Cricket Player Manager
Page 17 of 19 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 LastLast
Results 241 to 255 of 284

Thread: Gilchrist a cheater?

  1. #241
    U19 Debutant
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    toronto
    Posts
    367
    One of the Best Articles from a Colombo Newspaper.


    Barking up the wrong tree?
    Saturday, 12 May 2007 - 6:02 AM SL Time


    Throughout their World Cup campaign one thing stood out about the
    Sri Lankan captain. It was Jayawardene`s magnanimity, decency and
    sense of proportion; an extension of his sportsmanship. Even after
    the final defeat, the captain never whinged: no sour grapes, no
    excuses, no passing the blame on the weather, poor umpiring or
    squash balls for his side`s defeat. Instead he admitted the better
    side won. That`s all.

    There is a lesson in it for all of us. Firstly, to accept defeat
    with grace. To accept that the better side won the match. To accept
    that an incredible innings was played that day, the likes of which
    we shall probably never see again. And if we are trying to put it
    all down to a squash ball in a glove, then, let us at least be aware
    not to appear churlish whilst we set about doing so. Petulance can
    have its limits.

    ?No dinner invitations or Christmas cards!

    I am quite certain I will definitely be in the minority sharing such
    views. Probably in some quarters I will even be open to ridicule.
    But a critic of the game cannot sidestep issues and worse, side with
    the majority fearing popular sentiment that may be at variance with
    his own thinking. So swimming against the current it has to be, if
    one`s conscience does not allow otherwise. With all due respect to
    all who have written so strongly on the subject, I wish to present a
    line of thought which is not likely to earn me invitations to dinner
    or even receive the odd card at Christmas. Never mind!

    ?Prefer reliance on objective than subjective thinking.

    Logic in these matters often helps. And logic tells me that a squash
    ball given the location shown in the pictures and allegedly used for
    the purpose of propelling a hit a long way will not serve the
    purpose. Certainly not in the manner thought out by most of those
    who have rushed so hastily to pour out their venom in print.

    ?What an encumberance!

    Just a minute. Before you go on the boil I ask you to go back to
    your days of wielding a bat. The main consideration about a grip is
    how relaxed or comfortable you are when doing so. Having a ball
    stuck in your palm, squash or otherwise and embracing the bat handle
    whilst embracing the squash ball as well, would be a pretty tall
    order for anyone willing to try it out. In other words, if the
    bottom hand were to go round the handle of the bat as well as
    embrace most of the squash ball`s circumference as well, it will
    result in a very insecure grip of the bat with the bottom hand to
    say the least. Not the sort that would help Gilchrist deposit
    Chaminda Vaas 15 rows into the stand beyond long-on.

    ?The purpose was to make him change the grip and not hit longer.

    We have learnt that the purpose was to help Gilchrist towards an
    orthodox grip; to prevent his bottom hand from tending to rotate too
    much towards the back of the bat as was his wont. If a close study
    of pictures of the ball`s location is made, it would be noticed that
    it was directly beneath the base of his middle and ring fingers.
    That would leave a pathway clear in the rest of his palm to allow
    the bat handle to pass which would lend towards a far greater
    orthodoxy in Gilchrist`s grip. So it appears the ball was there to
    make him change his grip and not help him hit longer. If that is a
    load of bunkum, all our local heroes should emulate Gilchrist,
    supplant balls inside their gloves and start hitting balls into the
    closest river.

    ?The positioning is vital to the argument.

    The positioning of the squash ball is vital to the argument. Had it
    been anywhere else than where it was, at least the hysteria would
    have some basis. Now it hasn`t, because by securing the squash ball
    where it was, all what Gilchrist achieved was a more orthodox grip
    by searching for a comfort zone in the remainder of his bottom palm.
    He achieved that by turning his bottom hand more towards the front
    or the face of the bat, automatically. If Gilchrist`s previous grip
    resulted in uppish sliced shots towards third man and backward point
    area, the new grip saw them off. So the squash ball served to
    prevent the bottom hand rotating towards the back of the bat through
    the creation of discomfort beyond a certain point. Gilchrist might
    have achieved the same effect had he discarded the squash ball and
    stuffed any other spherical object instead, to serve the same
    purpose. The purpose was to create a `stop` and relocate the hands
    on the handle towards orthodoxy, rather than gain the alleged
    advantage.

