relieved from their titles. But, what action are the authorities hoping to take on this under hand act? How would the so called purists describe this deliberate breach of cricket law?
Can Mr. Ian Chappell or some purist explain this to me?
Finally just see the Australian ingenuity –the blessings of 33 million deities which the entire country sought could not bring Sri Lanka victory, but, one little squash ball hidden by an over zealous cricketer inside his batting glove was able to give Australia that much sought after cricket’s biggest gift with consummate ease.
P.S. According to a high ranking SLC official its hierarchy had met on the issue but, had arrived at the notion that though it does not permit a foreign object inside the batting glove, it also does not prevent anyone from having it. He also does not want the Aussies to feel that we are cry babies. via Sunday Times
Powered by Post2Blog Express
May 6, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Maybe this should be ban too. Australia are so good because this gave them more energy, endurance and muscle power, - an unfair advantage. The ICC should do something about it. LOL!!
http://www.sanitarium.com.au/products/breakfast-foods.html
May 6, 2007 at 2:34 pm
only a moron can come up with the weak excuse that gilchrist got his power from a squash ball. LOL
would you people complain if gilchrist got out cheaply. LOL.
it is all sour grapes. just admit that sri lanka is not good enough in the final.
May 6, 2007 at 2:39 pm
If it is so easy to score sixes and fours with a squash ball, everyone would be doing it.
this is a pathetic excuse from sri lankan fans.
every team will have 5 or 6 gilchrist if they all put squash balls in their gloves. LOL!!
May 6, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Listen up you Aussies Cheats and monster
ICC must investigate the BIG CHEATS, the AUSSIES. They are the biggest unsporting ruffians on the planet and Gilchrist and Matthew Hayden should also be investigated for this article that appeared in an English newspaper in Ceylon.
The full text of the article:
Are the Aussies guilty of performance enhancing Drugs?
By Dr. Sarath Fernando
Being a sportsman myself, I cannot comprehend how 2 Australian batsmen, namely Matthew Hayden and Adam Gilchrist were able to perform with the same zest and energy for a long period of time during this World Cup Tournament on their normal intake of vitamins and. Only drugs can enhance one’s performance.
Shane Warne had the answer but unfortunately was “found out” - drugs it is. The energy boosting drugs have definitely being taken by these 2 batsmen-the banned drugs!
I challenge these players to have urine and blood tests taken to ascertain whether this charge is true. There will still be some residue of the drug left.
If true, then ALL their matches will be cancelled and this team must be disqualified. Sri Lanka will then be acclaimed as the legitimate Champions. Further, Gilchrist and Hayden would never have performed like this under normal conditions. Check Hayden’s ODI statistics prior to the World Cup.
Drugs taken by these players were eclipsed by the Woolmer affair. So the Aussies “went to town”. Was Gilchrist elegant in his innings or just “mad” and “demon-possessed”? Well, if he and Hayden “slip” this one, the day will arrive when the Truth will be revealed?
So, Hayden and Gilchrist, have the test done by an independent Medical Consultant, not from Australia, because this drug has the ability to remain in your blood stream for a long period of time. (END)
May 6, 2007 at 3:58 pm
you are a moron. so murali, malinga and mehela should all have drug tests because they have done well in the world cup?
and why didnt sri lanka players have drug test when they won the WC in 1996?? sour grapes!!!
just accept the fact that sri lanka is not good enough this time. LOL!!
It is unbelivable how this guy can come up with the excuse that Gilchrist got his power from half a squash ball. LOL, what a sad loser.
May 6, 2007 at 4:03 pm
what will be the next excuse for Sri Lanka losing the World cup. Maybe JOhn Buchannan put a hoodoo for the whole sri lanka team before the final?? HA HA HA. LOL
May 6, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Only the most ignorant person can possibly believe that the “energy” stored by a squash ball can make a difference. Squash balls are not like a spring.
Try this very simple experiment. Get a squash ball. Now drop it from chest high, and see how high it will bounce. Let me guess not much higher than your shins.
A squash ball is designed to dispurse energy, to NOT bounce back. In other words it does not “release energy like a spring”.
Also the drug article is a joke. You want to know the secret of the Aussies success and endurance. Its called training, they do it harder and longer than anyone else.
This is a very disappointing reaction from the Sri Lankan Fans.
Gilchrist record speaks for itself and the dead silence from ICC officials and the Sri Lankan team, who are fortunately better sports than their fans. This will give Sri Lankan fans a negative repuatation. Lets hope they are better sports for the next Test series.
May 6, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Aussies have no cheaters. the biggest cheater is Murali. His test record should be wiped out.
His illegal action enables him reach almost 700 test wickets. what a joke. Murali does not deserve to overtake warne as the leading test wicket taker.
May 6, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Hey man Sri Lankans never find any excuse for loosing the cup. Instead captain Mahela as a true sportsman hailed Adam Gilcrist and his team for their best performance.
But that doesn’t mean that illegal use of rubber ball hidden under glove to enhance performance of the stroke is acceptable
May 6, 2007 at 5:28 pm
it is not illegal. gilchirst’s inning was perfectly legal. the ball can be considered part of the glove.
May 6, 2007 at 5:39 pm
THE BALL CANOT BE CONSIDRED PART OF THE GLOVE
READ THE FOLLOWING:
Prior to this Dennis Lilee’s aluminium bat and Ricky Ponting’s graphite-coated bat were not permitted by the cricket authorities. At the same time Hansie Cronje’s earpiece stunt of having a chat with the coach Bob Woolmer while the match was in progress was also shot down in mid air by the authorities. Then the question that arises is did Gilchrist seek and obtain approval from the cricket’s authorities before he used such a device? Did he inform and seek approval from the match umpires and the opposing captain Mahela Jayawardena on such an experiment?
The laws of cricket are very precise on protective gear as given above. Then this device cannot be termed as a protective gear and only be termed as a power enhancing substance. Nowhere in the cricketing laws have they approved the squash ball as a protective gear.
May 6, 2007 at 6:46 pm
power enhancing substance?? LOL
is it scientically proven to increase power?? have you proven this?? If not, dont talk trash here.
Just because made a century does not mean he cheated!! I’ll tell you who cheated. - the guy with a rubberband like wrist who cheated his way to 700 test wickets!!
May 6, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Ha Ha - The aussies didn’t have enough balls to beat Sri Lanka on their own so Gilly had to go use another.
May 6, 2007 at 6:58 pm
this thread is pure garbage. A squash ball inside a glove will not enhance power. Try it yourself. Gilchrist only used it to grip the bat less tight.
If gilchirst wants to increase his stroke power, his better bet is to use a more powerful bat, or increse his arm strength.
May 6, 2007 at 7:02 pm
if you sad losers think we cheated. then take it to the ICC. I doubt the ICC would even worry about your complain as it is a pathetic, rediculous and laughable claim.
No where does it prove that a ball inside your glove increase power!! LOL!!
May 6, 2007 at 7:09 pm
—- in reply ——
Andrew Says:
May 6th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Only the most ignorant person can possibly believe that the “energy” stored by a squash ball can make a difference. Squash balls are not like a spring.
Try this very simple experiment. Get a squash ball. Now drop it from chest high, and see how high it will bounce. Let me guess not much higher than your shins.
A squash ball is designed to dispurse energy, to NOT bounce back. In other words it does not “release energy like a spring”.
——————-
Heres another experiment for you to try - get a Bat and drop it from chest high and see how high it will bounce. Let me guess not much higher than your shins.
Wood isn’t supposed to disperse energy either but i’m sure we’ve all seen what an edge can do off fast bowling.
Now imagine if your Bat bounced past your shins…
May 6, 2007 at 7:11 pm
monster says…where does it prove that a ball inside your glove increase power!! read the following:
Vijitha Herath of the University of Paderborn, Germany, writes on the issue:
Apropos the claim that Adam Gilchrist had a squash ball in his left glove during his innings at the finals of the cricket World Cup. Let me offer a scientific perspective.
A squash ball is a rubber ball. Unlike a cricket (leather) ball, it compresses when pressure is applied on it. When the pressure is released, it takes its original shape. In short, it acts like a spring (e.g.: a motorcycle shock absorber).
So what happens when a batsman has a squash ball in the palm of his bottom hand?
When a batsman swings the bat until it hits the ball, there is pressure on his bottom hand. This pressure compresses the squash ball thus storing energy in the ball similar to spring. Just after the ball hits the bat (ball still touching the bat) this pressure starts to relax while the bat is moving forward.
At the same time the energy stored in the squash ball releases its energy to the bat in the form of kinetic energy. The result is that the bat moves faster than normal (without a ball in the glove).
As a result, the release-speed of the cricket ball becomes faster resulting in the ball travelling further before hitting the ground. Therefore it results in more sixes and fours being scored.
