Gilchrist a cheater?
This is my the most ridiculous thing I have heard in quote a long time.
Pity some Sri Lankan's can't act like their captain in defeat. A headline could be read on this Murali site after the world cup saying something like, "Australia and Lewis/Duckworth win world cup" like Australia weren't on top from the very start. The only time Sri Lanka looked like they could win was when Jayasuria and Sangakkara were out there, and once Jayasuria went out that was it.
Now someone is claiming Gilchrist cheated. Lets blame fieldsmen for using tennis balls at practice, and bowlers who use paints on cricket balls to see if the seam is upright etc. Gilchrist used a normal bat and however he prepares himself before the game, he made that century as legally as the next guy. I feel stupid saying that because everyone here knows that. But honestly, how anybody could come up with something that stupid is beyond me.
My question to you all is: Can anybody try harder to find an excuse for Sri Lanka losing the world cup than this guy?
Sri Lanka had some bad luck, but Australia were clearly the best team.
If Dennis Lilee's aluminium bat and Ricky Ponting's graphite-coated bat could be deemed illegal, if Hansie Cronje's earpiece experiment was not OK, if Scott Styris had to remove all the bandage from his right hand before he could bowl in the super eight match, can Adam Gilchrist's "hidden ball" pass muster?
No law can, of course, take the sheen away from Gilchrist's knock. Batting with a normal grip against the world's best bowlers is tough enough, batting with a squash ball in one of your gloves is worse. To score 149 scintillating runs is, well, incredible.
Still, two questions arise: If using a squash ball isn't ok as per the laws of the game, is his innings legal and does it count? And if it doesn't count, can Australia claim to have won a hopelessly one-sided and farcical victory?
The original piece which has created the debate..
Yes because we all know it's easier to grip a bat when you have a ball in one hand.
At least someone showed some sanity in that link:
What is wrong with you guys?? No one likes innovation or a player from other team to perform. The squash ball was never in contact with the ball as maybe the case with Ponting's bat. What you wear inside your dress does not matter. It is a shame that people focus on unimportant things.
Heh, if you scroll down you can see how in-depth this story is going...
if the squash ball was 'integrated' into the glove by the glove makers, i doubt anyone would make a fuss.
I don't see how a squash ball helps in gripping a bat quite simply
I was not aware of the existence of this forum...Muralifans.com...
You have obviously given it a lot of free coverage here...:laugh:
I may pay it a visit now that I know of its existence.
I am not fully familiar with the laws with regard to personal equipment allowed to be worn by a player, but I think the authors of those threads are flimsical and clutching at straws ..
Unlike Majority of Sri Lankan fans I know of who accept the result and acknowledge the better Team did win.
Lankan fans didn't raise the issue though initially. They just reported some thing raised some where else and shouldn't be blamed here.
Originally Posted by JASON
However I do have one question which I raised previously and have not found anyone obliging me an answer.
I will repeat it here...
Before Rugby Internationals and World cup games, officials inspect the boots, spikes, headgear etc. of both Teams players... Is there such a practice before a World Cup Final?
Are bats of players examined for the Material they are made of or size etc...?
This is not intended to create mischief. So please do not perceive it in such a way .
Lol, who cares? I could link to plenty of idiotic sites and forums, supporting any country and team with stuff ten times worse.
I still don't understand how having a squash ball inside one of your gloves can possibly be an advantage...
This is the best part of this site :laugh:
Not surprisingly , the majority of posts there are from Australia, while some others have taken Assumed names such as "George Bush" or an assumed Indian Name such as"Vijay" to pretend otherwise... :laugh:
Originally Posted by Fiery
You must find this page quite therapeutic, eh, Fiery :laugh:
I do Jason, I do :laugh:
Originally Posted by JASON