    ?Surely, not that dumb?

    If gaining an unfair advantage was the motive, Gilchrist would also
    have been extremely foolish if not naiive in making a public
    exhibition of the fact that he carried a squash ball in his palm by
    repeatedly pointing to it in full view of millions of viewers. At
    least lets give it to him, he isn`t that dumb.

    ?What about heavy bats and all protective gear?

    All protective equipment and strappings which sportsmen wear are in
    one way or another, performance enhancing. Be they chest pads,
    helmets, thigh pads, arm guards or a varied assortment of batting
    glove designs, and what went into them. All sorts of designs and
    fortifications have been introduced in the wake of players demanding
    greater safety for their fingers. But still no one has queried
    either those, or the obvious unfairness of the use of heavier bats
    by some, or even the widespread acceptance of protective equipment
    for close in fielders. The use of a box, shin guards, chest guards
    and helmets can be said gives the fielder an unfair advantage in
    that it allows them to stand intimidatingly close to the batsman
    which they would never do, otherwise.

    ?In the end it is just how good you are in what you do.

    Despite all the hullabaloo, at the end of the day what matters is
    how good you are at what you do. No amount of stuffing gloves with
    whatever the balls - tennis, golf, squash or even sheep`s testicles
    ? will matter. If a batsman simply cannot bat, he wont make runs
    despite all the balls. Similarly whatever a bowler may do ? in
    eschewing more comfortable boots, taping of ankles and shoulders or
    eating bananas for more energy - if he cannot bowl properly, he wont
    take wickets. Similarly, should coaches be banned along with
    technology, gear improvement and healthy diets, simply because it
    may gives some teams which could afford them greater advantage over
    the others?

    ?Response from the custodians of the Laws.

    The MCC being the custodians of the Laws made a recent clarification
    on the issue, and the ICC forwarded it to a local `Blog.` The Law
    they said, only specifies what external and visible protective
    equipment is permitted. Such as helmets, pads, batting gloves and
    forearm guards. None of them ? barring wicket-keeping gloves - carry
    any definition or prescription to design or size. Since there is no
    restriction in Law even on the external form of batting gloves let
    alone their interior, no Law they say, has been breached in this
    instance.

    The MCC have recognized that players, mostly batsmen, wear other
    items for their protection, but since they are not visible and
    therefore not external. Therefore no objection is raised. Had such
    items as chest protectors or even helmets been banned, the
    authorities could be held responsible in the event of serious injury
    or death occurring as a result. The MCC has also recognized that the
    squash ball was not for protection from injury, but to improve the
    way the batsman gripped the bat handle. They saw the squash ball no
    less fair than the widespread practice of having two or three grips
    on the bat handle - to which no objection, official or unofficial,
    has ever been raised. They were both used to improve the grip. In
    conclusion they have indicated that the incident could not be
    classed either as contravening the Law or as breaching the Spirit of
    the Game.

    ?Missing the most valid point.

    I believe the majority who have rushed to ink their thoughts have
    missed a valid point. It is that Gilchrist`s bottom hand did not
    encompass the squash ball as well as the bat whilst gripping the
    bat. Instead, the squash ball merely shifted the location of his
    bottom hand on the handle, towards an orthodox grip. Possibly it
    lightened his grip more than tighten it. And it certainly stopped
    his bottom hand from moving back around the bat. So if the grip was
    improved as a result, it was no different to a batsman having two or
    three grips on his handle to achieve the same purpose.

    ?Looking at the positives than dwelling on the negatives.