The downside is because the bat travels faster than normal the batsman might lose control of the bat. This happened once in the Adam Gilchrist’s innings when the bat slipped out of his hands and fell behind the wickets. If you have any doubts please try to do it yourself and see the result.
In brief Gilchrist’s use of the squash ball allowed him to hit the ball further in the field.
The above explanation clearly gives you an insight into the fact that the squash ball was used not purely as a protective gear but, as a performance enhancer to a player who was playing his last World Cup innings and did not care of the consequences, but was hell bent on rubbing some glory upon himself.
Then at a beauty pageant if the winner is discovered as person with an immoral past she is stripped off her title. In athletics if a participant is found that he/she has taken performance enhancing drugs they are relieved from their titles. But, what action are the authorities hoping to take on this under hand act? How would the so called purists describe this deliberate breach of cricket law?
May 6, 2007 at 7:17 pm
not true. If it increses power, then why did gilchrist used only half a ball, not the whole ball??
also why did he not use elastic, stringy gloves. it is much more comfortable than putting a ball into the glove.
and why the hell should I take Vijitha Herath’s claim?? He can be wrong.
May 6, 2007 at 7:18 pm
*springy gloves
May 6, 2007 at 7:23 pm
if gilchrist really wants an increase in power, he would have used a more harder, heavier bat. This method is more successful than using the ball.
also, regarding how far you can hit the ball. it is not how fast you can swing the bat, it is how much force you can generate with your swing and timing.
May 6, 2007 at 7:30 pm
At the post match press conference Gilchrist admitted that the message was directed to his Western Australian batting coach Bob Meuleman who is also a squash player of repute in his state. It is said that upon Meuleman’s advice, Gilchrist had been carrying a squash ball in his left, bottom hand to help him with his grip.
Then carrying a foreign substance which is not approved by the laws of cricket - does it look good on Australia’s legality of the World Cup win. We will just have a look at what Law number 3 of cricket laws have to say.
Cricket Law III
3.6. Conduct of the game, implements and equipment Before the toss and during the match, the umpires shall satisfy themselves that: (a) the conduct of the game is strictly in accordance with the Laws. (b) The implements of the game conform to the requirements of Laws 5 (the ball) and 6 (The bat), together with either Laws 8.2 (Size of stumps) and 8.3 (The bails) or, if appropriate, Law 8.4 (Junior Cricket). (c) (i) no player uses equipment other than that permitted. (ii) the wicket-keeper’s gloves comply with the requirements of Law 40.2 (Gloves).
The above will be taken up at the next ICC meeting and it will be the end of the Gilchrist 149.
May 6, 2007 at 7:36 pm
so Icc will award the WC to sri lanka?? LOL.
keep dreaming. Gilchrist’s inning is perfectly legal. It is not much differnce to wearing extra padding.
it is not proven scientfically that a squash ball enhances power.
If it is that easy, everyone will have 5 or 6 gilchrist in the team.
sour grapes, that is what it is.
May 6, 2007 at 7:41 pm
you people are just finding excuses why sri lanka lost. just 3 words will explain everthing. NOT GOOD ENOUGH !!
May 6, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Squash balls have the property that it bounces more at higher temperatures. Players tend to warm up balls by bouncing them on the ground prior to play. As a rally progresses, play is complicated as the ball usually becomes hotter and speeds up. so guess the elasticity of a squash ball under a cricketer’s glove.
This is like a supercoiled spring on your hand. what’s difference between this and using steroids to pump up your muscles?
Cricket should be an equal contest between bat and bowl. very disappointing from gilly.
May 6, 2007 at 8:21 pm
weak excuse, it is not proven that a ball can help increase player’s hitting power. you people still have not give me the evidence.
dont tell me about that Vijitha Herath guy. he is not from a authorative source.
In fact, the ball might weaken gilchrist’s hitting power as it hindered his hand inside the glove.
May 6, 2007 at 10:34 pm
monster you are dreaming man you Aussies are the cheaters, the biggest cheaters ever, nowhere in cricket’s 42 laws is there a mention of a squash ball as a permitted item. If you are not allowed to bowl with any tape or plaster on your fingers, I don’t think you should be allowed to have a squash ball in your gloves when batting.
May 6, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Gilchrist is a cheater. No argument on it. This is similar as taking drugs before playing a game. Only difference is this a physical trick. If ICC has the backbone, they should ban this victory and should ban Gilchrist from cricket. But surely, the (ICC) will not take further action because Sri Lanka is an Asian country and they bow their head to the Aussies. Simply this is matter of SKIN COLOUR.
May 7, 2007 at 12:26 am
Monster, sadly 4 u, you are in the minority in australia as many australians are ashamed of what gilly did and sri lankans are way too good and way too decent for the aussie cricket team. i dont need to remind u of the chaose and drama they created with murali’s bowling patterns. Could we say that they were too incompetent to bat to murali’s bowling style? haha…it is the truth but what did they say?? anyway…it doesn’t matter how sri lanka comes arcross cos this is not sri lanka’s issue but it is clearly an illegal act….and that should be addressed and punished…..no matter what you say will change the illegal act conducted by your pathetic team
May 7, 2007 at 3:07 am
Australians are very good at the cheating game. They want to win by hook by crook. It is no more a ‘gentleman’s game.
May 7, 2007 at 3:08 am
Australians are very good at the cheating game. They want to win by hook or by crook. It is no more a ‘gentleman’s game.
May 7, 2007 at 5:13 am
When it’s done by an Aussies no questions asked and don’t be surprised since we all know ICC is dominated by Aussies MALCOM SPEED and his stooges.
Just imagine if this squash ball thing was tried by a player from a sub continent team in the finals and brought victory. Do you expect Aussies and other EU guys to keep their mouths shut?
The law of the game is very clear and it should apply to all.
Law 3 of cricket deals with the umpires. Subsection 6 of law 3 deals with the conduct of the game, implements and equipment. It reads as under:
Before the toss and during the match, the umpires shall satisfy themselves that
(a) the conduct of the game is strictly in accordance with the Laws.
(b) the implements of the game conform to the requirements of Laws 5 (the ball) and 6 (the bat), together with either Laws 8.2 (size of stumps) and 8.3 (the bails) or, if appropriate, Law 8.4 (junior cricket).
(c) (i) no player uses equipment other than that permitted.
(ii) the wicket-keeper’s gloves comply with the requirements of Law 40.2 (gloves).
Tom Smith’s New Cricket Umpiring and Scoring, the manual on the implementation of cricket’s laws that umpires use, says the list of permitted external items for a batsman are a helmet, leg guards (pads), hand gloves and, if visible, fore arm guards.
Spectacles and jewelry are classified under clothing items.
Gilchrist’s squash ball was, therefore, neither a piece of protective equipment, nor a clothing item, and was most certainly not visible to either side or the umpires.
In other words, Law 3 (6) (c) (i) specifically prohibits a player from using equipment other than that permitted. And nowhere in cricket’s 42 laws is there a mention of a squash ball as a permitted item.
Over to you ICC…
May 7, 2007 at 6:26 am
Where is the evidence that the ball even existed?
May 7, 2007 at 11:07 am
Monster is obviously an idiot who spends most of his hours trying to wind people up through blogging.
I suggest you switch off the PC and go get some fresh air you looser!!
May 7, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Gilchrist innings was totally legal. All these blogs on the topic go in circles and ultimately just come down to human nature. Who ever loses always looks for excuses. Some will except losing gracefully some will not. Some good replies here and the argument for it being illegal is a joke for the following reasons. One it actually can be considered an item of clothing under the laws of cricket. Just because most people don’t wear squash balls doesn’t mean you can’t. Steve Waugh wore a red hanky and this is in traditional thinking an accessory not an item of clothing (you don’t actually “wear” a hanky). When judging if an item breaches the rules you also need to consider “the spirit of the legislation”. This is the little thing in your head that says this might technically be a breach but it doesn’t seem unfair. Judges use spirit of the legislation worldwide to interpret laws in the way they believe they were meant to be interpreted and this sets precedence. The ICC are cricket’s judges and more qualified and neutral to make these judgements. The ICC won’t ban it because they are aware of the FULL rules not just one or two quoted out of context. Further they also know the importance of the “spirit of the legislation” If you start to ban things people carry that don’t give them anything but a physiological advantage then you have to ban Steve Waugh’s red hanky. Hmmm that would take all the fun out of the game….it is the little quirky behaviours that make it fun!!!! People the squash ball did nothing else for Gilly then provide an annoying reminder to grip the bat correctly; it is just like Steve Waugh’s red hanky and gave him a psychological edge only. I played a game of cricket yesterday with a squash ball in my glove and scored 22…..no Gilly cyborg batsman here :-). But for 22 runs I felt like Gilly, that’s the point, people do strange things to help them in the head, the squash ball annoyed the crap out of me though. What I find most strange is that one reply states that if the squash ball can be considered an item of clothing then perhaps the laws should be looked at/changed! This is sad people, when the people upset over the loss finally realise it is within the laws that they would then ask the laws to be changed to put some retrospective taint on the innings…..just accept it was a great innings. For those that think it has a recoil spring effect I will post later but has anyone considered A PAD HAS A RECOIL EFFECT - PRESS IT AND IT RETURNS TO ITS POSITION - THIS IS DUE TO A RECOIL EFFECT - SOME PADS HAVE MORE RECOIL THEN OTHERS AND THESE ARE IN CONTACT WITH THE BAT!!!! I HAVE TESTED A SQUASH BALL AND HALF A SQUASH BALL IN PARTICULAR HAS LESS/EQUIVALENT RECOIL THEN CERTAIN MATERIALS USED IN PADS, IT TRUELY IS SO SMALL THAT YOU ARE ARGUING OVER THE HUNDRETH DECIMAL PLACE IN 1/3 (0.3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333….) Get my point I hope. ANYWAY GILLY COULD HAVE HAD A GLOVE MADE UP WITH PADDING TO PRODUCE SAME EFFECT (Help him grip the bat properly).
