The Hindu : Sport / Cricket : The Gilchrist difference

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Oct 16, 2004

Sport

Sport - Cricket

The Gilchrist difference

By N. Ram

CHENNAI, OCT. 15. First Brian Lara, then Adam Gilchrist. (Before them, in modern times, there was David Gower, a Test veteran recalled at Chepauk.) Both are celebrated or notorious — depending on your point of view — round the cricket-playing world for being `walkers'. That is, they go when they know they have been fairly defeated. They believe it to be a matter of sporting honour not to leave it to the umpire to get a catch right or wrong.

Gilchrist walked in last year's World Cup semifinal; walked in the first Test at Bangalore last week; and walked on the opening day of the Chennai Test.

It might be too much to claim that the Lara-Gilchrist example has been contagious. But it is making a progressive difference to player-conduct in this India-Australia series. Gilchrist followed by Jason Gillespie, Michael Kasprowicz, and then, crossing the lines, Yuvraj Singh sportingly pre-empted (in the third case, overruled) the umpire's verdict. This already makes up a quorum of walkers on the tour. Will sportsmanlike pre-emption become a trend, at least between Australia and India, or at the very least in this series?

An individual thing

"There's no team policy," Australia's current captain explained with admirable precision at the end of the first day's play. "It's an individual thing about how you want to play the game. But it's rubbing off. Three of our guys walked today and then Yuvraj Singh. It's got to be a positive thing for cricket."

Team policy or not, with Gilchrist at the helm and mates like Kasprowicz, Gillespie, and Justin Langer focussed on playing cricket in the fairest possible way, a new playing code seems to be taking shape. Although Gilchrist will scrupulously leave it to his mates to walk or not to walk, some moral pressure seems to be at work. There will also be fewer frivolous appeals. As for questionable catches when his team is batting, the Gilchrist approach may be summed up as follows: "Look, what we intend to do is, if our boys believe they have hit the ball, they will walk, if it has been caught cleanly. If there is doubt whether a fielder [on the other side] has taken a catch cleanly, we will ask the fielder. If he says he has taken the catch, that is good enough for us."

Of course, this stand-in captain will not put up with any kind of unpleasant on-field behaviour by any of his mates. `Sledging', an Australian invention, might not be rooted out but thus far in this series there has been nothing resembling verbal war.

Cleaning up his act

Glenn McGrath, who is known to be a "very nice guy" off the field but has let his intense competitiveness blot his on-field copybook in recent times, appears to have cleaned up his act. (He was charm personified at Chepauk after bowling a wide.)

How did all this come about?

The Australian public expressed in ample measure its displeasure over McGrath's nasty verbal joust with Ramnaresh Sarwan during the Antigua Test last year. Cricket Australia, the Australian board, believes it needs to be highly responsive to the views, opinions, and interests of its `stakeholders'. But it is Gilchrist who has ensured that this India tour started off in the only way he knew to play. A well-informed admirer who is close to the team describes him as "the greatest ambassador the game has had in the last 25 years," adding "he won't tell you anything dishonest. He won't touch common deals. He won't chase the money. He's not made that way."

The 32-year-old left-hander, who is likely to end his career as the greatest batsman-wicketkeeper in the history of the game, obviously does not want to rub his example in the face of the non-walkers, those who don't buy into his attitude to cricket.

The interesting question is what difference the Gilchrist brand of sportsmanship — a great champion's code — will make to the way the Indian team plays its cricket in a pressure cooker situation. Will there be more walking and taking the opposing fielder's word, and fewer frivolous appeals in this series? Or will it be the philosophy of leaving it to, or testing, the umpire on the rationalisation that `you win some, lose some, in the end it evens out.'

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Sport