Jump to content

Gilly lashes out at Sachin, calls him a bad sport, liar.

Holysmoke

By Holysmoke
in Cricket Talk

Recommended Posts

cochise Newbie

cochise

Posted
Posted

I had a lot of respect for Gilchrist and the way he played...and I took him to be an honest bloke...playing honestly...but after he claimed that catch of Dravid in the Sydney test where he watched the ball all the way into the glove while it brushed the pad with the bat well behind the pad...doubts began to creep into my mind about him. Probably, the problem was more mine than his. I thought he was a paradigm of sportsmanship, but he was obviously not...he is just another player and by that standard, he is fine and his behaviour expected and quite commonplace really. As for the release of the book during the series...could be a clever bit of marketing and that goes on all the time. He's just another bloke trying to make a buck and is being advised by publishers etc...C'est la Vie. As for what Sachin said, there is confusion about it. As there was confusion as to what Hayden and Clarke said. For instance, in the hearing, Hayden heard Symonds accuse Harbhajan of calling him monkey instead of the words directly from Harbhajan...and Clarke was not even sure in his testimony what he heard. So in this monkey/maaki fest going out in the middle...I wouldn't be surprised that if Sachin claimed that he heard nothing (unintelligible), maaki and monkey at the same time and still be telling the truth. Let's give it a rest or we will all go bananas. If Gilly wants to rake it up...best ignored really. It is however, quite clear that Sachin wanted to downplay the whole incident from the start, judging by the post-day interview before fireworks even began...i.e. keep it on the field as opposed to taking it off the field. After all, that is the way it used to work when they were on the receiving end.

Link to comment
DomainK Newbie

DomainK

Posted
Posted
Fair enough. Now by that token lets also say that Gilchrist is INNOCENT till proven guilty. Prove it that Gilchrist is at fault here when he claims SRT to be a liar, and if you can not prove that please also bestow the same respect towards Gilly - a la innocent till proven guilty - philosphy. xxx
You dont comprehend. Its different. When Gilly accuses Sachin of something, the burden of proof is on Gilly. Here Sachin is the accused and its Sachin who is innocent till proven guilty. Just like in that match Symonds along with some other Australian players, accused Harbhajan of racial abuse. Harbhajan was the accused and therefore, he was innocent till proven guilty. Like that, Gilly today accuses Sachin of something and Sachin remains innocent till proven guilty. The burden of producing a proof lies with Gilly.
Link to comment
DomainK Newbie

DomainK

Posted
Posted
I had a lot of respect for Gilchrist and the way he played...and I took him to be an honest bloke...playing honestly...but after he claimed that catch of Dravid in the Sydney test where he watched the ball all the way into the glove while it brushed the pad with the bat well behind the pad...doubts began to creep into my mind about him. Probably, the problem was more mine than his. I thought he was a paradigm of sportsmanship, but he was obviously not...he is just another player and by that standard, he is fine and his behaviour expected and quite commonplace really. As for the release of the book during the series...could be a clever bit of marketing and that goes on all the time. He's just another bloke trying to make a buck and is being advised by publishers etc...C'est la Vie. As for what Sachin said, there is confusion about it. As there was confusion as to what Hayden and Clarke said. For instance, in the hearing, Hayden heard Symonds accuse Harbhajan of calling him monkey instead of the words directly from Harbhajan...and Clarke was not even sure in his testimony what he heard. So in this monkey/maaki fest going out in the middle...I wouldn't be surprised that if Sachin claimed that he heard nothing (unintelligible), maaki and monkey at the same time and still be telling the truth. Let's give it a rest or we will all go bananas. If Gilly wants to rake it up...best ignored really. It is however, quite clear that Sachin wanted to downplay the whole incident from the start, judging by the post-day interview before fireworks even began...i.e. keep it on the field as opposed to taking it off the field. After all, that is the way it used to work when they were on the receiving end.
Gilchrist says that things are not what the media makes them look like. He will clarify soon. I will reserve my opinion till we have heard from him. There are two parties to it. One is Gilchrist and the other is Sachin. We haven't heard from either. We have only heard from the media. Lets wait and discover what Gilly himself has to say on it.
Link to comment
Lurker Newbie