Here are some facts on Gilly. He has scored FIVE one day hundreds against Sri Lanka. In fact he has scored only two fifties against them, making this the ONLY country he has scored more one day centuries against then fifties and not just more but 5 to 2!!! His average according to cricinfo in one day cricket against Sri Lanka is a touch under 48 while his career average is around 36 in one day cricket. So point here would seem to indicate that there is significant statistical evidence that maybe Gilly just likes the Sri Lankan bowling.
Further in 2002/3 ICC world cup series Gilly scored 99 from 88 balls against Sri Lanka and how did he get out…they ran him out!!! This innings of 99 is one of his “Fifties”. So really this makes him one run/run out away from having a record of 6 one day centuries to 1 fifty against Sri Lanka!!!!! This ratio is unheard of even for Gilly as he has not done anything like this against any other nation, not even Canada.
In 2006 in Brisbane Gilly scored 122 against Sri Lanka and his hundred came of 67 balls!!!! WHERE WAS THE SQUASH BALL HERE??? Hmm maybe it’s not the squash ball, strange that.
In 2003 and then in 2004 Gilly was voted international one day cricketer of the year.
In June 2005 Gilly was voted the “scariest batsman”. Refer: http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/cbs/content/story/211318.html. Not a good thing when the “scariest batsman” seems to love your bowling. Sri Lanka lost the world cup not due to some beat up myth of the squash ball but because Gilly is just an amazing batsman whom they haven’t figured a way to get out once he gets going.
Final word people I have explained the legality of the squash ball and the “spirit of the legislation”. I have explained the reason why Gilly seems to love Sri Lankan bowling and is likely to do this sort of innings against them (once he gets started –it’s get him cheap or he will get you). I hope that people upset over this will take a deep look at themselves and realise the truth that they are really upset at the fact they don’t like the Australian team or there team didn’t win. Sri Lanka is a great team and will one day have their time in the sun. The History of cricket tells us teams have generations of domination but it doesn’t last forever…..Gilly will have to retire one day :-).
But finally I would like to remind you it is JUST A GAME PEOPLE, ENJOY IT FOR THAT, ALL THE LITTLE QUIRKS MAKE IT FUN. STOP TAKING IT TOO SERIOUSLY THIS IS WHY A COACH OF PAKISTAN IS NO LONGER WITH US. REMEMBER IF IT IS MAKING YOU ANGRY YOU HAVE LOST THE FUN ASPECT OF IT AND SHOULD THINK OF SOMETHING ELSE TO DO WITH YOURSELF. ENJOY IT PEOPLE, THAT’S WHY IT IS CALLED A GAME.
KEEPING IT REAL
P.S I was born and bred in England, but I respect good cricket when I see it.
May 7, 2007 at 12:14 pm
To all the sad people who can’t except the loss to a better team,
There is NO SCIENTIFIC ADVANTAGE in the squash ball!!! Learn Physics people and then LEARN BATTING TECHNIQUE….The ball is positioned in his glove so as to help remind Gilly to push his hands into the right position. It provides a physical barrier that makes it hard to grip the bat incorrectly. The point is in this position the ball is not depressed. How do I know for sure? Unlike all you sad pots I actually play cricket and I tried a squash ball in my glove in exactly the position I saw it in Gilchrists glove. To add to the authenticity I actually bat with a hand crafted replica of the bat Gilly used in his last word cup, which is made to his specifications. My gloves are also puma gloves. The ball sits off the bat handle so does not change in it’s compression, it mearly provides a bulge that makes it arkward when you grab the bat incorrectly. In this respect it provides no force and is not illegal as you can look at it as a self modification of the glove….perfectly in the rules. When Gilly wears it, it becomes by definition an item of clothing (clothing is defined as something you wear) and in the absence of specific exclusion laws such as with the aluminium bat is legal. The ICC would never ban it as it would restrict the design of the glove which some people require tailor made ones.
But for comedy sakes I will go into your agrument on the physics of the ball since I am a scientist I enjoy this stuff. (you clearly are not). If the squash ball was used to generate any force it would be so minute that it seriously would not add any bat speed, it is the bat that hits the ball not the squash ball so any effects would have to result in an increased bat speed. The recoil pressure of a compressed squash ball pushes both ways!!! When you bounce on a trampoline the trampoline can only stretch so far before the recoil (effectively force up) overcomes your weight (the force down), it can then only recoil back towards one position. A squash ball is three dimensional not a flat FIXED trampoline….try puting one on the ground and pushing it horizontally (on the side)….it will roll and not compress….why because “nothing” (only air) is pushing it the other way. Try pushing it verically (on top of the ball), it will now decompress because the effective weight of the ground is mother earth…a bit heavy to push. If Gilly positioned the ball so as to depress it, his hand is no mother earth (in fact it weighs much less then his bat) and he will have to apply a greater force (his muscles) to keep the ball depressed, further when the ball is recoiling it will expand in BOTH directions and Gilly would have to continue to press harder to prevent it forcing his hand out of position. Anyone with any batting knowledge will know this would be bad for your batting. As I have explained I actually used a squash ball and found all it does is provide a bulge that makes it arkward to grip the bat incorrectly, perfectly legal as explained above (type of modified glove). The recoil properties of a squash ball is no greater (of any significance - partiucarly half a squash ball then padding on the thumb and fingers) Regardless I tried positioning it into a position where it would depress and it was horrible in this position and incompatable with gripping the bat confidently (with any good technique). The squash ball in the glove is actually quite annoying and becomes more annoying the longer you bat, I congradulate Gilly not only on his batting so well but being able to do it with that dam thing in your glove.
One last point the world is laughing at all the whingers…why…because Gilly was dropped on 31 and a number of other times as well. Some threads have argued the squash ball was working against Gilly and was trying to get him out, but Sri Lanka couldn’t catch so the squash ball said ok Gilly lets rock I’ll stop trying to get you out now…but decided to cut him short of 150….dam that squash ball. I wonder if Sri Lanka knew how to catch a ball and had taken Gilly for 31 (or any of the other chances) if the whingers would be out in force. For all those Sri Lankans who think the squash ball helped Gilly you clearly missed the other 5 one day centuries he scored against you and the 99 run out….making it effectively 6 centuries to one fifty he has scored against you….something he has not come even close to doing against other nation and indicates once you drop him on 31 and he makes 50 you guys are toast. INSTEAD OF WHINGING ABOUT THE SQUASH BALL TELL YOUR TEAM TO DO SOME FIELDING PRACTICE AND CATCH GILLY WHEN HE HITS A CATCH.
To those who says “Lets hope Jayasooriya wants to use the same advantage” Yes…..lets and you will all see there is no advantage, I am sure Jayasooriya will keep smashing lollies and getting out to good bowling.
It is the little quirky behaviours that make it fun!!!! Stop whinging for the wrong reasons, just admit you are upset because your team lost.
Just enjoy the game…it is a game people nothing more.
KEEPING IT REAL
P.S I have been in but was not born in Australian, I just love the game and respect good cricket when I see it. I also respect all countries and am sick of racist whingers who use the name of the game to spread their prejudice. Remember Bob Woolmer….. some people take the game too seriously. It is sopposed to be fun so take a deep look at why you are upset, I think you are not being honest with yourselves.
May 7, 2007 at 1:46 pm
But MCC are the final authority on matters to do with the Laws, so I asked their head of cricket, the former England opener John Stephenson, who confirmed:
“The official view is that you are correct. It is no different to wearing inners, etc.”
http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/columns/content/current/story/293249.html
I think this sums its up nicely.