    All good men everywhere, may want to slow down on the hysteria and
    avoid stirring up needless conflict. Particularly in areas which can
    show us up in the worst possible light. Instead it may be a great
    idea that the entire nation rejoices in the fact that the team did
    well enough to reach the final. That was a tremendous achievement in
    any language. Far better fancied teams couldn`t go that far.

    Related News Articles:
    9-4-2006 Barking up the wrong tree!

    Source(s)
    Wijeya Newspapers

  2. #242
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by chipmonk View Post
    Totally Disagree ! If that's your benchmark for a troll most of the members here should be accused of same .... Cough ..... cough ... Scaly ....cough fiery.... m**** !
    M****?
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  3. #243
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by chipmonk View Post
    One of the Best Articles from a Colombo Newspaper.


    Barking up the wrong tree?
    Saturday, 12 May 2007 - 6:02 AM SL Time


    Throughout their World Cup campaign one thing stood out about the
    Sri Lankan captain. It was Jayawardene`s magnanimity, decency and
    sense of proportion; an extension of his sportsmanship. Even after
    the final defeat, the captain never whinged: no sour grapes, no
    excuses, no passing the blame on the weather, poor umpiring or
    squash balls for his side`s defeat. Instead he admitted the better
    side won. That`s all.

    There is a lesson in it for all of us. Firstly, to accept defeat
    with grace. To accept that the better side won the match. To accept
    that an incredible innings was played that day, the likes of which
    we shall probably never see again. And if we are trying to put it
    all down to a squash ball in a glove, then, let us at least be aware
    not to appear churlish whilst we set about doing so. Petulance can
    have its limits.

    ?No dinner invitations or Christmas cards!

    I am quite certain I will definitely be in the minority sharing such
    views. Probably in some quarters I will even be open to ridicule.
    But a critic of the game cannot sidestep issues and worse, side with
    the majority fearing popular sentiment that may be at variance with
    his own thinking. So swimming against the current it has to be, if
    one`s conscience does not allow otherwise. With all due respect to
    all who have written so strongly on the subject, I wish to present a
    line of thought which is not likely to earn me invitations to dinner
    or even receive the odd card at Christmas. Never mind!

    ?Prefer reliance on objective than subjective thinking.

    Logic in these matters often helps. And logic tells me that a squash
    ball given the location shown in the pictures and allegedly used for
    the purpose of propelling a hit a long way will not serve the
    purpose. Certainly not in the manner thought out by most of those
    who have rushed so hastily to pour out their venom in print.

    ?What an encumberance!

    Just a minute. Before you go on the boil I ask you to go back to
    your days of wielding a bat. The main consideration about a grip is
    how relaxed or comfortable you are when doing so. Having a ball
    stuck in your palm, squash or otherwise and embracing the bat handle
    whilst embracing the squash ball as well, would be a pretty tall
    order for anyone willing to try it out. In other words, if the
    bottom hand were to go round the handle of the bat as well as
    embrace most of the squash ball`s circumference as well, it will
    result in a very insecure grip of the bat with the bottom hand to
    say the least. Not the sort that would help Gilchrist deposit
    Chaminda Vaas 15 rows into the stand beyond long-on.

    ?The purpose was to make him change the grip and not hit longer.

    We have learnt that the purpose was to help Gilchrist towards an
    orthodox grip; to prevent his bottom hand from tending to rotate too
    much towards the back of the bat as was his wont. If a close study
    of pictures of the ball`s location is made, it would be noticed that
    it was directly beneath the base of his middle and ring fingers.
    That would leave a pathway clear in the rest of his palm to allow
    the bat handle to pass which would lend towards a far greater
    orthodoxy in Gilchrist`s grip. So it appears the ball was there to
    make him change his grip and not help him hit longer. If that is a
    load of bunkum, all our local heroes should emulate Gilchrist,
    supplant balls inside their gloves and start hitting balls into the
    closest river.

    ?The positioning is vital to the argument.