Lurker

Posted
Posted
You dont comprehend. Its different. When Gilly accuses Sachin of something, the burden of proof is on Gilly. Here Sachin is the accused and its Sachin who is innocent till proven guilty. Just like in that match Symonds along with some other Australian players, accused Harbhajan of racial abuse. Harbhajan was the accused and therefore, he was innocent till proven guilty. Like that, Gilly today accuses Sachin of something and Sachin remains innocent till proven guilty. The burden of producing a proof lies with Gilly.
Its different depending on your Nationality. If you are an Aussie Gilly is innocent till proven guilty, if you are an Indian fan it is the other way around. Simple.
Link to comment
DomainK Newbie

DomainK

Posted
Posted
Its different depending on your Nationality. If you are an Aussie Gilly is innocent till proven guilty' date=' if you are an Indian fan it is the other way around. Simple.[/quote'] No, its the same across all nationalities. When A accuses B of something, B is innocent till proven guilty and A has to produce proof of his accusations. Then Symo accused Bhajji and now Gilly accuses Sachin. Its quite simple you see.
Link to comment
Lurker Newbie

Lurker

Posted
Posted
No' date=' its the same across all nationalities. When A accuses B of something, B is innocent till proven guilty and A has to produce proof of his accusations. Then Symo accused Bhajji and now Gilly accuses Sachin. Its quite simple you see.[/quote'] The "proof" lies in the pudding you see. After that it is upto you to admit the proof as "substantial" or not. Gilly clearly says what Sachin did/did not say in the meeting and by any accounts a large part of that is true. Probably the biggest reason, atleast the way Indian media sold it, why Harbhajan Singh escaped unscathed after the incident was testimony of Sachin. I would encourage to search online, including this website, where posters were singing hosanas about Sachin's greatness back then. Now that the same incident has come to haunt Sachin it becomes Gilchrist's fault!! Sorry cant have it both ways. I would personally like to read Gilly's book in its entirety to see what he says specifically about this incident. Till then I can only speak about the way I saw the event unfold on live TV, and later on in the media. And yes neither SRT nor BCCI covered themselves with glory in the incident. Remember the whole BCCI-has-plane-ready thingy? xxx
Link to comment
cochise Newbie

cochise

Posted
Posted

Actually there is some great media down under...hard hitting journalism etc. But sections of our media are so sensationalist, they give their Indian counterparts a good run for their money in the mirch masala stakes. It's all about playing to the lowest common denominator and reinforcing that mindset. Hence, all the biased and stereotyped views are latent in the writing and themes and spin that reinforce these views are employed. But we also have this nice program that catches them red-handed called Media Watch. I never miss it...it's beautiful to watch.

Link to comment
CC1981 Newbie

CC1981

Posted
Posted
How would Neitzche, Hemmingway, Tolstoy, Huxley, Gibran etc. be judged if they played a game of cricket ?
Rather poorly i would assume.
Ex-sportsmen don't CLAIM to be great writers or that their books are masterpieces. They are simply responding to an approach by a publisher (usually) to write an autobiography or an account of a particular tour.
Doesnt change the fact that their writing is worthy of being toilet paper. I simply stated that 99.999% of ex-cricketers/ex-sportsmen write books that are horrible in quality. And i see you tacitly admitting the fact despite resisting it for some weird reason.
These books sell. Not because they're literary classics but because fans like them. End of story
Did i say they dont sell ? Hey, McDonalds sells more than any other food brand on this planet- doesnt change the fact that they are $hyte. Same goes with these books.
Link to comment
donkey Newbie

donkey

Posted
Posted
Guys come on, seriously need to chill on this wives, girlfriends, sons , daughter, *****es subjects We are not getting anywhere with those references, some dignity lads come on !!!
Dissing wives, gfs and moms means to you are playing it hard like aussies...Mr. Gilly should come and shake hands with us :cantstop: "In the Australian mentality, we play it hard and are then quick to shake hands and leave it all on the field. Some of our opponents don't do it that way. Sachin Tendulkar, for instance, can be hard to find for a changing room handshake after we have beaten India. Harbhajan can also be hard to find," Gilchrist added.
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...