Of course we can now expect the “race card” to be played.
May 7, 2007 at 2:31 pm
R. George Manuelpillai Tel: 2588578
85/25 Jawatha Gardens
Colombo 05
April 30, 2007
The President
The International Cricket Council
World Cup Tournament
P.O. Box 5000/70
Dubai,
United Arab Emirates
Dear Sir,
Subject: 2007 World Cup winners -Australian Cricket Team be
Disqualified and the Sri Lanka Cricket Team be declared
as the winners, because Adam Gilchrist admits concealing
a performance enhancing device, inside his bottom hand
glove a squash ball.
Adam Gilchrist, the opening batsman for Australia admits to the correspondent, Bridgetown, Saturday, AFP of using a squash ball concealed inside his bottom hand glove, a performance enhancing device, to catapult the cricket ball. Using a squash ball enclosed inside the glove is considered as an illegal practice, resulting in catapulting and/or catastrophic consequences, thereby assisting Gilchrist to accumulate an induced score of 149 runs in the one day cricket finals at Barbados.
The Laws of Cricket 2000 Code 2 Ed. 2003: The Preamble to the Laws- specifically states that ?the game of Cricket is a game that owes much of its unique appeal to the fact that; it should be played not only within the rules, but also with the spirit of the game. Any action thereof, that is seen to abuse this spirit cause injury to the game itself. The major responsibility of ensuring the spirit of fair-play rests with the Captain?.
Based on the information related above, the opening batsmen Adam Gilchrist used a performance enhancing device in his bottom hand glove, a squash ball, challenging not only within its laws of Cricket, but also within the ?spirit of the game?. Any action which is seen to abuse the spirit causes injury to the game itself. Based on the Preamble, the Australian Cricket Team should be disqualified for the illegal practice of concealing a squash ball in the glove, a performance enhancing device. In lieu, the Sri Lankan Cricket Team be re-awarded the Cricket World Cup 2007.
The Captain was aware of the fact that Adam Gilchrist did practice wearing the spring loaded squash ball, concealed in the glove, a prohibitive exercise, with his friend, a squash player - Bob Meuleman, Western Australian Cricketer. So, the Captain in the ?Spirit of the Cricket Game?, should have brought it to the notice of the
Page 2:
Umpires, and obtained prior approval, before the Cricket game got started. Therefore it is pertinent that the ICC Committee take disciplinary action against both Gilchrist and the Captain-as they are jointly and severely guilty of the illegal device that was employed, and should be suspended for life. Furthermore, the Australian Cricket Team be disqualified from the World Cricket Cup 2007, and the cup be re-awarded to the Sri Lankan Cricket Team.
The characteristic of the squash ball indicates that the ball is made of vulcanised rubber with additions of polymers and synthetic material to achieve a degree of fairly low resilience. The lower the resilience of the object the higher the proportion of energy used in deforming it. Thus when a batsmen hits the cricket ball, the air inside the squash ball gets pressurised or deformed, releasing a spring load of energy, that is transferred directly to the bat, resulting in a catapulting effect on the cricket ball, as evidenced by the spectators, watching Gilchrist?s batting spell bound.
In this context, it is evident that wearing a performance enhancing device (Squash ball) is prohibitive against the ?Spirit of the Cricket Game? and is analogous to an Athlete using performance enhancing drugs to win his event. Furthermore, the Australian Cricket Team should be disqualified from the World Cup 2007 and in lieu Sri Lankan Cricket Team be re-awarded the World Cup 2007
Laws? the Bat: It defines that the bat should be made solely of wood and the hand and glove be part of the bat The specification of the glove is not defined, but it is prohibitive to enclose a performance enhancing device in the glove. Tampering the glove is synonymous to the tampering of the cricket ball, thus the practice is not allowed/acceptable. Moreover, it is explicit that no outside appliance/device can be introduced into the glove; more specifically a spring loaded device as evidenced in the squash ball and is prohibitive.
In conclusion, I write with a firm hand that the ICC conduct disciplinary hearings and the 2007 World Cricket Cup re-awarded to the Sri Lankan Cricket Club and a decision that both Adam Gilchrist and the Australian Captain be banned for Life.
In the event I do not hear from you, Legal Action will be meted against the ICC.
Soliciting your assistance,
Yours sincerely,
R. George Manuelpillai
A cricketer and an enthusiast .from Sri Lanka
Page 3:
CC: 1. The President ? MMC ? I would appreciate the views from your office, and
your actions with the ICC and the Australian Cricket Board..
2. The 16 Cricket Teams ? Please be reminded that Adam Gilchrist did admit to
concealing a squash ball in his glove. What assurance is there that other
Australian Cricketers too may have used the same technique in recording big
scores in the tournament just concluded? I suggest that in the ?Spirit of the
Cricket Game? that all the teams that did loose their matches to the Australian
Team should take legal action individually or in unison against the ICC and/or
the Australian board, for the use of a Performance Enhancing Device, a
catapulting effect to register big scores
May 7, 2007 at 2:59 pm
only a moron can look for a weak excuse that the squash ball helped gilchrist scored 150. why dont you people say sri lankan bowlers are simply not good enough????
gilchirst might have scored 200 if he did not have a squash ball as it hindered his hand inside the glove.
the only cheater is murali, he cheated his way to 700 test wickets. all sri lanka’s test and ODI victories that involed murali should be wiped out. He chucked his way to legendary status. IT is an insult to compare him to warne, who toiled his way to test success.
unless you moronic sri lanka supporters can come up with real scientific evidence, dont come up with this weak excuse.
everything can be an unfair advantage, eg sledging, gatorade energy drinks, heavy bats, good quality pads and gloves, steve waugh’s red handerchief……
maybe the following should be banned too as it gave the aussies unfair advantage. LOL!
http://www.sanitarium.com.au/products/breakfast-foods.html
May 7, 2007 at 3:04 pm
The april’s fool day has passed, LOL!!
the ICC president must have a good laugh reading this letter. HA HA HA!
I am worried by the mental state of the guy who wrote this letter.
——————————————————————–
April 30, 2007
The President
The International Cricket Council
World Cup Tournament
P.O. Box 5000/70
Dubai,
United Arab Emirates
Dear Sir,
Subject: 2007 World Cup winners -Australian Cricket Team be
Disqualified and the Sri Lanka Cricket Team be declared
as the winners, because Adam Gilchrist admits concealing
a performance enhancing device, inside his bottom hand
glove a squash ball.
Adam Gilchrist, the opening batsman for Australia admits to the correspondent, Bridgetown, Saturday, AFP of using a squash ball concealed inside his bottom hand glove, a performance enhancing device, to catapult the cricket ball. Using a squash ball enclosed inside the glove is considered as an illegal practice, resulting in catapulting and/or catastrophic consequences, thereby assisting Gilchrist to accumulate an induced score of 149 runs in the one day cricket finals at Barbados.
The Laws of Cricket 2000 Code 2 Ed. 2003: The Preamble to the Laws- specifically states that ?the game of Cricket is a game that owes much of its unique appeal to the fact that; it should be played not only within the rules, but also with the spirit of the game. Any action thereof, that is seen to abuse this spirit cause injury to the game itself. The major responsibility of ensuring the spirit of fair-play rests with the Captain?.
Based on the information related above, the opening batsmen Adam Gilchrist used a performance enhancing device in his bottom hand glove, a squash ball, challenging not only within its laws of Cricket, but also within the ?spirit of the game?. Any action which is seen to abuse the spirit causes injury to the game itself. Based on the Preamble, the Australian Cricket Team should be disqualified for the illegal practice of concealing a squash ball in the glove, a performance enhancing device. In lieu, the Sri Lankan Cricket Team be re-awarded the Cricket World Cup 2007.
The Captain was aware of the fact that Adam Gilchrist did practice wearing the spring loaded squash ball, concealed in the glove, a prohibitive exercise, with his friend, a squash player - Bob Meuleman, Western Australian Cricketer. So, the Captain in the ?Spirit of the Cricket Game?, should have brought it to the notice of the
Page 2:
Umpires, and obtained prior approval, before the Cricket game got started. Therefore it is pertinent that the ICC Committee take disciplinary action against both Gilchrist and the Captain-as they are jointly and severely guilty of the illegal device that was employed, and should be suspended for life. Furthermore, the Australian Cricket Team be disqualified from the World Cricket Cup 2007, and the cup be re-awarded to the Sri Lankan Cricket Team.
The characteristic of the squash ball indicates that the ball is made of vulcanised rubber with additions of polymers and synthetic material to achieve a degree of fairly low resilience. The lower the resilience of the object the higher the proportion of energy used in deforming it. Thus when a batsmen hits the cricket ball, the air inside the squash ball gets pressurised or deformed, releasing a spring load of energy, that is transferred directly to the bat, resulting in a catapulting effect on the cricket ball, as evidenced by the spectators, watching Gilchrist?s batting spell bound.