    The positioning of the squash ball is vital to the argument. Had it
    been anywhere else than where it was, at least the hysteria would
    have some basis. Now it hasn`t, because by securing the squash ball
    where it was, all what Gilchrist achieved was a more orthodox grip
    by searching for a comfort zone in the remainder of his bottom palm.
    He achieved that by turning his bottom hand more towards the front
    or the face of the bat, automatically. If Gilchrist`s previous grip
    resulted in uppish sliced shots towards third man and backward point
    area, the new grip saw them off. So the squash ball served to
    prevent the bottom hand rotating towards the back of the bat through
    the creation of discomfort beyond a certain point. Gilchrist might
    have achieved the same effect had he discarded the squash ball and
    stuffed any other spherical object instead, to serve the same
    purpose. The purpose was to create a `stop` and relocate the hands
    on the handle towards orthodoxy, rather than gain the alleged
    advantage.

    ?Surely, not that dumb?

    If gaining an unfair advantage was the motive, Gilchrist would also
    have been extremely foolish if not naiive in making a public
    exhibition of the fact that he carried a squash ball in his palm by
    repeatedly pointing to it in full view of millions of viewers. At
    least lets give it to him, he isn`t that dumb.

    ?What about heavy bats and all protective gear?

    All protective equipment and strappings which sportsmen wear are in
    one way or another, performance enhancing. Be they chest pads,
    helmets, thigh pads, arm guards or a varied assortment of batting
    glove designs, and what went into them. All sorts of designs and
    fortifications have been introduced in the wake of players demanding
    greater safety for their fingers. But still no one has queried
    either those, or the obvious unfairness of the use of heavier bats
    by some, or even the widespread acceptance of protective equipment
    for close in fielders. The use of a box, shin guards, chest guards
    and helmets can be said gives the fielder an unfair advantage in
    that it allows them to stand intimidatingly close to the batsman
    which they would never do, otherwise.

    ?In the end it is just how good you are in what you do.

    Despite all the hullabaloo, at the end of the day what matters is
    how good you are at what you do. No amount of stuffing gloves with
    whatever the balls - tennis, golf, squash or even sheep`s testicles
    ? will matter. If a batsman simply cannot bat, he wont make runs
    despite all the balls. Similarly whatever a bowler may do ? in
    eschewing more comfortable boots, taping of ankles and shoulders or
    eating bananas for more energy - if he cannot bowl properly, he wont
    take wickets. Similarly, should coaches be banned along with
    technology, gear improvement and healthy diets, simply because it
    may gives some teams which could afford them greater advantage over
    the others?

    ?Response from the custodians of the Laws.

    The MCC being the custodians of the Laws made a recent clarification
    on the issue, and the ICC forwarded it to a local `Blog.` The Law
    they said, only specifies what external and visible protective
    equipment is permitted. Such as helmets, pads, batting gloves and
    forearm guards. None of them ? barring wicket-keeping gloves - carry
    any definition or prescription to design or size. Since there is no
    restriction in Law even on the external form of batting gloves let
    alone their interior, no Law they say, has been breached in this
    instance.

    The MCC have recognized that players, mostly batsmen, wear other
    items for their protection, but since they are not visible and
    therefore not external. Therefore no objection is raised. Had such
    items as chest protectors or even helmets been banned, the
    authorities could be held responsible in the event of serious injury
    or death occurring as a result. The MCC has also recognized that the
    squash ball was not for protection from injury, but to improve the
    way the batsman gripped the bat handle. They saw the squash ball no
    less fair than the widespread practice of having two or three grips
    on the bat handle - to which no objection, official or unofficial,
    has ever been raised. They were both used to improve the grip. In
    conclusion they have indicated that the incident could not be
    classed either as contravening the Law or as breaching the Spirit of
    the Game.

    ?Missing the most valid point.

