Every one was curious what was Gilchrist signaling to the dressing room, (pointing to his left batting glove) shortly after he reached the century.
Frankly I thought at the first instance, he's giving a "green light" to rest of the batting order about the pitch :-)
Then a TV commentator quickly said "He's signaling here. He's signaling to some one at the media box". Then I thought, he was making a point to some commentator who made a bad comment of his form in this world cup.
So what was actually Gilchrist signaling to the media box? Why he was pointing to his batting gloves?
Gilchrist's batting coach Bob Meuleman revealed the whole story next morning.
Meuleman, who played 14 Sheffield Shield matches between 1968 and 1972, said he had convinced Gilchrist to take the unusual step of putting a squash ball inside his glove while he batted, to help to improve his very high grip on the bat.
"It is to stop his bat turning in his hand," Meuleman said from Perth last night.
"I've worked with him for 10 years, and he has an unusual grip in which his hand goes too far around the back of the bat.
"It is a great big lump in your glove, but it means that you can only use your bottom hand in a V.
"It is hard to get around the back of the bat with it which means he improves his grip.
"I went to the squash centre before he went off and got him six squash balls that were a bit broken and were not as hard as a new ball. You don't want it to crush right down but to be a bit flexible.
"He had a few hits before he went off to the World Cup; he didn't have the squash ball in and he hit them like he couldn't even play fourth grade.
"He put it in and he then hit the ball so good."
So delighted was Gilchrist at helping to spear Australia to victory against Sri Lanka yesterday that, he turned to the television commentary booth at Kensington Oval and pointed to his glove upon reaching his maiden World Cup ton.
He wanted to make a point to his batting coach that, "The Squash ball worked!"
Well played Gilly. You destroyed our hopes. But yet it was a great innings to watch for cricket lovers (other than Sri Lankan supporters)
Source:
Fox Sports
9 People Had Something to Say about this post. Read them and add your thoughts....
Is that fair by the game, I wonder?
I haven't thought about this until you pointed it. Interesting! What does the law says? Any cricket law experts?
I remember once, some Australian player was penalized for using an aluminum bat. And, there are cirtain standars for the width of wicket keeping gloves etc. What does the law say about mannualy extentions of cricketing gears?
My team of the Cup would be as follows:-
1. Mathew Hayden
2. Sanath Jayasuriya
3. Ricky Ponting (Captain)
4. Kumar Sangakkara (WK)
5. Kevin Peterson
6. Mahela Jayawardena
7. Scott Styris
8. Jacques Kallis
9. Shane Bond
10. Mutthiah Muralidharan
11. Lasith Malinga
12. Glen McGrath
What does it mean for the rest of us reading this, to know the world cup 11 of an anonymous? Ok, here's my world cup team
1) Anonymous
2) Anonymous
3) Anonymous
4) Anonymous
5) Anonymous
6) Anonymous
7) Anonymous
8) Anonymous
9) Anonymous
10) Anonymous
11) Anonymous
Thanks! Thats wonderful. I am in too. Wow... Mum will be so glad.
Getting back to the debate on the half squash ball in the glove. Me and my friends were thinking the same thing - is it legal. I am sure it will be highlighted to the authorities. It might be interesting to know the impact of this so-called "extension".
In the same breadth, it is not as significant as an aluminum bat but this game has shunned the microscopic of changes - so this may be something interesting.
Would the OZ's have stayed mum if a Sri Lankan batsman had used a golf ball in his glove and scored 150 to win the game?
So, a Squash ball won the world cup for Aussies?
The Sports Editor,
Frankly, I am neither a sports writer nor a journalist, yet my love for the game has prompted me to pen this words offering my comments to the other cricket loving public and the authorities concerned. Rightly or wrongly the Chairman and the selection committee of Sri Lanka cricket chose a squad of 15 members considered to be the best available at current times based on their particular skills.
This squad was approved by the Minister of Sports. Any casualty could be replaced by any one of the 15 as per the skills required and therefore we had to presume that all members of the squad so chosen were equally important and talented.