In this context, it is evident that wearing a performance enhancing device (Squash ball) is prohibitive against the ?Spirit of the Cricket Game? and is analogous to an Athlete using performance enhancing drugs to win his event. Furthermore, the Australian Cricket Team should be disqualified from the World Cup 2007 and in lieu Sri Lankan Cricket Team be re-awarded the World Cup 2007
Laws? the Bat: It defines that the bat should be made solely of wood and the hand and glove be part of the bat The specification of the glove is not defined, but it is prohibitive to enclose a performance enhancing device in the glove. Tampering the glove is synonymous to the tampering of the cricket ball, thus the practice is not allowed/acceptable. Moreover, it is explicit that no outside appliance/device can be introduced into the glove; more specifically a spring loaded device as evidenced in the squash ball and is prohibitive.
In conclusion, I write with a firm hand that the ICC conduct disciplinary hearings and the 2007 World Cricket Cup re-awarded to the Sri Lankan Cricket Club and a decision that both Adam Gilchrist and the Australian Captain be banned for Life.
In the event I do not hear from you, Legal Action will be meted against the ICC.
Soliciting your assistance,
Yours sincerely,
R. George Manuelpillai
A cricketer and an enthusiast .from Sri Lanka
Page 3:
CC: 1. The President ? MMC ? I would appreciate the views from your office, and
your actions with the ICC and the Australian Cricket Board..
2. The 16 Cricket Teams ? Please be reminded that Adam Gilchrist did admit to
concealing a squash ball in his glove. What assurance is there that other
Australian Cricketers too may have used the same technique in recording big
scores in the tournament just concluded? I suggest that in the ?Spirit of the
Cricket Game? that all the teams that did loose their matches to the Australian
Team should take legal action individually or in unison against the ICC and/or
the Australian board, for the use of a Performance Enhancing Device, a
catapulting effect to register big scores
May 7, 2007 at 4:40 pm
monster the moron says: The ICC president must have a good laugh reading this letter. HA HA HA!
The ICC has made a complete fiasco of the WC which is mainly funded by Asian countries…
The final should have been a 100 overs game. It was a very unfair final. The ICC dishonored the game. At the next ICC meeting Australian Cricket Team should be disqualified.
May 7, 2007 at 5:47 pm
You guys are the biggest joke on the planet. I hope you can read my entry earlier…you might learn something.
Bottom line: INSTEAD OF WHINGING ABOUT THE SQUASH BALL TELL YOUR TEAM TO DO SOME FIELDING PRACTICE AND CATCH GILLY WHEN HE HITS A CATCH.
KEEPING IT REAL
May 7, 2007 at 8:18 pm
COLOMBO, May 7: Sri Lanka believes Adam Gilchrist’s use of a squash ball as a batting aid in the World Cup final was “unethical” and may take the matter up with world cricket chiefs, officials said on Monday.
Gilchrist, whose record-breaking 149 led Australia to their fourth title, said he had a squash ball in one of his gloves to give him a better grip.
“I had a squash ball in my bottom-hand to help with my grip in training and I decided in this World Cup to use it in a match,” he said.
The revelation caused uproar here, with Sri Lanka Cricket secretary Kangadaran Mathivanan saying the matter could be taken up during next month’s International Cricket Council (ICC) annual general meeting.
“We are of the opinion that it was unethical for Gilchrist to use a squash ball to give unfair advantage,” Mathivanan said.
He said Sri Lanka could call on the ICC’s cricket committee for stringent application of “Law 42″ on fair and unfair play to ensure only the approved protection equipment was used.
Mathivanan said Sri Lanka Cricket would discuss the issue before deciding whether to raise it in London.
Sri Lankan newspapers have carried letters from irate fans accusing the Australians of resorting to unfair tactics to win the game.
“The question now asked by most Sri Lankan fans is whether the squash ball was used as a performance enhancing device,” said The Island , a privately-owned newspaper.
Fans say the use of the ball gave Gilchrist an extra edge over Sri Lanka’s bowlers.
http://cricket.indiatimes.com
May 7, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Anil what is your point…another uneducated reply from a journalist just rehashing uninformed opinions from disgruntled losers. Funny thing is he says it is unethical….far cry from against the rules. Obviously people who have no concept of this matter will continue to believe it is unethical….can lead a cow to water but can’t make them drink. Point is I have explained how it is NOT performance enhancing and how it simply helps Gilly find the right grip…THIS IS A FUNCTION OF YOUR GLOVES!!! Incorrect grip results in bats flying everywhere (very dangerous for fielders in close) and clearly as this happened to Gilly in the game the squash ball is not totally helping his grip. It is actually AGAINST WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY TO BAN ANYTHING THAT CAUSES AN INCREASE RISK IN THE WORK PLACE SO IT WOULD BE ILLEGAL TO BAN THE USE OF THE SQUASH BALL TO HELP GILLIES GRIP NOT JUST BY CRICKET RULES BUT INTERNATIONAL WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY.
WHAT A JOKE THIS TOPIC IS.
Keeping it real in the safety of all close fielders that place against Gilly.
May 7, 2007 at 9:49 pm
To all those idiots in here that think Gilchrist is a cheat and that most Aussies think he cheated…. Get a Grip people, the guy is a walker. When he’s out, he doesn’t wait for the umpire to tell him to go, he goes and that is the way he has played the game. If he REALLY wanted to cheat don’t you think he wouldn’t have pointed to the squash ball in his glove? Are you people really that stupid? He told everyone what he did!! CHEATS do not do this, pure and simple. Anyway here is the official word from cricinfo:
[b]Is it legal for a batsman to have a foreign object like a squash ball inside his gloves, as Adam Gilchrist apparently did in the World Cup final? asked Vijitha Herath from Germany (and several more people from Sri Lanka!)
My feeling was that it was legal, as I didn’t think you could distinguish between a squash ball - which Gilchrist admitted he used to improve his grip during his amazing innings in the World Cup final - and the inner gloves many batsmen wear, some of which have a certain amount of padding, the finger-stalls inside some gloves to protect finger-tips, or even the raw steaks people (usually wicketkeepers) were reputed to put inside their gloves to lessen the impact of the ball. But MCC are the final authority on matters to do with the Laws, so I asked their head of cricket, the former England opener John Stephenson, who confirmed: “The official view is that you are correct. It is no different to wearing inners, etc.” [/b]
So there you have it, it is LEGAL… you can all stop whinging now and talk about how this great cricket team that has won 29 straight world cup cricket games is perhaps the best one day side in the history of the game.. Thank you and good night.
May 7, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Oh and you guys don’t honestly believe Sri Lanka would have won if he didn’t have the squash ball??? Bwahahahahahahaha, that’s the funniest thing ever. What on earth gives you the impression Sri Lanka had a chance in that game or any game in the World Cup against Australia in the form they were in.
May 7, 2007 at 10:08 pm
you stupid sri lanka fans and players. Please all of you try playing with squash balls in your gloves. just see if all you can belt a 150 off 100 balls. Try it yourself to see if that give you extra power.
if you lot find out that does not help your batting at all, I demand all you to apologise to gilchirst, because all of you are defaming him. LOL!!
It is so easy to open your big mouth and use those rubbish phisics theory. find out if this is a valid accusation.
May 7, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Anil from India, I hope they do take it up with cricket chiefs because they will then realise how stupid and petty it was as it falls on deaf ears… Gilly’s been smacking 4’s and 6’s long before he had a squash ball in his glove. Wicket keepers use to put steak in their gloves, I’m wondering when the next Sri Lankan board meets if they could discuss that and get all the old games where keepers did that struck from the records, cause I’m sure they cheated LOL…. Arjuna Ranitunga was the biggest cheat of them all, using runners every time he went out to bat and chucking tantrums when he couldn’t get his own way…. He was unethical and using a runner to run twice as fast as he ever could I reckon we should strike from the record all the games he used a runner in…
May 7, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Cricinfo says the squash ball is legal. end of discussion.
you people have been exposed as sore losers. sour grapes.
http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/columns/content/current/story/293249.html
May 7, 2007 at 11:18 pm
The article about drugs is stupid but so are you!, Monster. You don’t seem to be able to come up with anything to back your arguements so all you do is disagree and call Murali a chucker. The man bowled in a steel brace, just to get idiots like you to shut up!!
Gilly’s extraordinary performance DOES make the whole squash ball scenario sound suspicious even though his stats against Sri Lanka are good. He HAS used it once before, in a domestic game where he scored 130 odd off 95 balls. Still, he did’nt use it again, not even in another WC game, even though he was badly out of touch. maybe others could have caught on, or maybe, he thought it would have been banned before the world cup even started?
