Gilly's Gilli-Danda

Adam Gilchrist's autobiography has been out. Read the cricinfo report here. Well, the opening is just as his batting: exhilarating. What else can you say about someone who can destroy a bowling attack of {Donald, Ntini, Nel} combo (See here). Gilchrist's book talks about Shane Warne, Slater, etc. The main thing we are concerned about are those that involve Sachin Tendulkar. He has supposedly said couple of things about Tendulkar.

1. He questioned Tendulkar's evidence in favor of Harbhajan Singh whether Bhajji called Symonds a 'Monkey'.
2. He has also said Tendulkar was "hard to find for a changing-room handshake after Indian was beaten"

I agree with Gilly on the first point. Tendulkar essentially lied to protect his teammate Bhajji, from what could have been the end of his career. What Gilchrist has said is only the partial truth. The whole truth is the fact that Symonds (and few othe Aussie players) picked on Harbhajan, when Bhaji was just minding his own business. Symonds had no business to talk to Harbhajan since they already had plenty in the plate.....previous episodes. It was nothing, but a set-up to make Harbhajan say that particular word. Well, Bhaji, not so cunning in anything other than off-spin bowling(slap), fell in the trap. I don't understand what else Gilchrist expected from Tendulkar. That Australian team was the most despicable ever, and Gilly wants to play Gilli-Danda with Bhajji's career. May be he wanted to hear Tendulkar's kiddish voice saying,"Gilly bhai is right, Harbhajan said that word". In that case, why can't Gilly come clean about the whole episode - the aussie trap for Bhajji, and what was said by Symonds, Hayden and the punter. Considering all these, Gilly should either keep his mouth shut or say the whole truth.

The second comment is very close to get a thumps-up from me; but not quite there. Gilchrist basically says that Indians shouldn't be complaining that Aussies didn't offer handshake with Kumble/Sharma after the Syndney test - because Tendulkar and Bhajji hide themselves whenever India loses. Personally I believe the teams that lose are better left alone, by their own choice to reflect upon the loss. So, the winning team shouldn't complain if the team that lost the match is not available for a handshake. On the contrary, the more serious issue is that when a team wins a match, and celebrates so much so that they forget to offer handshakes to the losing team members - In my book, the second scenario is more serious sportsmanship than the first. Well, it is no wonder Gilly complains about this since he often ended up in the winning team. For him, it might look strange when Tendulkar or Bhajji is so disappointed and wanting to have some time alone, because Gilchrist didn't have to do that often. For Gilly to be talking about loss, it is like a life-long rich man talking about hunger. Well, Gilly, you've got it wrong again. I wish Gilly didn't retire that early - may be he'll have some those moments when he wants to get into the cold shower just to avoid handshakes from Indians after Aussies get thrashed. Gilly has made a good decision on his retirement timing!!!

In my own experience, I encountered only one team that actually acted so disgracefully on the cricket field. When we were chasing, we lost many wickets too soon and were at the brink of defeat with our 11th man batting. That opposition team members realizing that we didn't not have any chance to win, crowded the batsman, every one of them and started a big bantering on that batsman - they just humiliated that 11th man. As you might know, the history repeats itself; The same team got thrashed - really thrashed by our team with in a matter of 1 month. When that happened, all of them tucked their tails between their legs; When their stumps were shattered, they ran like rats, and finally ended up in the hole. After that match, I refused to handshake with any one from that team. Cricket is a sport - I understand when players occasionally cross the limit..but the captain has to reign in. There are certain occasions when some captains/team members are better categorized as rats - not gentlemen. Handshakes are unnecessary in such cases.

I am not sure what Gilchrist perceives himself or his teammates to be.

- Brownstone Cricketer.

PS: Gilli-Danda is an India sport - popular among youth rather than adults.

The Sydney Saga and the Spirit of Cricket

If it is not a law, what is it then? I mean, 'Spirit of Cricket'. Is there a set of rules that govern the spirit of cricket? Well, it is not hard to realize that only lack of such rules create the notion of spirit of cricket. Otherwise, they would be simply be termed 'laws of cricket'.