Many knowledgeable cricketers would undoubtedly agree that Marvan Atapattu was the most accomplished and technically correct batsman of the squad, closely followed by Kumar Sangakkara, one of the best wicket keeper-batsmen in the world if not the best and captain Mahela Jayawardene. The three of them could emulate such great batsmen such as Anura Tennekoon, Roy Dias, Sidath Wettimuny and Ranjan Madugalle.
Needless to say that Sanath Jayasuriya is a class by himself, one of the finest all-rounders in world cricket and the biggest hitter of the ball, while Muttiah Muralitharan is the most feared and the best spinner currently in world cricket.
There were four other all-rounders namely Chaminda Vaas, Maharoof, Tillakaratne Dilshan and Russel Arnold.
There were two other youngsters of much promise in Upul Tharanga and Chamara Silva as quality batsmen.
Lasith Malinga, Dilhara Fernando and Kulasekera were the fast and medium pace fast bowlers while Malinga Bandara was chosen as the leg spinner who could also bat courageously.
In my evaluation Upul Tharanga who played as the opening partner of Sanath in all the games was not consistent although he got about 4 half centuries in about ten matches.
Russel Arnold too who played in all matches got only one half a century and run-a-ball in the rest of the matches, also did not contribute anything substantial. He at times with his 'run a ball' play was not adequate to the targeted score in the respective matches, where as Maharoof could have filled that role as a 'pinch' hitter and a good accurate medium/pacer.
Out of the 15 selected, 2 played one match each while the most accomplished batsman played none at all in the total tournament, but yet doing the duties of a 'waterman'. What a sportsman Marvan was, having been the Sri Lanka captain before, he did his job ungrudgingly.
I salute Asantha de Mel and his co-selectors for their forth righteousness in following a set pattern despite whatever criticism they faced.
Final - a failure
The final world cup match itself was an utter failure and a joke to many a serious cricket followers.
Firstly, having organised the world tournament for almost 50 days, the organisers failed to play a fifty over each side final.
Secondly by reducing the number of overs to 38 and then 36, gave an undue advantage to a stronger batting side who could ruthlessly go for the runs getting the opponents to chase a score under severe pressure.
The Duckworth/Lewis system appears to be very theoretical and can be useful only in an unavoidable situation.
Thirdly the organisers failed to consider the playing time available in the background of cloudy conditions that prevailed throughout the day. After midday, the organisers could have called off the match and played it on the second day.
Fourthly, despite Sri Lanka agreeing to complete the overs in extremely bad light, the authorities should have applied the rules that were meant to be followed. Neither the umpire nor the referee stood by the rules.
Finally, since Adam Gilchrist, opening batsman for Australia admitted using a squash ball inside his left hand glove, one can question the legality of his conduct and further question whether a squash ball or any other hidden foreign matter inside the cricketing gear is permissible.
Added to it, is it fair by the rest of the cricketers to take advantage of using something to enhance his batting ability. In fairness to the game and in fairness to the cricketers will the ICC conduct an impartial full scale inquiry in order to take appropriate measures to correct a wrong situation.
If found guilty, it would be justice to offer one of the three following measures:
1. To make both teams joint champions
2. Replay the match in a neutral surrounding with fifty overs for each side.
3. To withhold the awarding of the trophy / No award
True on that day, Sri Lanka would have performed below that of Australia, but with 'Gilchrist factor' Sri Lanka was not provided with a fair opportunity to play the game.
I trust that our Sri Lanka Cricket Board would act in the best possible manner based on a principle so that all cricket playing countries would benefit by such action, better late than never.
Gerry Hidelaratchi
PS: The writer is a past cricket captain of St. Sylvester's College who played for the University of Ceylon and Nationalised Services apart from being Vice President and Acting President of NSCA. He has also served in the disciplinary committee of the Sri Lanka Cricket Board.
What's your Opinion? Click Here to Post a Comment!!