It was a shame this had to happen, and put a cloud of doubt over everything because in reality, Aussie were in such great form they probably would have beaten Sri Lanka 8 times out of 10. It’s just like so many other big games where the other team are in with a sniff, and then suddenly a lucky LBW shout goes Australia’s way.
It’s funny though that guys like Ian Chappell are keeping silent about this, after the fuss they made about Sri Lanka resting players, when less than a month before, Aussie ‘insulted’ NZ (and the Chappells) by playing the traditional Chappell-Hadlee series without six regulars . To make matters worse, they lost the series 3 zip after failing to defend 300.. twice. It would have been interesting to hear Chappell’s comments, had the squash ball been used by a Sri Lankan..
May 7, 2007 at 11:35 pm
The following proves that it was not Gilly, it was the squash ball that won the World Cup
Gilly says “It was a bit of a frustrating tournament for me personally. I had had three or four 30s, a couple of 40s, and maybe another 50 and a few low scores, so I have been contributing to a partnership without nailing a big one myself. The standards this team set are so high which is brilliant,” he said. This clip proves how the squash ball won the World Cup
http://www.smh.com.au/news/cricket/no-quick-decisions-for-adam/2007/04/29/1177787973982.html
—————————————-
Adam Gilchrist’s use of a squash ball in his left glove during his matchwinning 149 in the World Cup final has met with divided reactions. Several voices have been raised questioning the legality of its use. Vijitha Herath of the University of Paderborn, Germany, has offered a scientific perspective on the issue in The Nation.
Just after the ball hits the bat (ball still touching the bat) this pressure starts to relax while the bat is moving forward. At the same time the energy stored in the squash ball releases its energy to the bat in the form of kinetic energy. As a result, the release-speed of the cricket ball becomes faster, resulting in the ball travelling further before hitting the ground. Therefore, it results in more sixes and fours being scored.
http://blogs.cricinfo.com/surfer/archives/2007/05/how_the_squash.php
—————————————
Vijitha Herath of the University of Paderborn, Germany, writes on the issue and it will be taken up at the next meeting of the ICC
Apropos the claim that Adam Gilchrist had a squash ball in his left glove during his innings at the finals of the cricket World Cup. Let me offer a scientific perspective.
A squash ball is a rubber ball. Unlike a cricket (leather) ball, it compresses when pressure is applied on it. When the pressure is released, it takes its original shape. In short, it acts like a spring (e.g.: a motorcycle shock absorber).
So what happens when a batsman has a squash ball in the palm of his bottom hand?
When a batsman swings the bat until it hits the ball, there is pressure on his bottom hand. This pressure compresses the squash ball thus storing energy in the ball similar to spring. Just after the ball hits the bat (ball still touching the bat) this pressure starts to relax while the bat is moving forward.
At the same time the energy stored in the squash ball releases its energy to the bat in the form of kinetic energy. The result is that the bat moves faster than normal (without a ball in the glove).
As a result, the release-speed of the cricket ball becomes faster resulting in the ball traveling further before hitting the ground. Therefore it results in more sixes and fours being scored.
The downside is because the bat travels faster than normal the batsman might lose control of the bat. This happened once in the Adam Gilchrist’s innings when the bat slipped out of his hands and fell behind the wickets. If you have any doubts please try to do it yourself and see the result.
In brief Gilchrist’s use of the squash ball allowed him to hit the ball further in the field.
The above explanation clearly gives you an insight into the fact that the squash ball was used not purely as a protective gear but, as a performance enhancer to a player who was playing his last World Cup innings and did not care of the consequences, but was hell bent on rubbing some glory upon himself.
————————————–
monster comments:
Cricinfo says the squash ball is legal. End of discussion.
People this is what Steven Lynch said:
Is it legal for a batsman to have a foreign object like a squash ball inside his gloves, as Adam Gilchrist apparently did in the World Cup final? Asked Vijitha Herath from Germany (and several more people from Sri Lanka!)
My feeling was that it was legal, as I didn’t think you could distinguish between a squash ball - which Gilchrist admitted he used to improve his grip during his amazing innings in the World Cup final - and the inner gloves many batsmen wear, some of which have a certain amount of padding, the finger-stalls inside some gloves to protect finger-tips, or even the raw steaks people (usually wicketkeepers) were reputed to put inside their gloves to lessen the impact of the ball. But MCC are the final authority on matters to do with the Laws, so I asked their head of cricket, the former England opener John Stephenson, who confirmed: “The official view is that you are correct. It is no different to wearing inners, etc.”
http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/columns/content/current/story/293249.html
Steven Lynch (is the deputy editor of The Wisden Group) and of crickinfo says, it is… his feeling, a feeling can’t be taken as the final, we all have feelings… this shows how desperate the Aussies are, let me educate you, my friend monster and the rest of the Aussies hear…. with all due respect to Steven Lynch of crickinfo, this matter will be decided by the ICC. If it gets to that level at the next meeting, so guys just let the law take its course… Thank you guys… for your feelings.
May 7, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Winstan:
If Gilchrist intended to cheat, why did he reveal the fact that he had a ball inside his glove?? He could have kept silent and no one will know. please explain.
May 7, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Ranjith Wijewardene
very weak reasoning. just because gilly did not play well at the beginning and scored a big one in the final did not prove he cheated. He was due a big score, and it came in the final.
—————————————–
The following proves that it was not Gilly, it was the squash ball that won the World Cup
Gilly says “It was a bit of a frustrating tournament for me personally. I had had three or four 30s, a couple of 40s, and maybe another 50 and a few low scores, so I have been contributing to a partnership without nailing a big one myself. The standards this team set are so high which is brilliant,” he said. This clip proves how the squash ball won the World Cup
http://www.smh.com.au/news/cricket/no-quick-decisions-for-adam/2007/04
May 8, 2007 at 12:34 am
Ranjith thanks you said it brilliantly, when you put it this way:
The following proves that it was not Gilly, it was the squash ball that won the World Cup
Gilly says “It was a bit of a frustrating tournament for me personally. I had had three or four 30s, a couple of 40s, and maybe another 50 and a few low scores, so I have been contributing to a partnership without nailing a big one myself. The standards this team set are so high which is brilliant,” he said. This clip proves how the squash ball won the World Cup
I personally never realized that Gilly said this, until you brought it up. Outstanding research Editor Lanka Page and Topix.net this is certainly “The Smoking Gun”, irrefutable proof that Gilly cheated.
Sri Lanka Cricket take note and thank Ranjith Wijewardene for “The Smoking Gun”.
May 8, 2007 at 5:33 am
He didn’t say the last sentence, he only said:
““It was a bit of a frustrating tournament for me personally. I had had three or four 30s, a couple of 40s, and maybe another 50 and a few low scores, so I have been contributing to a partnership without nailing a big one myself. The standards this team set are so high which is brilliant,”
How on earth does that prove the squash ball won the world cup??? You folks are really clutching at straws and fail to pick up on any point unless it suits your own point of view. I will state again:
“But MCC are the final authority on matters to do with the Laws, so I asked their head of cricket, the former England opener John Stephenson, who confirmed: “The official view is that you are correct. It is no different to wearing inners, etc.”
Get over it. Sri Lanka lost and this carry on proves that you are sore losers.
May 8, 2007 at 6:06 am
“Monster” and “Cricket Player” are gay lovers!! The only ball to bat action they’ve ever experienced is while playing in each others Gullies
May 8, 2007 at 6:38 am
[...] said Sri Lanka could call on the ICC’s cricket committee for stringent application of “Law 42” on fair and unfair play to ensure only the approved protection equipment was [...]
May 8, 2007 at 7:04 am
From Cricinfo today:
Adam Gilchrist and the art of innovation
Squashing glory
Dileep Premachandran
May 5, 2007
Watching it was like being transported on a magic carpet to other worlds but, once the ride was over, you were left to ponder an innings that was every bit as unusual as it was resplendent. And years from now, we’re still likely to be talking about the day a humble little squash ball played its part in one of the great batting efforts of our times, the day Adam Gilchrist scored 149 off 104 balls in the World Cup final.
Dozens of readers have written in to Cricinfo since, questioning the legality of the innings. “If using a squash ball isn’t OK as per the laws of the game, is his innings legal and does it count?” asked one. “And if it doesn’t count, can Australia claim to have won a hopelessly one-sided and farcical victory?”
Another concentrated on the minutiae of the laws. “The law specifically prohibits a player from using equipment other than that permitted,” he wrote. “And nowhere in cricket’s 42 laws is there a mention of a squash ball as a permitted item. If you are not allowed to bowl with any tape or plaster on your fingers, I don’t think you should be allowed to have a squash ball in your gloves when batting.”