    I believe the majority who have rushed to ink their thoughts have
    missed a valid point. It is that Gilchrist`s bottom hand did not
    encompass the squash ball as well as the bat whilst gripping the
    bat. Instead, the squash ball merely shifted the location of his
    bottom hand on the handle, towards an orthodox grip. Possibly it
    lightened his grip more than tighten it. And it certainly stopped
    his bottom hand from moving back around the bat. So if the grip was
    improved as a result, it was no different to a batsman having two or
    three grips on his handle to achieve the same purpose.

    ?Looking at the positives than dwelling on the negatives.

    All good men everywhere, may want to slow down on the hysteria and
    avoid stirring up needless conflict. Particularly in areas which can
    show us up in the worst possible light. Instead it may be a great
    idea that the entire nation rejoices in the fact that the team did
    well enough to reach the final. That was a tremendous achievement in
    any language. Far better fancied teams couldn`t go that far.

    Related News Articles:
    9-4-2006 Barking up the wrong tree!

    Source(s)
    Wijeya Newspapers

  4. #244
    School Boy/Girl Captain frey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by chipmonk View Post
    Totally Disagree ! If that's your benchmark for a troll most of the members here should be accused of same .... Cough ..... cough ... Scaly ....cough fiery.... m**** !
    Absolutely agree!! He has developed a habit of labeling members as trolls, and with no justification. It is the pot calling the kettle black.

    Pasag... read again some of the statements you have made accusing members of being trolls. They are not trolls. They are largely passionate cricket supporters. Also read some of the responses from members that have disgreed with you on that. Have another look in the dictionary to check the definition of troll....then cough..cough...look in the mirror.

    (PS. I can predict your response...."Frey is a troll"....well that is fine, because coming from pasag that is a compliment...I then join an elite group of genuine passionate cricket supporters...that separate us from your trollship !!.


  5. #245
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Hahahahaha, LOLx10 at a 40-post, 1-month member making totally ineducated comments on Gelman.

  6. #246
    School Boy/Girl Captain frey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Hahahahaha, LOLx10 at a 40-post, 1-month member making totally ineducated comments on Gelman.
    Are you implying that new members need to be in awe of our more experienced members? You are not trying to intimidate the newer membership are you? There are codes of conduct on the forum....and I am sure equity and freedom of speech is paramount, regardless of whether you are 40 posts old or approaching 50,000.

    "ineducated" ?? an educated expression of course Sir Richard, as you advance to the honours of 50K. I am sure you will receive a telegram from the Queen to celebrate the big 50K...and the century some 6 months later. Well done, we apprentices are glued to the computer screen awaiting your words of wisdom.

  7. #247
    School Boy/Girl Captain frey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by frey View Post
    Are you implying that new members need to be in awe of our more experienced members? You are not trying to intimidate the newer membership are you? There are codes of conduct on the forum....and I am sure equity and freedom of speech is paramount, regardless of whether you are 40 posts old or approaching 50,000.

    "ineducated" ?? an educated expression of course Sir Richard, as you advance to the honours of 50K. I am sure you will receive a telegram from the Queen to celebrate the big 50K...and the century some 6 months later. Well done, we apprentices are glued to the computer screen awaiting your words of wisdom.
    Also, please advise whether these comments are also ineducated. Thanks, I will wait for your learned response before responding.

  8. #248
    International Regular 16 tins of Spam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Your mom's house
    Posts
    3,560
    Quote Originally Posted by frey View Post
    Are you implying that new members need to be in awe of our more experienced members? You are not trying to intimidate the newer membership are you? There are codes of conduct on the forum....and I am sure equity and freedom of speech is paramount, regardless of whether you are 40 posts old or approaching 50,000.

    "ineducated" ?? an educated expression of course Sir Richard, as you advance to the honours of 50K. I am sure you will receive a telegram from the Queen to celebrate the big 50K...and the century some 6 months later. Well done, we apprentices are glued to the computer screen awaiting your words of wisdom.
    Top sarcasm there. Richard's an acquired taste
    Member of the Newtown Cricket Club since January '06 - "Per commissum ad taberna"
    Honorary Vice-President of the "Twenty20 Is Boring Society"

  9. #249
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by frey View Post
    Are you implying that new members need to be in awe of our more experienced members? You are not trying to intimidate the newer membership are you? There are codes of conduct on the forum....and I am sure equity and freedom of speech is paramount, regardless of whether you are 40 posts old or approaching 50,000.