After that Sydney test between Austraila and India, this topic has gained lots of attention. Especially after Kumble uttered (i.e., repeated) those historically important words, "only one team played in the spirit of the game". I was told this remark evoked plenty of claps from journalists in that press room. In contrast to the Indian captain, Pointing was adamant that he or his Australian team did nothing wrong to deserve such a comment from Kumble. Oops, Ponting had committed a mistake of his life right there. He is simply the best batsman in terms of attacking the opposition, scoring quick runs, and importantly, winning matches. With just sticking to his one view, and blinded by his team's heavy success, he obviously couldn't see the other side of the argument. I believe Australia will struggle with this 'spirit of cricket' for more years to come, considering the fact that MJ Clarke (the street cheat cricketer of next era) will be captaining Australia.

Overall, it was a reality check. Australia was never blamed before for their win-or-nothing attitude, and that match showcased their sickening on-field actions beautifully for everyone to see. In retrospect, I feel that India's loss was a good thing. Otherwise, I am sure the rest of the events would've unfolded quite differently to what we have seen.

So, the main question is what is 'spirit of cricket (SOC)'. The answer is not simple. If you start listing things that are against the SOC, believe me, the list is endless. And similarly, you can't list all that are for the SOC. Personally, I feel that whenever someone uses a statement, "by the laws of cricket..." as the ONLY ONE defense for the actions done on a cricket field, then most likely the spirit of cricket is thrown to gutter, and that player is left with only laws to defend himself.

Consider the famous underarm incident. The rule was not in place to call the underarm ball a no-ball. Gregg "Evil" Chappell knew about this, and used it well for his team's victory. At the end of the day, Gregg could have simply said, "By law, it was a legal ball", and end the argument. There was nothing else to justify that ugly, and dirty trick. Same thing applies to the body line series.

Second recent incident that I could recall dates back to 1999, India-Pakistan test @ Calcutta. India was chasing ~270 in the 4th innings. Sachin hit 3 runs of Shohaib, and got runout only because Shohaib (unintentionally) pushed him out of the crease while backing up the throw. Pakistan team appealed, and Sachin was rightly given out, technically speaking. However, Pakistan captain Wasim Akram didn't have the decency to recall Sachin, which I found to be against the spirit of cricket. How Akram could have defended himself? Use the phrase, "by laws of cricket, Sachin was out...blah blah". It was highly inappropriate gesture from Akram. [ He should have simply recalled Sachin. I am sure Sachin would've got out immediately. OR he would've scored a century, and got a back pain, and got out. Eventually India would've lost, and Sachin would have picked up his another man-of-the-match-India-lost award].

Now, to the critical question: If a batsman does not walk, is that against the 'spirit of cricket'? Of course not. It is the umpires duty to judge the appeal, and decide. After that Sydeny test, there were many articles (most from Indian press) saying, "Ponting, MJ Clarke , Symonds all stood their ground when they were clearly out. How could any one trust their word on catches?". I found this silly. Consider this: In a recent ODI between India and Australie, Sachin nicked a ball from Clark, and he stood his ground. Eventually he was not given out. He didn't walk, does that mean Sachin is a liar? Probably not. Walking and not-walking should never be used in the context of 'Spirit of cricket'. It is the choice of the batsmen, and it is mainly individual one. Sometimes, it is even dependent on the opposition team [who would want to walk against Australia?] or score.

'Spirit of cricket' has to do with what people do when things they do are not against the laws, but anyone playing cricket in good spirit wouldn't do that.

Delaying things to avoid a defeat (Pakistan did it against England, but Eng won anyway), throwing the ball at the batsman while pretending to run him out, sledging using personal matters, deliberately running down on the pitch to help spinners (you get warned though), slow things down purposefully, bowling well wide of the off-stumps consistently to reduce the run-rate in tests, starting the run-up before batsman is ready (MJ Clarke's top ball)......plenty you can add.

Coming back to the Sydney test, it is clear that Pointing conned Kumble somehow to have an agreement that the close catches would be decided by the fielding captain & his fielders. How naive of Kumble to trust those dirty characters (read Australian team) in cricket? It is of course not thief's mistake if he steals your money. This only came to strike Kumble when Ponting appealed for his grounded catch of Dhoni, and MJ Clarke claimed a catch he clearly grounded. By rule, Kumble had to accept those decisions because he had agreed with Ponting to trust the fielder's call. However, this was against the spirit of cricket because MJ Carke or Ponting could have easily preferred to ask the third umpire. Instead, their greed for win blinded their eyes, and to say, "they acted as cons" is very much appropriate. However, if you ask me, I find Kumble as the guilty party. Leaving the door open for thieves, and then shouting for justice is childish.

Nevertheless, Kumble should be congratulated for leading the team bravely after that fiasco. He has once again shown what a great cricketer he is.

- Brownstone Cricketer.