And that’s precisely where we enter the greyest of cricket’s many grey areas. As long ago as the 19th century, a South African gent by the name of Baberton Halliwell used raw steaks inside his wicketkeeping gloves, a method subsequently emulated by the likes of Alan Knott and Rod Marsh. Batsmen with poppadam fingers, as Nasser Hussain came to be known, have also been known to have extra padding and protection inside their gloves.
According to an article in The Daily Express, it’s not only gloves that have been messed with in the quest to get ahead. It mentions how John Wright, the former New Zealand opener who coached India, used to glue his top glove to the handle, in order to maintain the alignment of elbow and shoulder. Even more fascinating is Tim Robinson’s account of how Clive Rice, the South Africa and Nottinghamshire allrounder, would wrap strips of lead around the top of his handle to balance what was a very heavy bat.
Gilchrist had his own trick, not up his sleeve but inside his glove. It wasn’t the first time that the squash ball had come into play either. At the WACA last November, he flayed the Queensland attack for 131 from 95 balls, but the experiment suggested by Bob Meuleman, a former squash player himself, remained just that until he got to the World Cup final.
It had been a frustrating tournament for him, as he admitted later. Half-centuries against the Netherlands and Bangladesh boosted his run tally to 304 runs, but there was no doubt that it was the other half of the opening combo, Matthew Hayden, that had intimidated the life out of opposition teams.
With his relatively light bat and atypical grip, Gilchrist had started to fall to the strokes that had once been his forte. The sliced drive to point was of particular concern and, on the eve of the game, he decided to give the squash ball another go.
What it did when slipped inside the left glove was make him markedly less bottom-handed in his approach. As Meuleman said in a newspaper interview later, “I’ve worked with him for 10 years and he an unusual grip in which his hand goes too far around the back of the bat. It [the squash ball] is a great big lump in your glove but it means that you can only use your bottom hand in a V.”
According to Meuleman, who played a few Sheffield Shield games himself in the 1960s, the effect was dramatic. “He had a few hits before he went off to the World Cup; he didn’t have the squash ball in and he hit them like he couldn’t even play fourth grade. He put it in and he then hit the ball so good.”
At the Kensington Oval, Mahela Jayawardene was well aware of the wonderful twirl of the bat that sent the ball scurrying to the point or cover fence that came to epitomise the Gilchrist way. Having suffered previously at Gilchrist’s hands, Jayawardene blockaded the off side, with an isosceles-triangle formation of backward point, a short-square point and an extra-cover. The aim was to starve him of his main scoring outlet, thus inducing a rash stroke or two.
What the squash ball did was change his scoring areas completely. His last one-day century, against Sri Lanka on Valentine’s Day in 2006, had highlighted his off-side strengths - 60 of his 122 runs came there - but he started off the World Cup final with a clip behind square leg and a stunning shot over wide long-on.
By the time he departed, with victory almost assured, only five of his runs had come in that favoured arc from backward point to cover. There were lofted shots aplenty, but most were struck with precision straight down the ground. A staggering 65 runs came from strokes in the V, including six fours and five sixes.
The ICC may have cracked down on graphite strips and the like, but when steaks - rare preferred to medium or well done - and cricket have been hand-in-glove, it’s unlikely that the squash ball can be proscribed. Having tried it, as many readers no doubt have, we can safely say that batting with it is no picnic. A bunny with squash-ball-in-glove doesn’t a Gilchrist make.
Dileep Premachandran is associate editor of Cricinfo
I guess the question I ask is: was John Wright a cheat? and Rod Marsh or the keepers that put steaks in their gloves? and Clive Rice who put lead on his bat? As Premachandran notes, it’s not easy batting with a squash ball. It doesn’t help him hit bigger sixes, we already know he could do that! It helped his technique. He showed it to the world, it’s not like he was trying to hide it. As for why he may not have declared it before the innings, I suspect that he didn’t realise it was going to be made a big deal by a bunch of whining Sri Lankans after the game. He already did it against Queensland last year. Funny thing is though, they didn’t all jump up and down because they lost or say he was unethical or a cheat, and I suspect they still wouldn’t.
Perhaps the Sri Lankans are upset because many Australians feel Murali changed the laws of cricket with his form of spin bowling. Should we rule him out of the game because he has a different shaped arm to most other cricket players?? If not, move on and forget it..
May 8, 2007 at 7:16 am
The world is laughing at all the whingers…why…because Gilly was dropped on 31 and a number of other times as well. Some threads have argued the squash ball was working against Gilly and was trying to get him out, but Sri Lanka couldn’t catch so the squash ball said ok Gilly lets rock I’ll stop trying to get you out now…but decided to cut him short of 150….dam that squash ball. I wonder if Sri Lanka knew how to catch a ball and had taken Gilly for 31 (or any of the other chances) if the whingers would be out in force. For all those Sri Lankans who think the squash ball helped Gilly you clearly missed the other 5 one day centuries he scored against you and the 99 run out….making it effectively 6 centuries to one fifty he has scored against you….something he has not come even close to doing against other nation and indicates once you drop him on 31 and he makes 50 you guys are toast. In 2006 in Brisbane he scored 100 of 67 balls against Sri Lanka…that dam squash ball SLOWED HIM DOWN……INSTEAD OF WHINGING ABOUT THE SQUASH BALL TELL YOUR TEAM TO DO SOME FIELDING PRACTICE AND CATCH GILLY WHEN HE HITS A CATCH.
May 8, 2007 at 8:01 am
Gilchrist had an unfair advantage which is not in line with the cricketing rules.
May 8, 2007 at 8:36 am
Dr Rajkumar: you are right it was an unfair advantage, if only the Sri Lankans had caught him on 31… I think we should ban the Sri Lankans for dropping catches….
The fact is, Gilly has hit 99.9% of his centuries without a squash ball, and if you take a look at a few you will note they were all fast and most had big 6’s and 4’s…
As for “not in line with the rules” I’m sorry that simply has not been proven and until it is you are blowing hot air in the wind my friend….. Why don’t you let cricket’s administrators decide what is legal and illegal….
May 8, 2007 at 9:02 am
Now you’re in line, all this time you were quoting cricinfo and Steven Lynch. Why this sudden change to let cricket’s administrators decide what is legal and illegal, Sri Lankans have mentioned here and in other forums that this issue will be taken to the ICC, you guys are fully aware of the verdict which is bad news for Australia as Sri Lanka could call on the ICC’s cricket committee for stringent application of “Law 42″ on fair and unfair play to ensure only the approved protection equipment was used. The end result… at the next ICC meeting Australian Cricket Team will be disqualified.
May 8, 2007 at 9:56 am
Dr Rajkumar, you are dreaming if you think they will be disqualified, they simply won’t. It appears you have selective reading syndrome. I quoted Steven Lynch to demonstrate that he had personally asked the MCC their thoughts and they said it was ok. I have demonstrated that other players in the past have done all kinds of stuff like putting steak in gloves, gluing gloves to the bat, wearing extra padding. What will simply happen is glove manufacturers will sew some kind of device into the glove to help players who tend to choke the bat with their bottom hand, similar to what golf equipment manufacturers did when they made the extra long putter for golfers getting the yips….
Gilly has always been able to smash 6’s and 4’s, all this did was helped his technique, it didn’t make the ball go further as some idiots are suggesting. I so far have heard nothing from the players themselves or any other countries officials.
I’m happy to play the game all over again, without the squash ball, the end result will be the same, Sri Lanka will lose again, as they did earlier in the cup. Murali’s worst figures are against us, the Sri Lankan bowlers are no major threat and they dropped catches.. If the Sri Lankans had caught Gilly on 31 we’d all be talking about how the squash ball hindered his batting. This is simply a case of Sore Loser syndrome!
May 8, 2007 at 10:34 am
Maybe Sri Lanka should learn to catch, what do you Sri Lankan fans think? As was pointed out earlier, he was DROPPED on 31. Stop finding excuses, admit they were beaten by a better team. And, stop using the race card (like all sub continent teams).
May 8, 2007 at 10:36 am
You just can’t stand that your buddy Gilly being hammered by all the forums and Head Line news about his cheating. So you sit there at your keyboard ranting and raving and trying to place blame on anything and everything you can’t even evaluate and comment intelligently on what you’ve read. It shows your true inner self. Go get a life Spiceman…
May 8, 2007 at 11:14 am
How about in the next Australia/Sri Lanka game, the Sri Lankans can put squash balls in their gloves while the Australian bowlers are allowed to throw the ball Murali style. By your logic Sri Lanka should thrash Australia, somehow I don’t think it will happen though…..especially since Sri Lanka can’t field
May 8, 2007 at 11:36 am
what the 65. Have you done publishing your crap here. It’s disgusting are you out of your freakin’ mind?
May 8, 2007 at 11:41 am
66, which part is digusting ? The fact that Murali throws the ball or the fact that Sri Lanka can’t field ?