    "ineducated" ?? an educated expression of course Sir Richard, as you advance to the honours of 50K. I am sure you will receive a telegram from the Queen to celebrate the big 50K...and the century some 6 months later. Well done, we apprentices are glued to the computer screen awaiting your words of wisdom.
    I'm implying that less experienced members might not be so clued-up (or educated, you might say) - Zac Gelman happens to be one of the most widely respected posters on this forum, and your attack on him was nothing short of 100% stupid.

    Yes, most posters who have accumulated a high postcount (that extends to just 2,000 or so) tend to be quality posters (though of course that's not an exclusive matter), and for a newer member to attack someone, while they're quite free to do so, is... well, as I say, stupid, because they don't know a lot compared to longer-term membership holders.

    You have hardly made the greatest of first impressions, I'm afraid, in a wide variety of ways, and calling Gelman a troll will simply make things worse.
    Last edited by Richard; 13-05-2007 at 06:38 PM.

  10. #250
    RTDAS pasag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Looking for milksteak
    Posts
    31,678
    Quote Originally Posted by frey View Post
    Absolutely agree!! He has developed a habit of labeling members as trolls, and with no justification. It is the pot calling the kettle black.

    Pasag... read again some of the statements you have made accusing members of being trolls. They are not trolls. They are largely passionate cricket supporters. Also read some of the responses from members that have disgreed with you on that. Have another look in the dictionary to check the definition of troll....then cough..cough...look in the mirror.

    (PS. I can predict your response...."Frey is a troll"....well that is fine, because coming from pasag that is a compliment...I then join an elite group of genuine passionate cricket supporters...that separate us from your trollship !!.
    Saying people are not a trolls, they're just a passionate supporter is idiotic. How does calling Murali a chucker in every second post of yours make you a "passionate supporter"? It doesn't. It makes you a troll who wants a reaction from others, usually because of a high level of immaturity on the trolls part.
    Rest In Peace Craigos
    2003-2012

  11. #251
    RTDAS pasag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Looking for milksteak
    Posts
    31,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Hahahahaha, LOLx10 at a 40-post, 1-month member making totally ineducated comments on Gelman.
    Haha, I think I called him an idiot for calling Murali a chucker in a heap of posts or something like that and he's taken to following me around. It's humorous in a way, mostly because he confirms how much of a moron he is with every reply.

  12. #252
    International Regular 16 tins of Spam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Your mom's house
    Posts
    3,560
    I have my own little yapping chihuahua doing that atm, for similar reasons.

  13. #253
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Whangaparaoa, Auckland
    Posts
    10,872


    yap!

  14. #254
    RTDAS pasag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Looking for milksteak
    Posts
    31,678
    I have one of those, gun dog.

  15. #255
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Whangaparaoa, Auckland
    Posts
    10,872
    Quote Originally Posted by pasag View Post
    I have one of those, gun dog.
    Gun dog? You'd be better off with a retriever

Page 17 of 19 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Is it time for Gilchrist to give up ODIs?
    By Mister Wright in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 27-04-2007, 04:45 PM
  2. Kumar Sangakkara and Adam Gilchrist
    By PhoenixFire in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 17-12-2006, 11:56 PM
  3. Is Adam Gilchrist an overrated test batsman ?
    By Salamuddin in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 107
    Last Post: 25-09-2006, 12:27 AM
  4. Adam Gilchrist - how good is he?
    By Francis in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 157
    Last Post: 02-04-2006, 01:40 PM
  5. Gilchrist should retire from ODIs...
    By Mister Wright in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 27-01-2006, 06:19 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •