Symonds Should Have Walked-- Gilchrist

by Veena Gabriel

Not satisfied with the mileage he got out of his book "True Colours" for going after Indian cricketers, Adam Gilchrist is now after his own team mates.

lee gilly symonds qk2ni 17022

And the match,you guessed it right, the same Sydney Test which gave the Australian wicketkeeper enough ammo to write his next two books.

Now he wants to give Andrew Symonds a guilty conscience, which is not possible. As per Gilchrist, Symonds had nicked the ball by Ishant Shrma but as the umpire did not hear or see the deflection, he was not given out. Symonds did not walk. What is more, he went on to score a century to rub salt in the wound of our upright Gilchrist who would have certainly walked as he had a reputation to maintain.

The best part was yet to come, Symonds admitted in the press conference that he had nicked the ball. This was the last straw because as it showed the people the real spirit of Australian team, which everyone knows anyway.

Gilchrist is also critical about the umpires' decision. The thick edge off Ponting's bat - first when Ponting was out, he was not given out by the umpire and the next time he was given lbw when he was not.

Gilchrist is harping too much on his Mr. Upright image, and his walking before being given out by the umpire. He wants the whole team to follow his footsteps,which is not possible. Even when he was the captain against India in 2004, Mr. Ethics could not force his decisions on the team. What are you trying to prove Mr. Gilchrist, that you are the only truthful, honest player, and the rest are all cheaters? A wee bit too much, Mr. Walk-on Adam Gilchrist.