I am well inside my mind, thankyou for your concern.
Seriously, this would have to rate as the most pathetic grab for an undeserved win since Germany declared themselves the winner of World War II
May 8, 2007 at 12:15 pm
We do not know that is the device used by Gilchrist to enhance the Performance.
But we notice the clear difference of scoring with others in the team and with his last word cup matches. Gilchrist also admited he used a squesh ball and he know well that it improved the performance.
Can others also make such devices to ehance the peroformance?
May 8, 2007 at 12:42 pm
That is a ridiculous argument.
Gilchrist has often stood out for saving the team when his teammates failed to get decent scores. Try England v Australia 12 July 2005 for example. The same can be said for Ponting, the Waugh brothers, Hayden, Langer etc. etc.
Or Ian Botham for England, Brian Lara for W Indies, Inzamam for Pakistan, and so on, they all have got high scores while their teammates didn’t - I suppose they all must have cheated too ?
May 8, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Physics, people.
Average force = Change in Momentum x Change in time.
This is simple, unchangeable physics. If you want to maximize the force with which the ball is hit, you need to minimize the amount of time in which the momentum of the ball is changed.
Squash ball, spring - if the ELASTICITY of the glove is increased in any way at all, then the contact time between ball and bat can only INCREASE, thus the force applied to the ball from the bat is spread out over a greater period of time.
Aluminium and graphite bats were banned because they were INELASTIC - which means they reduced the contact time between ball and bat and thus could maximize the amount of force transferred from bat to ball in the shortest time.
Thus, the squash ball, if anything, acts as a force ‘absorber’ and LESSENS the force on the ball.
Sri Lanka - accept defeat or learn physics. One or the other is fine.
May 8, 2007 at 1:01 pm
mr curry
It took the British hundreds of years to get them to stop living in trees and clubbing monkeys in their spare time, so you have to be generous in your expectations for them to learn the correct bowling action.
And as for learning physics, well……
May 8, 2007 at 1:58 pm
It seems Australians are very inventive in cricket:
Denis Lilee et al - How to use an Aluminum bat to score consecutive half centuries
Darrel Hair et al- how to neutralize Asian players forever!
Darren Lehman - How to put the pressure on opposition based on their race !
Shane warne et al- Do really steroids help to spin?
Ricky Ponting et. al- Investigation of carbon fibers/stripes to transfer energy from bat to ball
Adam Gilchrist - Application of Squash balls in cricket (thesis under review.)
May 8, 2007 at 2:28 pm
YOU ALL ARE A BUNCH OF MOTHERFUCKERS!!
May 8, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Dear Lankans/GilChrist haters,
Please read the following before you think GilChrist is a Cheat:
ICC World cup 2003 Super Six match:
Australia Vs Srilanka:
Adam GilChrist “WALKED” even though Umpire declared him “NOT OUT”
Do you think GilChrist is/was a Cheat? If he was, he would have remained at his crease.
——————————-
VB Series Finals
GilChrist scored 122 runs vs Srilankans
100 off 62 balls
Murlaitharan figures: 10-0-99 runs
Did he “CHEATED”? Also, his first century is against Lankans 150+ score
Please reply.
Sunil Kumar
India
May 8, 2007 at 2:52 pm
The MCC, who are the guardians of the Laws, told Cricinfo that the official view is that the action was legal “It is no different to wearing inners, etc,” Jon Stephenson, said.
END OF THE DISCUSSION
Gilchrist scored a matchwinning 149 against Sri Lanka in the final and later revealed his batting aid. “I had a squash ball in my bottom-hand to help with my grip in training and I decided in this World Cup to use it in a match.”
Source: cricinfo
Again, if GilChrist is a Cheat, why would he reveal his “Cheating IDEAS”
Sunil Kumar
India
May 8, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Dear Lankans/GilChrist haters,
Please read the following before you think GilChrist is a Cheat:
ICC World cup 2003 SEMIFINALS:
Australia Vs Srilanka:
Adam GilChrist “WALKED” even though Umpire declared him “NOT OUT”
Do you think GilChrist is/was a Cheat? If he was, he would have remained at his crease.
Earlier in the Super six match vs Srilanka, he scored 99 runs.
———————————————-
The MCC, who are the guardians of the Laws, told Cricinfo that the official view is that the action was legal “It is no different to wearing inners, etc,” Jon Stephenson, said.
END OF THE DISCUSSION
Gilchrist scored a matchwinning 149 against Sri Lanka in the final and later revealed his batting aid. “I had a squash ball in my bottom-hand to help with my grip in training and I decided in this World Cup to use it in a match.”
Source: cricinfo
Again, if GilChrist is a Cheat, why would he reveal his “Cheating IDEAS”
to PUBLIC?
Please reply (with no insults)
Sunil Kumar
India
May 8, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Sunil Kumar 74. 75. 76.
Because GilChrist is a Cheat and a idiot…
May 8, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Murlaitharan says “OK”
==========================================
“My personal view is that it was very unethical,” Mathivanan told the Herald last night.
“It gave him a better grip against some of our best bowlers, and it might be something I take up at the next ICC meeting. When Trevor and Greg [Chappell] decided to bowl underarm, it was allowed then, but later the ICC changed the law for one-day cricket. It is the same here. It is against the spirit of the game. I think it should be looked at.”
Mathivanan insisted several players had told him “they were a bit upset” over the use of the squash ball.
********************************************
That was contradicted by Muttiah Muralitharan. “That is [Mathivanan's] personal opinion; the team doesn’t think that,” the spinner told the Herald.
************************************************
“If anything, I would think having a squash ball in your glove would be uncomfortable. I don’t know if I could even hold a bat with something like that in my glove. So if [Gilchrist wants to do it], it is OK with me.”
************************************************
Mathivanan also received little support from SLC chief executive Duleep Mendis.
When asked if he supported his secretary, Mendis said: “You must call him about that.”
Gilchrist’s use of the squash ball, as recommended by former WA batsman Bob Meuleman, was used to lighten his grip and stop the bat rotating in his hands.
So, Lankan fans/GilChrist haters, listen to Muralitharan and follow in his steps
http://blogs.smh.com.au/sport/archives/2007/05/sri_lankan_sour_grapes_or_aust.html#comments
May 8, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Sunil Kumar 74. 75. 76. 78.
Because GilChrist is a Cheat and a idiot…
May 8, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Hello Anil
How are you doing? GilChrist is a Walker, he’s not a Cheat.
And do you know GilChrist supports 2 Indian boys, one an orphan and the other who lost his father?
In my opinion, he is a great Philanthrophist.
Gilchrist to sponsor Mumbai maid’s kid
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2181332.cms
GilChrist, Ambassador for World Vision
http://www.worldvision.com.au/media/archivedrelease.asp?id=176
May 8, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Dear Lankans/GilChrist haters,
Please read the following before you think GilChrist is a Cheat:
ICC World cup 2003 SEMIFINALS:
Australia Vs Srilanka:
Adam GilChrist “WALKED” even though Umpire declared him “NOT OUT”
Do you think GilChrist is/was a Cheat? If he was, he would have remained at his crease.
Earlier in the Super six match vs Srilanka, he scored 99 runs.
———————————————-
The MCC, who are the guardians of the Laws, told Cricinfo that the official view is that the action was legal “It is no different to wearing inners, etc,” Jon Stephenson, said.
END OF THE DISCUSSION
Gilchrist scored a matchwinning 149 against Sri Lanka in the final and later revealed his batting aid. “I had a squash ball in my bottom-hand to help with my grip in training and I decided in this World Cup to use it in a match.”
Source: cricinfo
Again, if GilChrist is a Cheat, why would he reveal his “Cheating IDEAS”
to PUBLIC?
Please reply (with no insults)
Sunil Kumar
India
May 8, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Gilchrist, he has cheated, No cricketer in the world will resort to that kind of trick. Aussies were scared of Sri Lankans and they wanted to maintain their image at any cost.
May 8, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Aussies scared of Sri Lankans ? HAHAHAHAH
You mean, the same way Muralitharan is scared to play at the MCG ?
May 8, 2007 at 3:18 pm
And have you forgotten that GilChrist’s hundred ::
Australia Vs World XL in Melbourne’s Telstra Dome, where GilChrist showed his MASTER CLASS BATTING against the World’s best bowlers.
Anyways, The Law-makers of Cricket say:
*******************************************
The MCC, who are the guardians of the Laws, told Cricinfo that the official view is that the action was legal “It is no different to wearing inners, etc,” Jon Stephenson, said.
(Cricinfo)
END OF THE DISCUSSION
*******************************************
Muttaih Muralitrharan says:
“If anything, I would think having a squash ball in your glove would be uncomfortable. I don’t know if I could even hold a bat with something like that in my